alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Whalen, Marilyn

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 10:38 AM

To: Richard Takaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov); roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov

Cc: stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov; Christiansen, Steven H CIV NAVFAC HI, PRP41; Linder, 

Steven; Pallarino, Bob; Lovgren, Andrew C LCDR, NAVSUP FLCPH C700; Kishaba, Raelynn 

I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Mizuno, Arleen M CIV 

NAVFAC HI, PRJ412; Tsutsui, Bruce O CIV NAVFAC HI, OPHE3

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - March 31, 2015

Signed By: aaron.poentis@navy.mil

Importance: High

Hi Richard/Roxanne:

I apologize this is late, I was tied up all week.  Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from

Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic Center Pearl Harbor for the week of March 31, 2015.  In a process to ease

reading, only sections with changes will be annotated.

1. Preliminary Work Plan  

Action complete.

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable)

a. Action 1 ‐ Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation

of release point(s) within Tank 5.

Action complete.

b. Action 2  ‐ The rate of vertical migration for the released JP‐8 free product is unknown.  Information from the

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration.  This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination.  Prepare models for petroleum JP‐8 releases of 10,000,

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5.   

No change.   

c. Action 3 ‐ Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of

the released JP‐8 free product.  Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased

monitoring are required to address this plume.   

No change.  

d. Action 4 ‐ Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future

releases from the USTs within the Complex.  This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete.  

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical.   

d.(1)  Groundwater Monitoring Wells

The Draft Monitoring Well Installation Report for RHMW06 and RHMW07 was submitted on March 26, 2015 to the DOH

and EPA for review and comment.
2

d.(2)  Site Characterization  

No change.   

d.(3)  AOC/SOW  

Discussions are ongoing.

d.(4)  Request for Additional Information  

No change.

d.(5)  BWS/USGS Groundwater Flow Study

No change.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

v/r,

Aaron
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JARDONALD DANTE MOSELY,

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5198M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 November 4, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-mj-05198-KLS Document 7 Filed 11/04/05 Page 1 of 1
| Skip to Content*Release Date: June 7, 2012*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.1 Credit Market Debt Outstanding** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 35.3

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR**

 

In compliance with Section 3(a) of the Administration Agreement (the “Agreement”) among Nelnet Student Loan Trust 2008-4, as Issuer, M&T Trust Company of Delaware, as Delaware Trustee, Zions First National Bank, as Indenture Trustee, and National Education Loan Network, Inc., as Administrator, dated as of May 1, 2008, I, Terry J. Heimes, certify that:

 

|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Administrator and of its performance under the Agreement during the period from May 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 has been made under my supervision; and |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge of such review, the Administrator has fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under the Agreement during such period. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

March 31, 2009

 

 

| By: | /s/ TERRY J. HEIMES______________ |
|-----|-----------------------------------|

|   | Terry J. Heimes, CFO, Treasurer |
|--------|---------------------------------|

|   | National Education Loan Network, Inc. |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTINA FRIEDLANDER, 

 

 Respondent.

Case No. C05-5714 RBL

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT

TO RESPOND TO

ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMONS

ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

 THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Petition of the Internal Revenue Service for an order

enforcing an Internal Revenue Service administrative summons served on respondent July 7, 2005. The court

has considered all materials submitted in support of and in response to said petition, as well as the files and

records herein, including but not limited to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge

J. Kelley Arnold.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding.

2. Respondent be, and she is hereby ordered to fully obey the administrative summons served

on respondent July 7, 2005, by attending, testifying, and producing all documentation required by the

terms of the summons before Internal Revenue Service Agent Paul Shipley, or any other proper officer

or employee of the Internal Revenue Service, at such time and place as may be set by Revenue Agent

Shipley or any other proper officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service.

3. Failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in a finding of civil contempt

punishable by fine or imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401.

January 28th

A

, 2006

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05714-RBL Document 24 Filed 01/28/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO PROCEED

)

DAVID HACKETT; and DAROLD )

WEEKS, )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 5, 2005, the United States

District Court judges who sit in Tacoma entered an order dismissing a number of plaintiff’s

causes of action and barring future litigation unless plaintiff provides a signed affidavit, along

with the proposed complaint, “verifying under penalty of perjury that none of the issues raised in

the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by the plaintiff.” On August 31, 2006, the

Clerk of Court received a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, a consent for payment of costs, a

complaint, and a declaration signed by plaintiff. See Dkt. #90 and #91. These are now before

the undersigned for review pursuant to the terms of the bar order. 

