alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 1

5 Post Office Square, Suite 100

Boston, MA 02109-3912

Memorandum

Date: June 28, 2016

Subject: Comment received on Direct Final Rulemaking for Connecticut Low Sulfur 

Fuel Requirements

To: Docket Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0364

Through: Anne Arnold

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit

From: Anne McWilliams

On May 25, 2016, EPA published, in the Federal Register, a direct final rulemaking 

approving revisions to the Connecticut State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions 

include establishing sulfur in fuel oil limits for use in stationary sources and other minor 

clarifying revisions to methods of fuel oil sampling, emission testing, sample analysis and 

reporting. See 81 FR 33134.

In the case of a direct final rulemaking, if no adverse comments are received in response 

to the rule, no further activity is contemplated. However, if EPA receives relevant 

adverse comments, the direct final rule is withdrawn and all public comments received 

are addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. 

The public comment period for EPA’s approval of Connecticut’s SIP revision closed on 

June 24, 2016. On June 7, 2016, one public comment was submitted to the docket for 

this rulemaking (EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0364). However, the substance of the comment 

does not apply to this rulemaking or to EPA. The content of the comment appears to 

pertain to the rulemaking published immediately prior to this rulemaking in the Federal

Register and to have been submitted to this docket in error. Specifically, the comment 

references the Veterans Affairs (VA) proposal to permit full practice authority of all VA 

advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs).

Since this public comment is not relevant to Connecticut’s SIP revision, no further 

activity is contemplated by EPA. Thus, EPA’s approval of Connecticut’s SIP revision 

will become effective on July 25, 2016.
<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

Aubrey L. Dunn, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer and George A.
Rosenbaum, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of First
Federal Banc of the Southwest, Inc. (the "Company") each certify in their
capacity as officers of the Company that they have reviewed the annual report of
the Company on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal ended September 30, 2005 and that to
the best of their knowledge:

1.      the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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.


January 12, 2006                      /s/ Aubrey L. Dunn, Jr.
---------------------------           ------------------------------------------
Date                                  Aubrey L. Dunn, Jr.
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer


January 12, 2006                      /s/ George A. Rosenbaum, Jr.
---------------------------           ------------------------------------------
Date                                  George A. Rosenbaum, Jr.
                                      Executive Vice President and Chief
                                      Financial Officer


The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to First Federal Banc of the Southwest, Inc. and will be retained by
First Federal Banc of the Southwest, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### §§ 794.141-794.148 [Reserved]
Attachment 35Case:17-03283-LTS   Doc#:24634-35   Filed:06/22/23   Entered:06/22/23 18:57:29    Desc: Attachment 35   Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 89411) pertaining to the Multex.com, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan, the
Market Guide Inc. 1995 Key Employee Incentive Plan and 1995 Independent
Director's Stock incentive Plan Special Option Grants to Messrs. Byramji and
Case of our report dated May 18, 1998, except for Notes C and J, as to which the
date is April 27, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedule of Market Guide Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997 included
in the Annual Report (Form 10K) of Multex.com, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 1999.


                                     /S/  Zerbo, McKiernan & Zambito, LLC

Fairfield, New Jersey
March 29, 1999
§ 16.11 General processes. ( a ) Under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 47121, the Director may conduct investigations, issue orders, and take such other actions as are necessary to fulfill the purposes of this part. This includes the extension of any time period prescribed, where necessary or appropriate for a fair and complete consideration of matters before the agency, prior to issuance of the Director's Determination.
( b ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, upon finding that circumstances require expedited handling of a particular case or controversy, the Director may issue an order directing any of the following prior to the issuance of the Director's Determination: ( 1 ) Shortening the time period for any action under this part consistent with due process;
( 2 ) If other adequate opportunity to respond to pleadings is available, eliminating the reply, rebuttal, or other actions prescribed by this part;
( 3 ) Designating alternative methods of service; or
( 4 ) Directing such other measures as may be required.
( c ) Other than those matters concerning a Corrective Action Plan, the jurisdiction of the Director terminates upon the issuance of the Director's Determination. All matters arising during the appeal period, such as requests for extension of time to make an appeal, will be addressed by the Associate Administrator.
( d ) The Director may transfer to the FAA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights or Office of Civil Rights designee the authority to prepare and issue Director's Determinations pursuant to § 16.31 for complaints alleging violations of section 505(d) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, and the requirements concerning civil rights and/or Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) issues contained in 49 U.S.C. 47107(e) and 49 U.S.C. 47113; 49 U.S.C. 47123; 49 U.S.C. 322, as amended; 49 CFR parts 23 and/or 26; and/or grant assurance 30 and/or grant assurance 37.
[Doc. No. 27783, 61 FR 54004, Oct. 16, 1996, as amended at Amdt. 16-1, 78 FR 56142, Sept. 12, 2013]
----

CALL FOR PROPOSALS IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

(2006/C 80/07)

I.

II.

