alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Laureen Boles [mailto:laureenboles@gmail.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:05 PM Date of the Public Hearing in Philadelphia

Testimony on Tier 3 Standards

> My name is Laureen Boles. I am a civil engineer and environmental city 

> planner and a member of the Environmental Justice Leadership Forum on Climate Change. 

The Forum is a national coalition of 35 environmental justice organizations working together to 

inform state and federal policy, as well as political and legislative action, toward the 

development of just policies and the equitable reduction of carbon emissions in all communities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Tier 3 standards for Clean Vehicles and Clean 

Fuels.

> 

> The EJLFCC supports those provisions of the Tier 3 standards that are consistent with the 

organizations mission. I caution that the credit trading provision of the standards, which are 

designed to offer flexibility during the transition to more efficient vehicles and cleaner fuels, 

seems counterintuitive to uniform national standards - and thereby uniform benefits.

> 

> I propose that the success of the Tier 2 standards is well-documented and all the transition we 

need. We casually speak of trading credits. But if we look at the transaction closely, on one-half 

of the transaction someone is holding a basket full of credits and on the other half a basket full 

of dis-benefits.

> 

> I ask that you examine the impact that credit trading has had on the success of Tier 2 

standards, because all communities deserve equal protection and their share of benefits:

> - GHG reductions

> - Fuel savings

> - Energy Security

> - Mitigation of disproportionate adverse health impacts

> - Economic growth

> - Job Creation

> 

> I applaud the work that you have done, as well as the effort that it takes to balance the 

protection of people, preservation of the planet, and promotion of economic prosperity. 

> 

> Thank you again for this opportunity.
§ 309.60 Who is responsible for administration of the Tribal IV-D program under the Tribal IV-D plan? ( a ) Under the Tribal IV-D plan, the Tribe or Tribal organization shall establish or designate an agency to administer the Tribal IV-D plan. That agency shall be referred to as the Tribal IV-D agency.
( b ) The Tribe or Tribal organization is responsible and accountable for the operation of the Tribal IV-D program. Except where otherwise provided in this part, the Tribal IV-D agency need not perform all the functions of the Tribal IV-D program, so long as the Tribe or Tribal organization ensures that all approved functions are carried out properly, efficiently and effectively.
( c ) If the Tribe or Tribal organization delegates any of the functions of the Tribal IV-D program to another Tribe, a State, and/or another agency or entity pursuant to a cooperative arrangement, contract, or Tribal resolution, the Tribe or Tribal organization is responsible for securing compliance with the requirements of the Tribal IV-D plan by such Tribe, State, agency or entity. The Tribe or Tribal organization is responsible for submitting copies and appending to the Tribal IV-D plan any agreements, contracts, or Tribal resolutions between the Tribal IV-D agency and a Tribe, State, other agency or entity.
#### § 502.9 Effect of non-compliance.

No decision, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction that affects any member of the public will be relied upon, used, or cited as precedent by the Commission against any private party unless it has been indexed and either made available or published as provided by this part, or unless that private party has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof.
#### Knickerbocker Trust Company, Respondent, *v.*Mark Packard, Appellant.

*Knickerbocker Trust Go.*v. *Packard,*123 App. Div. 912, affirmed.

(Argued December 16, 1909;

decided January 4, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 21, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court and an order-denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover upon certain alleged underwriting agreements.

*Joseph G. Dudley*for appellant.

*Julien T. Davies, Julien T.*Davies, *Jr.,*and *Harold C. McCollom*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Willard Bartlett, Hisoook and Chase, JJ. Taking no part: Yann, J.
Opinion issued June 6, 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 2 3
- 00 378
- CR

——————————— IN RE J . B . BLACK , Relat or

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDU M OPINION J.B. Black, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to rule on his motion for appointment of new counsel. 1 We deny the petition.

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. J.B. Black , cause number 1723527 , pending in the 17 7 th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Robert Johnson p residing.2 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justice s Goodman, Landau, and Rivas

- Molloy

. Do not pu blish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 47.2(b).
#### § 260.50 What is the purpose of this subpart?