Although no relief is requested in the proposed complaint, plaintiff asserts a § 1983 claim

against defendant Darold Weeks and defendant David Hackett. Plaintiff alleges Mr. Weeks and

Mr. Hackett searched and seized plaintiff’s computer in July of 2006. See Dkt. #90 (Proposed

Complaint) at 2.

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 100 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER -2-

Pursuant to the terms of the “Order Adopting Report and Recommendation,” dated April

5, 2005, plaintiff has submitted a signed declaration verifying that none of the issues raised in

the proposed complaint have been litigated in the past by the plaintiff. See Dkt. #91

(Declaration).

The undersigned finds that the issues raised in the above-captioned matter have not been

previously litigated by plaintiff and may proceed subject to the other requirements imposed by

the “Order Adopting Report and Recommendation,” dated April 5, 2005. The Clerk of Court

shall docket this order in MC05-5029 and open a new cause of action containing all documents

related to plaintiff’s August 31, 2006, submission (Dkt. #90 and #91).

DATED this 23rd day of October, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-MJP Document 100 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2
From: etpaw@cox.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:57:03 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Evelyn Tanton

Macon, GA 31206
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 20, 2012*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.10 Assets and Liabilities of the Personal Sector 1** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
From: schaeferony@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:15:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Schaefer

Kingston, TN 37763
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-153805) pertaining to the Home Bank Profit Sharing 401(k) Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-160155) pertaining to the Home Bancorp, Inc. 2009 Stock Option Planof our report dated March 27, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Home Bancorp, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

 

New Orleans, Louisiana

March 15, 2011
**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Sunrise Energy
      Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Konstantin Tsirulnikov, President and Chief Executive 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, 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.




Date:
      May
      12, 2006




By:/s/
                Konstantin TsirulnikovKonstantin
                TsirulnikovChief
                Executive Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

CHRISTOPHER L. MANES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C05-5653KLS

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #1) is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not

appear to have funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel of record and to issue the Summonses.

DATED this 26th day of October, 2005.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05653-RJB Document 2 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 68431.

protest 63/17506-16888 (New Orleans).

#### Milton G. West and Kem-Tech Laboratories, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing that the protest was not filed within 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sunrise Energy
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, John Shearer, Chief Executive 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, 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.




Date:
August 17, 2010




By:
              /s/
      John ShearerJohn
      ShearerChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
In the 

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00061-CR

CEDRIC DAMAR FORD, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 202nd District Court 

Bowie County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 19F1203-202 

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Cedric Damar Ford has filed an untimely notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment 

revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment for 

tampering with or fabricating physical evidence.1

 We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The judgment of conviction in this matter indicates that Ford’s sentence was imposed on 

March 7, 2024, and Ford did not file a motion for new trial, making his notice of appeal due on 

or before April 8, 2024. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Ford’s notice of appeal was filed on 

April 9, 2024, one day beyond the April 8 deadline. Consequently, Ford’s attempt to appeal his 

conviction in this matter was untimely.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has expressly held that, without a timely filed 

notice of appeal, we cannot exercise jurisdiction over an appeal. See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 

519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 n.3 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1998) (per curiam).

We notified Ford by letter that his notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the 

appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction. We gave Ford ten days to respond to 

our letter and to demonstrate how we had jurisdiction over the appeal notwithstanding the noted 

defect. While Ford responded, through counsel, he did not provide a sufficient basis for 

retaining this matter on our docket.

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 37.09 (Supp.). 
3

Because Ford has not timely perfected his appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.2

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: May 20, 2024

Date Decided: May 21, 2024

Do Not Publish

2

Based on our disposition of this appeal, we deny Ford’s pending motion to abate the appeal to allow him time to 

seek leave from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to file an out-of-time appeal. As the Court of Criminal 

Appeals stated in Olivo, “When a notice of appeal, but no motion for extension of time, is filed within the fifteenday period, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by 

dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction.” Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523. Our disposition will not foreclose Ford’s ability to 

seek leave to file an out-of-time appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals.