alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
44 Canal Cent er Pl aza

▪ Sui t e 310 ▪ Al exandr i a

, Vi r gi ni a 22314 ▪ Tel : (703) 684

- 0084 ▪ Fax : (703) 684

- 0427 VIA E

- MAIL

July 2 , 2010

Mr. Jeffrey A. Telander

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Metals and Minerals Group (D243

- 02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Mr. William Neuffer

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Metals and Minerals Group (D243

- 02)

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency

109 TW Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

RE: Submission of Existing Emissions Data

- Amerrock Products, LP

Dear Messrs. Telander and Neuffer:

The transmission of this data from the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

(“NAIMA”) to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) is in fulfillment of Amerrock

Products

, LP and NAIMA’s commitment to provide EPA existing emissions data identified in

NAIMA’s May 5, 2010 letter t o EPA.

NAIMA is submitting .pdf versions via

- email of existing emissions data for carbon monoxide

and carbonyl s ulfide from the ARI Environmental, Inc. Report “Compliance Assurance

Monitoring Plan Supporting Data: Annual Verification.” This data was coll ected at Amerrock’s

Nolanville, Texas facility.

Amerrock ha s no t designated any portion of the data attached hereto as confidential business

information (“CBI”). With the other company submissions that you will receive from NAIMA,

CBI will be redacted fr om the copies sent to you, and the CBI will be marked as such and will be

sent to:

Mr. Roberto Morales, Document Control Officer

109 T.W. Alexander DriveResearch Triangle Park, NC 27711

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or C hris Martin at (703) 684

- 0084.

We can also be contacted by e

- mail at arcane@naima.org or cmartin@naima.org

.

Sincerely,



## Angus E. Crane

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Ph: (703) 684

- 0084 ext. 123

Fax: (703) 684

- 0427

Attachment
**
**Exhibit 35.1**

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2020-3 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify andrepresent that: 

 
 1.
A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as ofSeptember 23, 2020, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2020-3 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the“Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. 

 
 2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theAgreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 

 
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By: /s/ Marc WomackName: Marc WomackTitle: EVP, Head of OperationsDate: March 31, 2023By: /s/ Vikas GuptaName: Vikas GuptaTitle: TreasurerDate: March 31, 2023**
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7672

KENNETH PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SEWALL SMITH; L. BISHOP, Secretary of Public

Safety and Correctional Services; JOHN DOE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.

(CA-94-2312-HAR)

Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Richard M. Kastendieck, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for general relief and affirm

on the reasoning of the district court. We also affirm the district

court's denial of Appellant's motion to vacate judgment. Phillips

v. Smith, No. CA-94-2312-HAR (D. Md. Aug. 28, 1996; Sept. 25,

1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
Order entered November 14, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01656-CR

SHENEQUA LICOLE BARBER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-59385-U

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On August 22, 2013, this Court ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. The findings were due within thirty days. The Court has not 

received the trial court’s findings, nor has either party communicated with the Court regarding 

the status of the findings. Moreover, while the appeal was abated, the judge of the 291st Judicial 

District Court resigned her seat and a new judge has been appointed to the trial court. The 

appeal cannot proceed until the issue of appellant’s brief is resolved.

Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings 

and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 
appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Jennifer Balido, Presiding Judge, 291st Judicial District Court; J. Daniel Oliphant; 

and Michael Casillas.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
#### George G. Allen, Plaintiff, *v.*Freeman D. Marckwald, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

June, 1899.)

Attachment — When a bond of indemnity to the sheriff will not be presently canceled.

Although it is admitted that the sheriff took no property under two certain writs of attachment, he having taken and sold all the defendant’s property to satisfy a prior writ and judgment, the court will not order the cancellation of a bond of indemnity, given to the sheriff by the plaintiff who procured the two writs, until the lapse,of one year (Code Civ. Pro,, § 385) has protected the sheriff from attack.

Motion to cancel two writs of attachment and one indemnity bond, and for an order discontinuing the action. The facts appear in the opinion.

H. Van Sinderen, for motion.

P. J. Britt, opposed.

Gildersleeve, J.

This is a motion to cancel two writs of attachment and, one indemnity bond, and for an order discontinuing the action. The defendant has not appeared in the action, but the motion is opposed by the sheriff. Previous to the issuing of the two attachments in this case, another attachment had heen issued in the case of the Corn Exchange Bank against this defendant, and all the property of the defendant seized under said attachment. Subsequent to the issuing of the two attachments in the case at bar, and the giving of the bond of indemnity, under 'sections 667 and 658 of the Code, to the sheriff, judgment was entered in the Corn Exchange Bank case, and all the property of the defendant taken and applied to the payment of that judgment. The plaintiff’s affidavits, which are not contradicted, state that nothing was taken by the sheriff under the two attachments in the case at bar for the reason that all the property of the defendant had already been seized under the attachment in the Corn Exchange Bank case, arid was, subsequently, but after the attachments in the case at har, sold to satisfy the judgment in that-*684action. The plaintiff urges, therefore, that no liability can arisé under the bond of indemnity. The sheriff, however, asks that the cancellation of the bond of indemnity be postponed until one year from the giving of the bond, when, under section 385 of the Code, the time to bring an action against the sheriff will have expired. It seéms to me that it would be- setting a dangerous precedent, in a case of this kind, to deprive the sheriff of his bond of indemnity until the Statute 'of Limitations had rendered him' safe from attack. . I am, therefore, of opinion that .this motion should be denied, without costs, and that plaintiff should have leave to renew the same after the expiration of the year.

Motion denied.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 41.102 Completion of examination.

Before a contested case is initiated, except as the Board may otherwise authorize, for each involved application and patent:

(a) Examination or reexamination must be completed, and

(b) There must be at least one claim that:

(1) Is patentable but for a judgment in the contested case, and

(2) Would be involved in the contested case.
#### William Speiss, Appellant, *v.*Rachel Weinberg, Respondent.

Appeal by the plaintiff. from a judgment rendered .-in the .Municipal Court, fourth district, borough of Manhattan, dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff, at the close of the plaintiff’s, case.

Engel, Engel & Oppenheimer, for appellant.

Abraham H. Sarasohn, for respondent.

Freedman, P. J.

The right of the plaintiff to recover in this ease rests upon a contract alleged to have.-bc.cn entered.into between the manager of the plaintiff and, the husband of the .defendant. No actual’ authority in the husband to make a contract for or on behalf of the defendant was shown, nor does the testimony show sufficient apparent authority or ratification on her part to authorize the rendition of a judgment against-her. -, Simpson v. Bonnell, 26 Misc. Rep. 785.

*775It also appears by the record that no objection was made or exception taken to the dismissal of the complaint, at the close of' the plaintiff’s case.

This, together with the failure of proof as heretofore stated, requires an affirmance of the judgment.

MaoLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.-

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Transition Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the five months ended May 31,
2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Date: July 17, 2006


/s/ Brian T. Beckwith
-------------------------------------
Brian T. Beckwith,
Chief Executive Officer


                                       25
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2178 

To amend the Clean Air Act to require that, after 5 years, all diesel fuel 

sold to consumers in the United States for motor vehicles contain not 

less than 2 percent bio-fuel, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. WALBERG (for himself and Mr. GINGREY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to require that, after 5 years, 

all diesel fuel sold to consumers in the United States 

for motor vehicles contain not less than 2 percent biofuel, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as ‘‘The Energy Independence 

5 through Bio-diesel Act’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2178 IH

1 SEC. 2. 2 PERCENT BIO-FUEL REQUIREMENT. 

2 Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

3 7545(o)) is amended by adding the following new para4 graph at the end thereof: 

5 ‘‘(13) 2 PERCENT BIO-FUEL REQUIREMENT.— 

6 Not later than 1 year after the enactment of this 

7 paragraph, the Administrator shall promulgate regu8 lations under this section requiring that, after the 

9 date 5 years after the enactment of this paragraph, 

10 all diesel motor vehicle fuel sold or dispensed to con11 sumers in the contiguous United States, on an an12 nual average basis, contain not less than 2 percent 

13 biodiesel (as defined in section 312(f)(1) of the En14 ergy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13220(f)(1)).’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
## Ex hibit H Multirotor Aircraft Flight Restrictions

Multirotor Aircraft Flight Restrictions

The Chameleon, DJI S1000 and S900 aircraft are experimental unmanned aircraft system s , UAS, and

ha ve the following flight restrictions.

 Cannot be flown over assembles of people, such as concerts, weddings, sporting events and

similar events.

 All personnel in the area must be notified that the aircraft will be flown.

 Cannot be flown over active road ways with operating traffic below.

 Cannot be flown over active waterways with heavy vessel traffic below unles s approved by the

vessel operators.

 If the aircraft is flown around structures such as building power lines, power line structures,

stacks, bridges

, cell towers, radio tower

, permission is required from the owner / operator.

Additionally t he flight operation must be in compliance any local, state or federal laws

.

 The Chameleon Pro aircraft is qualified to fly around energized power lines with the proper

permissions from the utility company owning and operating the line.

 The DJI S1000 with the DJI autopilot s ystem is not allowed to fly with in 50 ft of energized high

tension power lines

.

 Cannot be flown in any other airspace unless approved by the FAA and airspace controlling

authority.
§ 234.2 *Pro bono* representation directory. ( a ) *Publicly available directory.* The Board shall make a directory available on its website of law school clinics and of *pro bono* legal services organizations with a connection to a law school that have advised the Board that they are available, on a *pro bono* basis, to provide law student representation to clients in proceedings before the Board, and wish to be listed in the directory. Listing in the directory is not a requirement for eligible law school clinics or a *pro bono* legal services organizations to represent clients in Board proceedings.
( b ) *Form for inclusion.* To be included in the public directory, the director of the law school clinic or *pro bono* legal services organization shall submit a form providing the following information for public dissemination: ( 1 ) The name of the participating clinic or organization;
( 2 ) The name of the law school where the clinic is based, or with which the organization is connected;
( 3 ) The name of the director of the clinic or organization;
( 4 ) A general contact email address and phone number;
( 5 ) The geographic area from which the clinic or organization may accept clients;
( 6 ) Whether the clinic or organization has handled copyright matters in the past two years;
( 7 ) The nature of any copyright matters handled by the clinic or organization in the past two years;
( 8 ) Whether the clinic or organization has experience in handling litigation matters;
( 9 ) If the clinic or organization does not have litigation experience, whether it has a partnership with a litigation clinic or experience supervising law students in litigation matters;
( 10 ) A brief statement describing the clinic or organization's interest in handling matters before the Board; and
( 11 ) A certification that student representatives participating in Board proceedings in affiliation with the clinic or organization will meet all requirements of § 234.1(a).
( c ) *Standards for inclusion.* Subject to paragraph (d) of this section, the Board will accept for inclusion in the public directory any law school clinic or *pro bono* legal services organization with a connection to a law school that certifies that its law student representatives will meet all requirements of § 234.1(a) and provides sufficient information pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section for participants in Board proceedings to evaluate whether representation is available and appropriate.
( d ) *Removal from directory.* The Board may, in its discretion, remove a clinic or *pro bono* legal services organization from the directory if it determines that the clinic or organization is not suitable for representing clients before the Board, including, without limitation, if it determines that the clinic or organization has failed to properly update its information in the public directory.
( e ) *Duty to update directory.* Participating clinics and *pro bono* legal services organizations, which have been listed in the directory, have a duty to maintain current information in the directory and shall confirm the currency of the information on an annual basis.
RD Group