Under section 402(a)(7) of the Act, under its TANF plan, a State may elect to implement a special program to serve victims of domestic violence and to waive program requirements for such individuals. This subpart explains how adoption of these provisions affects the penalty determinations applicable if a State fails to meet its work participation rate or comply with the five-year limit on Federal assistance.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70650-70651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9531]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2006-24448; Airspace Docket No. 06-AGL-02]


Establishment of Class E Airspace; Mineral Point, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the direct final rule, request for 
comment, published in the Federal Register Thursday, October 5, 2006 
(71 FR 58738). In that action, the FAA will establish Class E Airspace 
in Mineral Point, WI. The FAA has determined that withdrawal of the 
direct final rule is warranted as a result of objections raised during 
the comment period.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 18, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Davis, FAA Terminal Operations, 
Central Service Office, Airspace and Procedures Branch, AGL-530, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, 
Illinois 60018; telephone (847) 294-7131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 5, 2006, a direct final rule, 
request for comment, was published in the Federal Register to amend 
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish 
Class E Airspace in Mineral Point, WI (71 FR 58738). As a result of 
objections raised during the comment period, the direct final rule is 
being withdrawn.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

    In consideration of the foregoing, the direct final rule for 
Federal Register Docket No. FAA-2006-24448, Airspace Docket No. 06-AGL-
02, as published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2006 (71 FR 
58738), is hereby withdrawn.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.


[[Page 70651]]


    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 21, 2006.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Area.
[FR Doc. 06-9531 Filed 12-5-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
JONES DAY 

01 LOIMMliUAMNUK NJW. • WAMUNUIUM.DL& KOOI JII 19 

:+i.90M79Lan9" rm •••• n iiniiiiiminii 

OGlobtr30.2018 

Yi^'^nrTRmiTTMAnr 

Ridikla Monomb 

Audh Division 

Fedenl Election Goinniinon 

lOSOnntStraetiNB 

WashiiiBlDn. DC 20463 

Ra: MnwfcnBlnckbMliwCongwiiilnfcltospeistDFhidinp 

RsAnaeed in Dnft Final Audit Report of2015-2016 Andit 

Dear Ms. MbioondK 

Mmfaa BlarJrtwim fin- Congren, inc. Ccaimittoe*^ submits tfaii reqioiise tfae Federal 

EtectionCoimnisBinn'sDMft Final Audit Report C^DiaftRBpofOconcenung the ComntiOpe's 

activities during the 2015-3016 election cyclft 

The Diaft Repcrt identifies only one previously unresolved item. relatiDg to certain 

misstatements of receipts and dirimnements on flie Committee's 2015-2016 cyeie disclosuie 

iqiorts. Hie Committee consulted witfa mendien of the FEC's Audit and Reports Analysis 

rumwHtteii hmm wAfum filiiH iMBdad dtaclrMm ftnwwftthig ihm mt—••hiwmiif hi finneial 

activity based on diose ccnsuitations. 

The Cnminitteeigpreciates your attention to tins leipcnsBb and we tnist it will resolve this 

matter. The Committee tfart "waives its right to a hearing regarding the Draft Rqxat 

Respectfiilly submitted. 

E. Stewart Crosland 

Cc: Ihcmaa Hinlennister» Assistant Staff Director, Audit Division 

Rosa Ciussiahi Lead Auditor
**Exhibit 35.1**




**SERVICER
      COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**





Litton
      Loan Servicing




4828
      Loop
      Central Drive




Houston
      TX 77081




Telephone
      713-966-8966




Fax
      713-218-4595




www.littonloan.com




SERVICER
      COMPLIANCE STATEMENT




GE-WMC
      Mortgage Securities, LLC Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates




Series
      2006-1






The
      undersigned officer of Litton Loan Servicing LP provides the Annual Statement
      as
      to Compliance as required by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above
      referenced security and certifies that (i) a review of the activities of the
      Servicer during such preceding calendar year (or such shorter period in the
      case
      of the first such report) and of performance under this Agreement has been
      made
      under my supervision, and (ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such
      review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement
      in
      all material respects for 2006, except as disclosed below:




Reconciliations
      for Asset-Backed Securities Related Bank Account — 1122 (d) (2) (vii)
      (D)




Our
      investor bank account reconciliations included certain reconciling items that
      were not resolved within 90 calendar days of their original identification
      on
      eleven of sixty-three investor bank account reconciliations selected for
      testing. The sum of the reconciling items for those eleven reconciliations
      was
      $216,950.




