alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
VINCENT C. GRAY MAYOR January 20, 2011 Shawn M. Garvin Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III Mail Code 3RAOO 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Subject: Recommendation to EPA to Designate the District as an "Unclassifiable" Area for the 2010 N02NAAQS Dear Mr. Garvin: On behalfofthe District ofColumbia (District), I thank you for the opportunity to make a designation recommendation on the air quality status in the District for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide (N02) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The existing monitoring in the District does not meetthe requirements ofthe revised N02NAAQS final rulemaking (75 FR 6474; February 9, 2010). Hence, in accordance with Section I07(d)(l) ofthe Clean Air Act, I am recommending that the District be designated as an "unclassifiable" area under the 2010 N02 NAAQS. I understand that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is retaining the current annual average N02standard of53 parts per billion (ppb), while setting a new I-hourN02 standard at a level of 100 ppb to protect against short-term exposures. In addition, EPA is establishing new ambient air monitoring and reporting requirements for N02to determine compliance with new standards. The District currently operates three N02ambient air monitors, and these monitors measure population exposure at a community scale. However, since the District is part ofa larger metropolitan area with population over 2.5 million, at least two new N02monitors will need to be established nearmajor roadways in the metropolitan area. EPA retains discretion to require additional monitors to protect susceptible and vulnerable populations. The existingN02 monitors in the District do not meetthe near-roadway monitoring requirements ofthe new I-hour standard and there are insufficient data to make a determination aboutthe

### District's compliance withthe revised NAAQS. Hence, I am recommending an "unclassifiable" designation at this time. The District is coordinating with environmental agencies in the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth ofVirginia and expects to have the new near-roadway N02 

### monitors in operation by the regulatory deadline ofJanuary 1,2013. We anticipate sufficient federal resources to establish and maintainN02 

### monitoring in the District. Should you require additional information on this matter, please contact Mr. Christophe Tulou, Director ofthe District Department ofthe Environment (DDOE), at (202) 535-2615 or Ms. Cecily Beall, Associate Director ofthe Air Quality Division ofDDOE, at (202) 535-2626. Sinc rely,

Mayor Government ofthe District ofCol

cc: Diana Esher, Director, Air Protection Division, EPA Region III Christophe A. 

### G. Tulou, Director, District Department ofthe Environment Cecily Beall, Associate Director, Air Quality Division, DDOE
#### § 25.2512-7 Effect of excise tax.

If jewelry, furs or other property, the purchase of which is subject to an excise tax, is purchased at retail by a taxpayer and made the subject of gifts within a reasonable time after purchase, the purchase price, including the excise tax, is considered to be the fair market value of the property on the date of the gift, in the absence of evidence that the market price of similar articles has increased or decreased in the meantime. Under other circumstances, the excise tax is taken into account in determining the fair market value of property to the extent, and only to the extent, that it affects the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, as provided in § 25.2512-1.
#### § 1.611-4 Depletion as a factor in computing earnings and profits for dividend purposes.

For rules with respect to computation of earnings and profits where depletion is a factor in the case of corporations, see paragraph (c)(1) of § 1.312-6.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r 

### 136609 Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136609 COA: 280880 Iron CC: 03-008361-FH THOMAS SCOTT PALMER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 30, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1020 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 27, 2008

Clerk
----

Action brought on 16 November 2006 — Salvador Roldán v Commission

(Case F-129/06)

(2006/C 326/172)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rocío Salvador Roldán (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Tuytschaever and H. Burez, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is based upon two pleas in law:

----
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 157 Agreed to House (ATH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 157

       Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1996

  Mr. Armey submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
       Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, March 
29, 1996, it stand adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Monday, April 15, 
1996, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
at the close of business on Friday, March 29, 1996, Saturday, March 30, 
1996, or Sunday, March 31, 1996, pursuant to a motion made by the 
majority leader or his designee in accordance with this resolution, it 
stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, April 15, 1996, or 
until such time on that day as may be specified by the majority leader 
or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on 
the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of 
the House and the minority leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Covalent Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel W. Hood, CPA, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                          
|----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Daniel W. Hood, CPA                                   
|Daniel W. Hood Controller and Principal Accounting Officer



May
14, 2004
§ 300.3 Offer to compromise fee. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies to the processing of offers to compromise tax liabilities pursuant to § 301.7122-1 of this chapter. Except as provided in this section, this fee applies to all offers to compromise accepted for processing.
( b ) *Fee.* ( 1 ) The fee for processing an offer to compromise submitted before April 27, 2020, is $186. The fee for processing an offer to compromise submitted on or after April 27, 2020, is $205. No fee will be charged if an offer is— ( i ) Based solely on doubt as to liability as defined in § 301.7122-1(b)(1) of this chapter;
( ii ) Made by a low-income taxpayer, that is, an individual whose income falls at or below the dollar criteria established by the poverty guidelines updated annually in the Federal Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under authority of section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (95 Stat. 357, 511) or such other measure that is adopted by the Secretary; or
( iii ) Made by a low-income taxpayer, as described in section 7122(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and submitted after July 1, 2019.
( 2 ) The fee will be applied against the amount of the offer, unless the taxpayer requests that it be refunded, if the offer is— ( i ) Accepted to promote effective tax administration pursuant to § 301.7122-1(b)(3) of this chapter; or
( ii ) Accepted based on doubt as to collectibility and a determination that collection of an amount greater than the amount offered would create economic hardship within the meaning of § 301.6343-1 of this chapter.
( 3 ) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (b), the fee will not be refunded to the taxpayer if the offer is accepted, rejected, withdrawn, or returned as nonprocessable after acceptance for processing.
( 4 ) No additional fee will be charged if a taxpayer resubmits an offer the Secretary determines to have been rejected in error or returned in error after acceptance for processing.
( c ) *Person liable for the fee.* The person liable for the processing fee is the taxpayer whose tax liabilities are the subject of the offer.
( d ) *Applicability date.* This section is applicable beginning April 27, 2020.
[T.D. 9086, 68 FR 48787, Aug. 15, 2003, as amended by T.D. 9503, 75 FR 60320, Sept. 30, 2010; T.D. 9647, 78 FR 72018, Dec. 2, 2013; T.D. 9894, 85 FR 14572, Mar. 13, 2020]
` Opinion issued November 1 7 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 15

- 00926

- CV

——————————— IN RE STEPHEN D. DIF ERRANTE , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Stephen D. DiFerrante, files this pro se petition for writ of

mandamus complaining of a justice court judgment in a forcible detainer action

that was signed on September 3, 2015. 1 Relator has also filed a motion to stay

trial. The petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED

. Relator’s motion for emergency

relief is DENIED. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

1 The underlying case is George Wesley Bruner v. Stephen David DiFerrante , cause number EV11C0085855, in the Justice Court, Precinct 1, Place 1, Harris County, Texas, t he Hon. Dale Gorczynski, presidi ng.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Huddle, and Lloyd.
BEFORE THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0278

APPLICATION OF ALASKA JUNEAU AERONAUTICS, INC. d/b/a

WINGS OF ALASKA FOR REISSUANCE OF ITS CERTIFICATE

OF PUBLIC CONV EN IENCE AND NECESSITY

_________________________________________________________ _________ __________

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Charles Hill

Director of Operations

SeaPort Airlines, Inc.

2540 Winchester Rd.

Memphis, TN 38103

Tel (901) 620

- 4412

Fax (901) 662

- 4403

chuck@seaportair.com

November, 8 2010 Application of

ALASKA JUNEAU AERONAUTICS,

INC. d/b/a

WINGS OF ALASKA

For reissuance of its certificate of

public convenience and necessityBEFORE THE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0278

APPLICATION OF ALASKA JUNEAU AERONAUTICS, INC. d/b/a

WINGS OF ALASKA FOR REISSUANCE OF ITS CERTIFICATE

OF PUBLIC CONV EN IENCE AND NECESSITY

_____________________________________________________________________________

Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. d /b/a Wings of Alaska (AJA) pursuant to section

215.4 of the Department’s Economic Regulations, 14 CFR 215.4, requests reissuance of its

certificate of public convenience and necessity in the name SeaPort Airlines, Inc. d/b/a

Wings of Alaska. AJA uses the trade name SeaPort Airlines in the provision of a majority of

its air transportation services; it is changing its corporate name to SeaPort Airlines, Inc. to

harmonize the company’s corporate and business names.

In support of this application, AJA states as follows:

1. Alaska Juneau Aeronautics, Inc. holds a certificate of public convenience and

necessity authorizing it to engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of

persons, property and mail; se e Order 84

- 8

- 109 (original is sua nce of certificate)

an d Order 98

- 7

- 6 (reissuance of certificate). AJA provides domestic scheduled

and charter service pursuant to this authority. For the past several years all of

AJA’s services in the lower 48 states hav e been provided under the trade name

SeaPort Airlines, which was registered to AJA under Part 215 on April 25, 2008

.

2. To harmonize its corporate name with the name in which its services are

provided, AJ A has elected to rename the corporation SeaPort Airlines, Inc.