10736 Vista Heights Blvd.

Fort Worth, TX 76108

(682) 239-0778 – (voice/text)

(817) 394-1583 – (fax)

dwm0509@gmail.com

Page 1 of 1

To: Jake Troutman

Jake.Troutman@faa.gov

(202) 267-9521

From: RD Group

David w Mansen

10736 Vista Heights Blvd.

Fort Worth, TX 76108

682-239-0778 (Tel)

817-394-1583 (Fax)

dwm0509@gmail.com

Date: 26 Feb 2015

Re: Response to your request for additional information

Docket No. FAA-2014-0830

Below are answers to your letter dated 25 Feb 2015 requesting additional information for our 

petition to Docket No. FAA-2014-0830. Your question/request are in a larger font and bold with 

our answers listed below each of your question/request.

1) Describe the aircraft make(s) and model(s) for the proposed UAS 

operation. The description(s) should include the following: size, 

maximum weight (including payload), and aircraft type (i.e. - 

fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air). 

1) Make: DJI

a. Model: Phantom (xx) (all)

b. Size: 14 inches (diagonal motor-motor)

c. Maximum Weight (gross maximum weight including payload): 3 lbs.

d. Aircraft Type: Rotorcraft (multi-rotor - quad-rotor)

2) None Other

We will gladly discuss any changes, modifications or amendments to our manuals, procedures or 

practices to satisfy FAA requirements for approval of this exemption.

Thank you,

David w Mansen

dwm0509@gmail.com

(682) 239-0778
Grand Strand Air Traffic Control Tower and Horry County Department
of Airports. LEITER OF AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE: January

1, 2012 SUBJECT: CONTROL JURISDICTION

OF AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREAS I. PURPOSE: This agreement between Grand Strand Air Traffic Control Tower and Horry County Department
of Airports defines responsibility
for the control of aircraft, vehicular, and pedestrian traffic within the Movement areas of the Grand Strand Airport

. 2. SCOPE: To limit to the maximum extent practical

a situation on the Movement Area involving aircraft, vehicle, pedestrian,

or object on the ground that would create

a collision hazard and/or loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, landing, or taxiing. 3 .DEFINITIONS: a. **~Movement**Area., means runways, taxiways, and other areas of the airport which are used for taxiing, hover taxiing

,takeoff and landing of aircraft, exclusive of loading ramps and aircraft parking areas. b . Airport Movemen

t Areas controlled
by Grand Strand Tower are: (1) Runway 5/23. (2) Taxiways

A ,B, C, D, and T. 4. RESPONSIBILITIES: a. Grand Strand Air Traffic Control Tower shall: (I) Control all aircraft, vehicular

,and pedestrian traffic in the defined movement area at Grand Strand Airport during operational hours. (2) Notify the Airport Operations
or North Myrtle Beach Public Safety of observed Movement Area incursions committed
by vehicle operators
or pedestrians. b. Horry County Department
of Airports shall: (1) Take reasonable steps to inform all airport tenants/users
of the contents of this agreement.

'1(2) Take reasonable steps to inform all authorized
to use the Movement Area of the requirement that they must receive authorization from Strand Tower on the appropriate ground or tower frequencies. (3) Take reasonable steps to inform authorized users of the requirement that vehicles
or equipment
on the movement area must maintain

a listening watch on the assigned frequency 121.8. ( 4). Take reasonable steps to insure that operators are aware of lost communication procedures
of watching the tower for the appropriate tight gun signal. 5. ATTACHMENT: Attachment

I Depicts the Grand Strand Airport Movement Area. Michael LaPier Director Horry County Deparbnent
of Ailports Movement Area Jurisdiction LOA (1/2012) Manager Grsnd Strand ATC Tower··.-..·.•.•·......

fI'I!I **~·** ,I• tItt:I....,**~**

\ Movem<•"**Ar~ais~d**

**e**ofdashedl lmes-