Adjustments
      to Interest Rates for Pool Assets With Variable Rates — 1122(d) (4)
      (ix)




Our
      testing of sixty-five adjustable rate mortgages revealed two instances where
      certain adjustable rate mortgages for which the interest rate reset in the
      servicing system did not agree to interest rates in the appropriate source
      index
      per the borrower’s note documents. These were the result of incorrect
      information transferring from the prior servicer. Additionally, the same
      sixty-five mortgages selected for testing included one instance where the
      adjustable rate mortgage payment change date in the servicing system did not
      agree to the loan documents.







Date: February 27, 2007
            /s/ Elizabeth Folk
              Senior
                  Vice President and
                
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
                
                Litton
                  Loan Servicing LP
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: No. 08-19-00045-CR

§

EDUARDO SANCHEZ,

RELATOR.

§

§

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against 

the Honorable Selena Solis, Judge of the 243rd District Court of El Paso, Texas and concludes that 

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the petition for writ 

of mandamus, in accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
§ 400.72 Arrangements for employability services. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply equally to States that operate a public/private RCA program and to States that operate a publicly-administered RCA program. Paragraph (c) applies only to publicly-administered RCA programs. ( a ) The State agency must make such arrangements as are necessary to enable refugees to meet the requirements of, and receive the employability services specified in, this subpart.
( b ) If a State agency makes such arrangements with another agency or agencies, it must retain responsibility for meeting the requirements in this subpart.
( c ) In order for an agency to qualify to receive referrals from the State agency of refugees required to register for employability services, such agency must agree to advise the State agency whenever such a refugee fails or refuses to participate in the required services or to accept an offer of employment.
[54 FR 5477, Feb. 3, 1989, as amended at 65 FR 15448, Mar. 22, 2000]
Exhibit 32.2


                             CERTIFICATE 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 Current Report of Mobile Reach International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 8K/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles Joyce, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 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 result of operations of the
Company.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.


                                            /s/  Charles Joyce
                                            ---------------------------------
                                                 Charles Joyce
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 March 15th, 2004
Editorial Note on Part 46
Editorial Note: The Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice of waiver regarding the requirements set forth in part 46, relating to protection of human subjects, as they pertain to demonstration projects, approved under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, which test the use of cost—sharing, such as deductibles, copayment and coinsurance, in the Medicaid program. For further information see 47 FR 9208, Mar. 4, 1982.

§ 46.202 Definitions. The definitions in § 46.102 shall be applicable to this subpart as well. In addition, as used in this subpart: ( a ) Dead fetus means a fetus that exhibits neither heartbeat, spontaneous respiratory activity, spontaneous movement of voluntary muscles, nor pulsation of the umbilical cord.
( b ) Delivery means complete separation of the fetus from the woman by expulsion or extraction or any other means.
( c ) Fetus means the product of conception from implantation until delivery.
( d ) Neonate means a newborn.
( e ) Nonviable neonate means a neonate after delivery that, although living, is not viable.
( f ) Pregnancy encompasses the period of time from implantation until delivery. A woman shall be assumed to be pregnant if she exhibits any of the pertinent presumptive signs of pregnancy, such as missed menses, until the results of a pregnancy test are negative or until delivery.
( g ) Secretary means the Secretary of Health and Human Services and any other officer or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services to whom authority has been delegated.
( h ) Viable, as it pertains to the neonate, means being able, after delivery, to survive (given the benefit of available medical therapy) to the point of independently maintaining heartbeat and respiration. The Secretary may from time to time, taking into account medical advances, publish in the Federal Register guidelines to assist in determining whether a neonate is viable for purposes of this subpart. If a neonate is viable then it may be included in research only to the extent permitted and in accordance with the requirements of subparts A and D of this part.
§ 400.152 Limitations on eligibility for services. ( a ) A State may provide the social services defined in § 400.154 to refugees who are 16 years of age or older and who are not full-time students in elementary or secondary school, except that such a student may be provided services under § 400.154 (a) and (b) in order to obtain part-time or temporary (e.g., summer) employment while a student or full-time permanent employment upon completion of schooling.
( b ) A State may not provide services under this subpart, except for citizenship and naturalization preparation services and referral and interpreter services, to refugees who have been in the United States for more than 60 months.
[54 FR 5481, Feb. 3, 1989, as amended at 60 FR 33603, June 28, 1995; 65 FR 15449, Mar. 22, 2000]
#### § 614.8 Application to Board Executive Committee.

All the provisions of this part applicable to the National Science Board shall apply equally to the Executive Committee of the Board whenever the Executive Committee is meeting pursuant to its authority to act on behalf of the Board.
§ 2556.610 What is the application process to apply to become a leader? ( a ) *Application package.* An eligible individual must apply in writing to AmeriCorps to become a leader. The sponsor's recommendation must be included with the individual's application to become a leader.
( b ) *Sponsor recommendation.* A sponsor with which an individual is seeking to serve as a leader must recommend the individual to become a leader, in writing, to AmeriCorps.
( c ) *Selection.* AmeriCorps has sole authority to select a leader. The criteria considered for selection include the individual's experience, special skills, and leadership, as demonstrated in the application and the sponsor's recommendation.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

IntheMatterof ) 

) All-12 

Audit Division Recommendation ) Agenda Document No. 14-5 

Memorandum on the Vermont ) 

Democratic Party (VDP) ) 

CERTMCATION 

I, Shelley E. Garr, recording secretary of the Federal Election Commission open meeting on 

January 16,2014 do hereby certify that the Commission took the following actions in the abovecaptioned matter: 

1. Failedby a vote of 3-3 to: 

Find that the VDP failed to maintain logs to document the time 

employees spent on federal election activity totaling $203,472, 

subject to an amendment to include the $630 paid to contract workers. 

Commissioners Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voted affirmatively for the motion. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, and Petersen dissented. 

2. Decided by a vote of 6-0 to: 

Find that the VDP feiled to maintain logs to document the tune 

employees spent on federal election activity totaling $203,472. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub voted 

aftirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

0ate^ Shelle Sheley E..tor 

Deputy Secretary of fhe Commission
Exhibit 99.7

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANESOXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009
(the Report) of North American Energy Partners Inc. (the Company), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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.



Date: June 9, 2009



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|/s/ Rodney J. Ruston                                               
|Name: Rodney J. Ruston Title: President and Chief
Executive Officer
#### Mary J. Doyle, as Administratrix of George Doyle Deceased, Respondent, *v.*Northern Central Railway Company, Appellant.

*Doyle*v. *Northern Central Railway Co.,*122 App Div. 896, affirmed.

(Argued December 3, 1908;

decided January 5, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 6, 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 for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence.

*Alexander S. Diven*for appellant.

*C. D. Kiehel*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
#### Julia M. Booth, as Administratrix of the Estate of Arthur C. Booth, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*William A. Milliken, Respondent.

*Booth,*v. Milliken, 137 App. Div. 533, affirmed.

(Argued January 11, 1909;

decided January 26, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 28, 1908, upon an order which reversed a judgment in favor of plaintiff’s intestate, entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial and directed a dismissal of the complaint in an action to recover for an alleged breach of contract to purchase certain lands.

*R. Burnham Moffat*for appellant.

*James W. Osborne*and *Gilbert H. Montague*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon the ground that whether the statute of Tennessee, where the land is situated, or the statute of Hew York, where the contract was made and where the action is brought, be applicable to the case, no action is maintainable for the reason that the contract is fatally defective in failing to designate the land agreed to be sold; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Werner and Hiscock, JJ.