alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Jifrt. iiii,i'rii' 10 &u$ -? PÞl

i.1ìL

### STEVEN A. THOMPSON Executive Dirclor 

## Ol(LAl.|OMA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

QIJALIIY ?:?l

BRAD HENRY Governor

July29,2010 Mr. Tom Diggs AssociateDirector, Air Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. EPA, Region 6 1445RossAve. Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Dear Mr. Diggs: 'We are writing to clari$r our interpretation of EPA's interim guidance on use of PM16as a surrogate for PMz s. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) commits to implement PM2 5 standards consistent with Federalcaselaw, and EPA Administrator petition decisions,relevant to the use of the PMls SurrogatePolicy (e.g., 75 FR 6827, 683 L-32; Feb. 1l, 2010 andEPA's response to Petition IV- 2008-3, August 12,2009). Therefore, ODEQ will not proceed on the general presumption that PMro is always a reasonable surrogate for PM2 5. Any permit application in which the applicant is seeking to rely on the Surrogate Policy, ODEQ will include in the permit record an adequate rationale or demonstration to support the use of PM16as a surrogate based on the facts and circumstances of the specific permit. In addition, the record will include an explanation of how the impacts from the proposed source construction/modification on the PM zs levelswere determined. Further, ODEQ will be mindful of the limits provided in the policy itself, such asthe need to identifu the technical diffrculties that justif,i the application of the policy in each specific case(75 FR 6834). If you haveany questions, pleasefeel freeto contactme at (405) 702-4154.



### Eddie Terrill Division Director Air Quality

Division

cc: Dawson

Lasseter,

Engineering

Manager ET:aw

707 NORIH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX Ió7l,OKI-AHOMA

CITY, OI(I.AHOMA 73101-1677 pr¡nted on recycledpaperwith soy ink Èt 

# n^ OKLAHOMA DEPAR'IMEN'I

OF ENVIRONMENTAL

OUATITY
----

            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE         

No 99/2005

of 8 July 2005         

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in point 14 (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement:

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EC) No 75/2005 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 9 July 2005, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 8 July 2005.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

HSH Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN            

----

(1)OJ L 239, 15.9.2005, p. 40.

(2)OJ L 15, 19.1.2005, p. 3.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

----
No. 59338.

petition 7155-R (Pittsburgh).

#### West End Auto Wrecking Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The merchandise was invoiced at $12.50 each, United States currency; entered at the same price, plus 8 percent sales tax, packed; and appraised at $38.65 each, Canadian currency, less 30 percent, packed. In an *268appeal for reappraisement, the court held that the presumption of correctness attaching to the appraiser’s finding of value had not been overcome and, accordingly, found the value of the merchandise to be that reported by the appraiser. *(West End Auto Wrecking Co., Inc.*v. *United States,*26 Cust. Ct. 485, Reap. Dec. 7928, affirmed in *Same*v. *Same,*31 Cust. Ct. 465, A. R. D. 31.) From the testimony, it appeared that the petitioner had not previously imported automobile grilles; that it made inquiry of the exporter as to the value of the merchandise and furnished the appraiser with all information in its possession, prior to entry; that entry of the merchandise was made at the price stated by the exporter to be the “jobber’s” price; and that the petitioner honestly believed such price represented the proper market value for the goods. On the record presented, the court held that there was no intention to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to defraud the revenue of the United States or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was, therefore, granted.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 298

Congratulating the people and Government of Sri Lanka on the success

of the recent Presidential election despite terrorist attacks, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 5, 2000

Mrs. MORELLA (for herself, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. LUTHER, Mr.

FALEOMAVAEGA, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. TOWNS, and

Mr. WEXLER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Congratulating the people and Government of Sri Lanka

on the success of the recent Presidential election despite

terrorist attacks, and for other purposes.

Whereas on December 21, 1999, Sri Lanka held its Presidential elections, pursuant to which the incumbent President, Mrs. Chandrika Kumaratunga, was re-elected to a

second 6-year term with 51.12 percent of the vote;

Whereas the final days of the campaign were marred by a

terrorist attack in which President Kumaratunga was injured, and a total of 22 people were killed and more than

100 others injured in that attack and in another terrorist

incident;
2

•HCON 298 IH

Whereas these attacks have been attributed to the Liberation

Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), an organization that has

been waging a violent campaign against the Sri Lanka

Government for more than 25 years;

Whereas the LTTE has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States State Department;

Whereas despite this shadow of violence, 8,600,000 of Sri

Lanka’s 11,800,000 registered voters cast ballots, for an

impressive voter turnout of 73 percent, demonstrating

the strong commitment of the Sri Lankan people to democracy and their refusal to be intimidated by terrorism;

Whereas international observers, invited by the Sri Lankan

Government, monitored the election; and

Whereas Mrs. Kumaratunga, in her address to the nation,

pledged to combat terrorism, urged her compatriots to

join her in establishing peace, and asked her main rival

in the Presidential race to join her in building a consensus to achieve these goals: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress—

3 (1) congratulates the people and Government of

4 Sri Lanka for conducting the recent democratic elec5 tion, despite terrorist attacks on the President and

6 others;

7 (2) condemns all acts of terrorism; and
3

•HCON 298 IH

1 (3) urges all parties to the internal conflict in

2 Sri Lanka to resolve the conflict on the basis of

3 democratic principles, good will, and nonviolence.