Appended as Attachment A is a copy of the Cert ificate of Amended and Restated

Articles filed with the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, Application of

ALASKA JUNEAU AERONAUTICS,

INC. d/b/a

WINGS OF ALASKA

For reissuance of its certificate of

public convenience and necessityAttachment AAttachment B
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7683

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MYRON SLAUGHTER, a/k/a Wink, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-01-69; CA-04-97-4) Submitted: February 18, 2005 Decided: March 10, 2005 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Myron Slaughter, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Myron Slaughter seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Slaughter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     The  undersigned  officer  of Summit Financial Corporation (the "Company"),
hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002, and in connection with this
Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-Q for the year ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report),
that,  to  such  officer's  knowledge:

(1)  The  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as  applicable,  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended; and

(2)  The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result  of operations of the Company.


Dated:  May  7,  2003

/s/  Blaise  B.  Bettendorf
---------------------------
Blaise  B.  Bettendorf,  Senior  Vice  President
and  Chief  Financial  Officer


The  foregoing  certification  is  being  furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350  and  is  not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Summit  Financial  Corporation  and  will  be  retained  by Summit
Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its  staff  upon  request.
§ 20.2014-5 Proof of credit. ( a ) If the foreign death tax has not been determined and paid by the time the Federal estate tax return required by section 6018 is filed, credit may be claimed on the return in an estimated amount. However, before credit for the foreign death tax is finally allowed, satisfactory evidence, such as a statement by an authorized official of each country, possession or political subdivision thereof imposing the tax, must be submitted on Form 706CE certifying: ( 1 ) The full amount of the tax (exclusive of any interest or penalties), as computed before allowance of any credit, remission, or relief;
( 2 ) The amount of any credit, allowance, remission, or relief, and other pertinent information, including the nature of the allowance and a description of the property to which it pertains;
( 3 ) The net foreign death tax payable after any such allowance;
( 4 ) The date on which the death tax was paid, or if not all paid at one time, the date and amount of each partial payment; and
( 5 ) A list of the property situated in the foreign country and subjected to its tax, showing a description and the value of the property. Satisfactory evidence must also be submitted showing that no refund of the death tax is pending and none is authorized or, if any refund is pending or has been authorized, its amount and other pertinent information. See also section 2016 and § 20.2016-1 for requirements if foreign death taxes claimed as a credit are subsequently recovered.
( b ) The following information must also be submitted whenever applicable: ( 1 ) If any of the property subjected to the foreign death tax was situated outside of the country imposing the tax, the description of each item of such property and its value.
( 2 ) If more than one inheritance or succession is involved with respect to which credit is claimed, or if the foreign country, possession or political subdivision thereof imposes more than one kind of death tax, or if both the foreign country and a possession or political subdivision thereof each imposes a death tax, a separate computation with respect to each inheritance or succession tax.
( c ) In addition to the information required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the district director may require the submission of any further proof deemed necessary to establish the right to the credit.
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6038-1 Information returns required of U.S. persons with respect to certain foreign corporations.

For provisions relating to information returns required of U.S. persons with respect to certain foreign corporations, see §§ 1.6038-1 and 1.6038-2 of this chapter (Income Tax Regulations).
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 230 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                       October 3, 1996.
      Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Representatives 
(H. Con. Res. 230) entitled ``Concurrent resolution providing for the 
sine die adjournment of the second session of the One Hundred Fourth 
Congress.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

        Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Wednesday, 
October 2, 1996, Thursday, October 3, 1996, or Friday, October 4, 1996, 
on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by the 
Majority Leader, or his designee, it stand adjourned sine die, or until 
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, and that when the 
Senate adjourns on Wednesday, October 2, 1996, Thursday, October 3, 
1996, or Friday, October 4, 1996, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by the Majority Leader, or his designee, it stand 
adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, 
in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session 

                            H. CON. RES. 230

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
39461.

#### PONCE DE LEON TRACTOR COMPANY, INC. v. ROBERTSON.

Decided May 11, 1962.

*Fred W. Ken', Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. M. Allen, Jr.,*contra.

Hall, Judge.

The controlling question here is whether or not an order of the Civil and Criminal Court of DeKalb County overruling the plaintiff’s motion to strike the defendant’s demurrers and answer and render a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff is a final judgment under *Code Ann.*§ 6-701. The act creating the Civil and Criminal Court of DeKalb County, as amended, provides that *“ . . .*any party against whom a judgment by default shall be rendered shall, as a matter of right, upon the payment of accrued cost, have said default opened, and the judgment rendered thereon set aside at any time within five (5) days from the rendition thereof.” Ga. L. 1951, p. 2401, as amended by Ga. L. 1958, p. 2519.

It is clear therefore that the above order would not have been final even if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.*