alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Caplin&Drysdale 

H I T I I I E Y s 

July 18,2016 

Caplin i Drysdale. CharterBd 

OneThomasCircje.NW. Suite 1100 

Vtashington. DC 20005 

202-662-5000 202-429-3301 Fax 

wwwxapKnifeYsdalexam 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Ms. A'knea Smith 

Audit Division 

Federal Election Commission 

999 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20463 

Re: Response of the Utah Republican Party to Findings Referenced in the 

Commission's Draft Final Audit Report 

Dear Ms. Smith: 

In response to your request, the Utah Republican Party C'Party") submits this letter to 

address certain matters referenced in the June 30,2016 Draft Final Audit Report C'Report"), 

which cloKly resembles the Interim Audit Report issued by the Commission's st^ months 

earlier. 

As the Party h^ previously mentioned, nearly all issues identified in the Report are 

already resolved. The Party, for example, remedied the issues identified in the Report under 

Findings 1 and 2, which were associated with simple contribution misdeposits, nearly two years 

ago. And the Party has already amended its disclosure reports, as it had previously offered to do, 

in response to reconunendations by the Audit Division staff under Findings 3,4, and S. 

The only remaining open issue appears to be related to Finding 6, in which the Audit 

Division asserts that the Party received an in-kind contribution fix)m its former Executive 

Director, Ivan DuBois. Again, the Party strongly disagrees with this assertion, the Audit 

Division staff has remarked that these expenses were in-kind contributions by Mr. DuBois 

between the date they were incurred and the date they were reimbursed. But the Party was not 

aware of Mr. Dubois' reimbursable expenses when they were incurred. The Party knew, and 

could know, of these expenses only after Mr. DuBois presented receipts and/or expense reports 

to the Party's treasurer, which frequently occurred well after the underlying expenses were 

incurred. The Party's regular practice was to issue reimbursements to Mr. DuBois within a 

calendar week of this presentation. Given this practice, the Commission should not consider 

these expenses as in-kind contributions as of the date they were incurred. The Party is pleased to 

note that the Audit Division is recommending that "[n]o further action ... be taken since the staff 

member was eventually reimbursed for the expenses." The Party agrees with this recommended 

course of action. 

Please notify me rnisaniderson@ca;pdale.com: 202-862-5046) if you have any additional 

questions or need more information. The Party looks forward to concluding this lengthy process. 
C I « I I E I E D 

Federal Election Commission 

July 18,2016 

Page 2 

and it is willing to provide any {^si'stance needed by the Commission to reach an expedited 

resolution. 

Sincerely, 

Member 

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered
### -78 -77 -76 -75

38 39 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲
▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/28 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 28 Jul 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16D0094. ANTHONY S. WASHINGTON v. THE STATE.

On June 29, 2015, the trial court denied Anthony Washington’s motion to

correct a void sentence. On October 7, 2015, Washington filed, in this Court, a

“Notice of Appeal” from the trial court’sruling, which we docketed as an application

for discretionary appeal.

1

 We lack jurisdiction.

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry

of the order or judgment to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of

OCGA § 5-6-35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for

appeal not made in compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380

SE2d 57) (1989). Washington filed his application 100 days after entry of the order

he seeks to appeal. Therefore, his untimely application is hereby DISMISSED for

lack of jurisdiction.

1 Washington’s “Notice of Appeal” was docketed as an application for

discretionary appeal because it was filed in this Court rather than in the trial court. 

Compare OCGA § 5-6-37 (notices of appeal are filed in the trial court), with id.

§ 5-6-35 (d) (applications for discretionary appeal are filed in the appellate court).

November 03, 2015
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/03/2015
CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Flexible Solutions International, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-QSB/A (Amendment No. 1) of the Company for the quarter ended
March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  December 5, 2005                         /s/ DANIEL B. O'BRIEN
                                                ------------------------
                                                Daniel B. O'Brien
                                                Chief Financial Officer
§ 305.60 Types and scope of Federal audits. ( a ) OCSE will conduct audits, at least once every three years (or more frequently if the State fails to meet performance standards and reliability of data requirements) to assess the completeness, authenticity, reliability, accuracy and security of data and the systems used to process the data in calculating performance indicators under this part;
( b ) Also, OCSE will conduct audits to determine the adequacy of financial management of the State IV-D program, including assessments of: ( 1 ) Whether funds to carry out the State program are being appropriately expended, and are properly and fully accounted for; and
( 2 ) Whether collections and disbursements of support payments are carried out correctly and are fully accounted for; and
( c ) OCSE will conduct audits for such other purposes as the Secretary may find necessary. ( 1 ) These audits include audits to determine if the State is substantially complying with one or more of the requirements of the IV-D program (with the exception of the requirements of section 454(24) of the Act relating to statewide-automated systems and section 454(27)(A) and (B)(i) relating to the State Disbursement Unit) as defined in § 305.63 of this part. Other audits will be conducted at the discretion of OCSE.
( 2 ) Audits to determine substantial compliance will be initiated based on substantiated evidence of a failure by the State to meet IV-D program requirements. Evidence, which could warrant an audit to determine substantial compliance, includes: ( i ) The results of two or more State self-reviews conducted under section 454(15)(A) of the Act which: Show evidence of sustained poor performance; or indicate that the State has not corrected deficiencies identified in previous self-assessments, or that those deficiencies are determined to seriously impact the performance of the State's program; or
( ii ) Evidence of a State program's systemic failure to provide adequate services under the program through a pattern of non-compliance over time.
( d ) OCSE will conduct audits of the State's IV-D program through inspection, inquiries, observation, and confirmation and in accordance with standards promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States in “Government Auditing Standards.”
Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 14 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