Procedure for the submission and examination of proposals, timetable

The call for proposals is open until 19 May 2006.

All the documents required for a proposal must be sent in triplicate. They should be presented in A4 form.

The complete proposal must be delivered by registered letter or by private courier. The postmark or the date of collection by courier will serve as proof of the date of submission of the proposal. Faxes, electronic mail, incomplete dossiers or dossiers sent in several parts will not be accepted.

The proposal must be valid at least until 31 December 2006.

The procedure for the appraisal of a proposal is as follows:

Beneficiaries will be selected on the basis of the criteria set out in the documentation relating to this call for proposals and within the limits of the available budget.

The entire procedure is strictly confidential. In the event of approval by the Commission, a contract (made out in euro) will be concluded between the Commission and the party submitting the proposal.

The decision of the Commission is final.

----
Exhibit 10.3

April 22, 2002


Dr. Beny Primm
A.R.T.C
22 Chapel Street
Brooklyn, NY.  11201

Dear Beny:

We are very pleased that we have agreed to extend your Consulting Services
Agreement dated February 16, 2001 in the areas of Behavioral Health & Smart Card
Technology for one (1) year from the above date. We are attaching the Letter
Agreement to this extension. Once this extension is signed, we can issue your
options.


Yours truly,


/s/ Edward Bright
-----------------
Edward Bright
Chairman of the Board

EB:mmm


Accepted


/s/ Beny J Primm                                6/17/02
----------------                                -------
Dr. Beny Primm                                    Date
§ 1245.114 Findings and recommendations of the Board. ( a ) *Findings of the Board.* The Board shall consider the petition, the NASA contract, if relevant, the goals cited in § 1245.103(a), the effect of the waiver on the objectives of the related NASA programs, and any other available facts and information presented to the Board by an interested party. The Board shall document its findings.
( b ) *Recommendation of the Board.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in § 1245.104(d), after making the findings of fact, the Board shall formulate its proposed recommendation to the Administrator as to the grant of waiver as requested, the grant of waiver upon terms other than as requested, or denial of waiver.
( 2 ) If the Board proposes to recommend, initially or upon reconsideration or after oral hearing, that the petition be granted in the extent requested or, in other cases, where the petitioner does not request reconsideration or a hearing during the period set for the action or informs the Board that the action will not be requested, or fails to file the required statements within the prescribed time, the Board shall transmit the petition, a summary record of hearing proceedings, if applicable, its findings of fact, and its recommendation to the Administrator.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.7

                                    WARRANTS

Critical Path hereby agrees to grant Worldsport within 10 business days of the
execution of the Critical Path Master Service Agreement (the "Agreement"),
warrants entitling Worldsport to purchase up to a 1.25% equity interest in CP on
a fully diluted basis as of the date of the Agreement.

The warrants will become exercisable in five equal installments of .25%, upon
registration of each group of Worldsport service email boxes, provided that all
such Worldsport service email boxes shall be CP sub-branded (as defined below).

The initial warrant installment shall vest upon the registration by Worldsport
of two million (2,000,000) sub-branded email boxes; the second warrant
installment shall vest upon the registration of 4 million (4,000,000) mailboxes
that are CP sub-branded; the third warrant installment shall vest upon the
registration of 8 million (8,000,000) mailboxes that are CP sub-branded; the
fourth warrant installment shall vest upon the registration of 12 million
(12,000,000) mailboxes that are CP sub-branded; and the fifth warrant
installment shall vest upon registration of 20 million (20,000,000) mailboxes
that are CP sub-branded.

The warrant installments which have become exercisable pursuant to the terms set
forth above shall be exercisable for a period of five (5) years after each first
became exercisable.

Any of the warrants which shall not have become exercisable (in accordance with
the formula set forth above) within five years from the date of the Agreement
shall be cancelled.

The Initial Exercise Price for the first warrant installment (representing .25%
of the fully diluted equity of CP) shall be the average of the closing price of
CP's Common Stock as quoted on the NASDAQ National Market System for the fifteen
(15) trading days prior to the day in question. The pricing of the additional
warrant installments shall be (i) for the second warrant installment, the
Initial Exercise Price plus $5.00, (ii) for the third warrant installment shall
be the Initial Exercise Price plus $10.00, (iii) for the fourth warrant
installment shall be the Initial Exercise Price plus $15.00, and (iiii) for the
fifth warrant installment shall be the Initial Exercise Price plus $20.00.

A mailbox shall be deemed to be sub-branded, provided that one of the following
occurs: Worldsport shall cause the CP emblem or logo, or a variation thereof
approved by CP in its reasonable discretion, to appear (i) on the initial login
screen and main screens of a web-based mailbox, (ii) on the welcome message of a
POP or IMAP session or (iii) in the initial email message received at the
mailbox.
§ 145.105 Change of location, housing, or facilities. ( a ) A certificated repair station may not change the location of its housing without written approval from the FAA.
( b ) A certificated repair station may not make any changes to its housing or facilities required by § 145.103 that could have a significant effect on its ability to perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations under its repair station certificate and operations specifications without written approval from the FAA.
( c ) The FAA may prescribe the conditions, including any limitations, under which a certificated repair station must operate while it is changing its location, housing, or facilities.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 391 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 391

  To clarify that funding for the Public Company Accounting Oversight 
                 Board is not subject to the sequester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2019

   Mr. Enzi introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify that funding for the Public Company Accounting Oversight 
                 Board is not subject to the sequester.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION.

    Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) does not apply with respect to the funding 
of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1



Statement of Chief Executive Officer 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Knight Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Thomas
M. Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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/    THOMAS M. JOYCEName:

Thomas M. JoyceTitle:

Chief Executive OfficerDate:

February 27, 2009




This certification
accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

District of Puerto Rico

Assured Guaranty Corp.; Assured Guaranty

Municipal Corp.; Financial Guaranty Insurance

Company; and National Public Finance Guarantee

Corporation,

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; Financial Oversight and Management Board

for Puerto Rico; Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority;

Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority; Hon. Ricardo Antonio

Rosselló Nevares; Gerardo Portela Franco; Carlos Contreras Aponte; José

Iván Marrero Rosado; Hon. Raúl Maldonado Gautier; and Natalie A. Jaresko,

Gerardo Portela Franco

Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority

Edificio Banco Gubernamental de Fomento

Centro Minillas

San Juan, PR

Heriberto J. Burgos Pérez

Casellas Alcover & Burgos PSC

PO Box 364924

San Juan, PR 00936-4924

hburgos@cabprlaw.com

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:254-11 Filed:06/03/17 Entered:06/03/17 18:25:07 Desc:

Summons of Gerardo Portela Franco Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:254-11 Filed:06/03/17 Entered:06/03/17 18:25:07 Desc:

Summons of Gerardo Portela Franco Page 2 of 2
Exhibit F

FEMA letter to AAFAF

Dated January 9, 2018

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2298-6 Filed:01/27/18 Entered:01/27/18 23:51:50 Desc:

Exhibit F - Letter Page 1 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2298-6 Filed:01/27/18 Entered:01/27/18 23:51:50 Desc:

Exhibit F - Letter Page 2 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2298-6 Filed:01/27/18 Entered:01/27/18 23:51:50 Desc:

Exhibit F - Letter Page 3 of 3
#### Bivins *v.*City of Montgomery.

*Violating Municipal Ordinance.*

(Decided June 1, 1915.

69 South. 224.)

1. *Municipal Corporation; Ordinances; Violation;*Evidence.— Where the prosecution is by a city for the violation of its ordinances prohibiting the doing of a particular business, but fixing no penalty for a failure to do so, it must, in order to sustain a conviction, introduce in evidence an ordinance imposing a penalty for a violation of the license ordinance.

2. *Evidence; Judicial*Notice.-^The courts do not take judicial notice of ,the ordinances of municipalities.

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. Armstead Brown.

F. A. Bivins was convicted of violating the ordinance against doing a telegraph business without license, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

*642Rushton, Williams & Crenshaw, and Martin & Martin, for appellant.

Edward S. Watts, for appellee.

THOMAS, J.

(1, 2) The defendant (appellant) was charged with the violation of a municipal ordinance, in that he did within the city limits a telegraph business for which a license was required by an ordinance of the city without first obtaining such license. The bill of exceptions, which, purports to set out all the evidence, shows that the city introduced in evidence an ordinance requiring the taking out of a license, and fixing the amount thereof, for the doing of such business in the city, but in such ordinance no penalty is fixed for the failure of any person, doing such business, to take out a license. In other words, the ordinance contains no penal provision whatever itself, nor was any other ordinance introduced in evidence containing such a provision and making it an offense against the laws of the city for 'a person to engage in the business alleged without taking out a license. If there is such an ordinance, it was necessary to the city’s case and to the conviction of defendant (appellant) that it be proved by the city, as courts cannot take judicial knowledge of municipal *ordinances*.—Furham *v.*Huntsville, 54 Ala. 263; *Case v. Mobile,*30 Ala. 538.

The lower court erred, therefore, in giving the affirmative charge for the city and in refusing it to- the defendant.

Any expression of opinion on the other questions urged — that is, as to the validity or invalidity of the mentioned ordinance that was introduced by the city • — would be dictum; for, even assuming its validity, the defendant, though he might be sued for the amount of the license tax required by the ordinance, could not *643be convicted for a violation of tbe ordinance, failing, as it does, to contain a penal provision, unless, of course, there is some other ordinance containing such a provision and making it an offense to violate the ordinance in question.

Whether there is or is not in existence such an ordinance as the latter does not, as said, appear, and we must, until the contrary is shown, presume that there is not. So presuming, the validity of the ordinance here in question is not therefore raised in this case, which is reversed and remanded for reasons béfore stated.

Reversed and remanded.