CASTRO )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. 22-cv-02176

)

v. )

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) MOTION TO DISMISS

)

Defendant. )

)

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS

The Federal Election Commission hereby moves for an order dismissing plaintiff’s

complaint to the extent that it asserts the Commission has unlawfully failed to conclude that

former president Donald J. Trump is constitutionally disqualified from holding Federal office

and must reject any candidacy filings pursuant to Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

Constitution, also known as the “Disqualification Clause.” Plaintiff fails to establish Article III

standing to pursue this claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, to the extent plaintiff seeks to challenge the Commission’s alleged failure

to act on plaintiff’s administrative complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act, this

portion of plaintiff’s complaint is precluded and should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

as well. A supporting memorandum and a proposed order accompany this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa J. Stevenson (D.C. Bar No. 457628) Jacob Siler (D.C. Bar No. 1003383)

Acting General Counsel Assistant General Counsel

lstevenson@fec.gov jsiler@fec.gov
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 14 Filed 10/31/22 Page 2 of 2 

Kevin Deeley

Associate General Counsel

kdeeley@fec.gov

October 31, 2022

/s/ Shaina Ward

Shaina Ward (D.C. Bar No. 1002801)

Attorney

sward@fec.gov

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

1050 First Street NE

Washington, DC 20463

(202) 694-1650
#### Melanie Huntley, Respondent, *v.*George V. Fluri, Appellant.

*Huntley*v. Fluri, 122 App. Div. 890, affirmed.

(Argued December 1, 1909;

decided December 17, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 9, 1907, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover money alleged to have been loaned.

*Julius M. Mayer*for appellant.

*Robert E. L. Lewis*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Henline. Marty

EAS COST)

DOT Docket DOT-OST-1997-2706

Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:45:49 PM

DOT Docket DOT-OST-1997 -2706

Working for Oil Field Service Company I am required to make frequent trips from the Uintah Basin

to host of different cities throughout the US and Canada. I would like to take this time to endorse

the Great Lakes proposal for the contract beginning Jan 1, 2014 vs the proposals submitted by

Boutique Air and SkyWest. I have been flying out of the Vernal area for the 4 years and have seen

the number of passengers increase steadily even with the addition of the third flight, the number of

passengers is still climbing

With Denver being the hub of the Oil and Gas industry in the Rockies, I think it is crucial that we

keep this non-stop service to Denver. I see so many travelers, myself included that will fly to Denver

in the morning and fly back into Vernal that evening.

Denver also offers more than adequate connections for domestic or international flights, and is one

of the easiest airports to navigate.

My biggest concern with the SkyWest proposal is the lack of non-stop service to Denver. For trips

to Denver, if we have to go to SLCand connect to Denver it will be faster to drive.

Boutique Air with a 9 passenger aircraft could not accommodate the needs of the Uintah Basin

Best Regards,

Marty Henline

Operations Manager

Open Hole Completions

Weatherford 5203 South 4630 East Vernal UT 84078

Office: 435.789.7121 Mobile: 435.828.8143 Fax: 435.789.7122

marl'. hen IinCi(}:wcuthert()J'(l corn \\\\ \V wemherli)rd enOl

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been

sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then

immediately delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy,

disclose or otherwise use this message. The sender disclaims any liability for such

unauthorized use. PLEASENOTE that all incoming e-rnails sent to Weatherford email accounts will be archived and may be scanned by us and/or by external service

providers to detect and prevent threats to our systems, investigate illegal or

inappropriate behavior, and/or eliminate unsolicited promotional e-mails(spam).This

process could result in deletion of a legitimate e-mail before it is read by its

intended recipient at our organization. Moreover, based on the scanning results, the

full text of e-mails and attachments may be made available to Weatherford security

and other personnel for review and appropriate action. If you have any concerns

about this process, please contact us at dataprivacy@weatherford.com.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Special Value Continuation Partners, LP for the annual period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul L. Davis, as Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant
hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge 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 Registrant.



|       |  | /S/ Paul L. Davis      
|------ |  | -----------------------
|Name:  |  | Paul L. Davis          
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer



Date: March 18, 2013
§ 902.52 Records related solely to internal personnel rules and practices. ( a ) Records related solely to internal personnel rules and practices that are within the statutory exemption include memoranda pertaining to personnel matters such as staffing policies, and policies and procedures for the hiring, training, promotion, demotion, and discharge of employees, and management plans, records, or proposals related to labor-management relationships.
( b ) The purpose of this section is to authorize the protection of any record related to internal personnel rules and practices dealing with the relations between the Corporation and its employees.
The State of

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 11, 2014

No. 04-14-00315-CR

Paulino FLORES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR1058

Honorable George H. Godwin, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Mario, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

James V. Tocci, counsel for appellant, has filed a motion to withdraw. Counsel’s motion, 

however, does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5. Specifically, the motion 

does not contain the following: a list of current deadlines and settings in the case; appellant’s 

name and last known address and telephone number; a statement that a copy of the motion was 

delivered to appellant in person or by certified and first-class mail; and a statement that appellant 

was notified in writing of the right to object to the motion to withdraw. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5(a), (b). 

We, therefore, DENY counsel’s motion to withdraw. Counsel is reminded that 

appellant’s brief is due no later than thirty (30) days after the reporter’s record is filed. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 1355.57 Cost allocation for CCWIS projects. ( a ) *CCWIS cost allocation for projects transitioning to CCWIS.* ( 1 ) All automated functions developed after the transition period for projects meeting the requirements of § 1355.56(b) or § 1355.56(f)(1) must meet the CCWIS design requirements described under § 1355.53(a), unless exempted by § 1355.53(b)(2).
( 2 ) The Department may approve the applicable CCWIS cost allocation for an automated function of a project transitioning to a CCWIS if the automated function: ( i ) Supports programs authorized under titles IV-B or IV-E, and at least one requirement of § 1355.52 or, if applicable § 1355.54; and
( ii ) Is not duplicated within the CCWIS or systems supporting child welfare contributing agencies and is consistently used by all child welfare users responsible for the area supported by the automated function.
( b ) *CCWIS cost allocation for new CCWIS projects.* ( 1 ) Unless exempted in accordance with § 1355.53(b)(2), all automated functions of a new CCWIS project must meet the CCWIS design requirements described under § 1355.53(a).
( 2 ) An automated function of a CCWIS project described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section may qualify for a CCWIS cost allocation if the automated function: ( i ) Supports programs authorized under titles IV-B or IV-E, and at least one requirement of § 1355.52 or, if applicable § 1355.54; and
( ii ) Is not duplicated within the CCWIS or systems supporting child welfare contributing agencies and is consistently used by all child welfare users responsible for the area supported by the automated function.
( c ) *CCWIS cost allocation for approved activities.* The Department may approve a CCWIS cost allocation for an approved activity for a CCWIS project meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.
( d ) *Project cost allocation.* A title IV-E agency must allocate project costs in accordance with applicable HHS regulations and other guidance.
( e ) *CCWIS cost allocation.* ( 1 ) A title IV-E agency may allocate CCWIS development and operational costs to title IV-E for the share of approved activities and automated functions that: ( i ) Are approved by the Department;
( ii ) Meet the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section; and
( iii ) Benefit federal, state or tribal funded participants in programs and allowable activities described in title IV-E of the Act to the title IV-E program.
( 2 ) A title IV-E agency may also allocate CCWIS development costs to title IV-E for the share of system approved activities and automated functions that meet requirements (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section and: ( i ) Benefit title IV-B programs; or
( ii ) Benefit both title IV-E and child welfare related programs.
( f ) *Non-CCWIS cost allocation.* Title IV-E costs not previously described in this section may be charged to title IV-E in accordance with § 1356.60(d) .
[81 FR 35481, June 2, 2016]
§ 2522.590 Who develops my performance measures? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 46034 , May 28, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to a correction published at 89 FR 66615 , Aug. 16, 2024.
( a ) You are responsible for developing your program-specific performance measures through your own internal process.
( b ) In addition, the Corporation may, in consultation with grantees, establish performance measures that will apply to all Corporation-sponsored programs, which you will be responsible for collecting and meeting.
[70 FR 39603, July 8, 2005]
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



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, as amended, of Medical Imaging Corp. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Mitchell Geisler, as Chief Executive Office of the Company, and Richard Jagodnik, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of each such officers knowledge:



(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 results of operations of the Company.





|    |                                          | 
|--- | ---------------------------------------- | 
|By: | /s/ Mitchell Geisler                     | 
|    | Mitchell Geisler
Chief Executive Officer | 



Date: May 26, 2015





|    |                                          | 
|--- | ---------------------------------------- | 
|By: | /s/ Richard Jagodnik                     | 
|    | Richard Jagodnik
Chief Financial Officer | 



Date: May 26, 2015





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.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 1 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 2 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 3 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 4 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 5 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 6 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 7 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 8 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 9 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 10 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 11 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 12 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 13 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 14 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 15 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 16 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 17 of 18
Case 1:10-cv-01766-RMU -BMK -RMC Document 37 Filed 08/08/11 Page 18 of 18