Æ
No. 56841.

#### Caswell Strauss & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 170990-K (New York).

Opinion by

Laweence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of lead scrap of which metal is the component material of chief value and that it is secondhand and fit only to be remanufactured. Upon the agreed statement of facts, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
No. 62887.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/16159 (San Francisco).

*330Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

At the trial, it was established that the merchandise is properly dutiable, as claimed. The protest was sustained accordingly.
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 10(c)

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


Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. section
1350), the undersigned officers of Mairs and Power Balanced Fund, Inc. (the
"Fund") do hereby certify, to the best of each such officer's knowledge, that:

1.   The N-CSR of Mairs and Power Balanced Fund, Inc. (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 the operations of the
     Fund.


/s/ William B. Frels
---------------------------------------
William B. Frels
President

Date: September  5, 2003


/s/ Lisa J. Hartzell
---------------------------------------
Lisa J. Hartzell
Treasurer

Date: September  5, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 260

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration require ample public comment and a sound scientific

basis for its recently proposed regulation on ergonomics.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 2000

Mr. BONILLA (for himself, Mr. DELAY, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. MILLER of Florida,

Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. WICKER, Mr. ISTOOK, Mrs.

NORTHUP, Mr. DICKEY, Mr. GOSS, Mr. PEASE, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr.

WALDEN of Oregon, Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska, Mr. SMITH of Texas,

Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. GIBBONS, Mr. BUYER,

Mr. GANSKE, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. BARR of

Georgia, Mr. COMBEST, and Mrs. MYRICK) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education

and the Workforce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration require ample public comment and a sound scientific basis for its recently proposed regulation on ergonomics.

Whereas Department of Labor rulemakings are a public process where public input plays a vital role;

Whereas adequate time must be provided for concerned parties to thoroughly review the proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations;
2

•HCON 260 IH

Whereas 100 days is a short period for review of the proposed ergonomics regulation which, together with its

comments, totals more than 1,200 pages;

Whereas the proposed regulation on ergonomics will initially

affect over 27,000,000 American workers;

Whereas Congress supports proposals based on sound science

that protect American workers and jobs; and

Whereas small business is the driving force behind American

job creation and economic growth: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

4 It is the sense of Congress that—

5 (1) Congress should support Federal regula6 tions which are based solely on sound science and

7 fact;

8 (2) public comments should play a vital role in

9 shaping the Occupational Safety and Health Admin10 istration’s proposed regulation on ergonomics; and

11 (3) adequate time must be provided for the

12 public to thoroughly review a regulation of the mag13 nitude and length of such proposed regulation on

14 ergonomics.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40192

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERNESTO CARRANZA-MUNOZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-1905-ALL

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

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ernesto Carranza-Munoz (Carranza) pleaded guilty to being

found in the United States unlawfully after deportation. See 8

U.S.C. § 1326. He was sentenced to 72 months of imprisonment and

a three-year term of supervised release. 

Carranza argues that the district court erred in treating

his Texas burglary conviction as a “crime of violence” under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Because burglary of a habitation

is the equivalent of “burglary of a dwelling” and is therefore an
No. 05-40192

-2-

enumerated offense, Carranza’s argument is without merit. See

United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456 (5th Cir.

2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1398 (2006); U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2,

comment. n.1(B)(iii). 

Carranza argues for the first time on appeal that the

district court erred when it imposed a condition of supervised

release that requires him to cooperate in the collection of his

DNA. Carranza’s claim is not ripe for review. See United States

v. Riascos-Cuenu, 428 F.3d 1100, 1101-02 (5th Cir. 2005),

petition for cert. filed (Jan. 9, 2006) (No. 05-8662). 

Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review this claim,

and this portion of the appeal is dismissed.

Carranza challenges the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b). Carranza’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although Carranza contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the

basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States

v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126

S. Ct. 298 (2005). Carranza concedes that his argument is

foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent,

but he raises it here solely to preserve it for further review.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code**I, Milton G. Silva-Craig, the Chief Executive Officer of Technology Solutions Company, certifythat: (i) The Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii) The information contained in the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof Technology Solutions Company.        Date: November 14, 2007 By:  /s/ MILTON G. SILVA-CRAIG    Milton G. Silva-Craig.    Chief Executive Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act hasbeen provided to Technology Solutions Company and will be retained by Technology Solutions Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30144

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JAMES ASHFORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CR-189-N)

December 18, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant James Ashford (“Ashford”) pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to commit armed robbery of a mail carrier and to armed

robbery of a mail carrier. In the plea agreement, Ashford waived

his right to appeal his sentence or to seek post-conviction relief

challenging his sentence unless the punishment imposed was in
excess of the statutory maximum or it was a departure above the

guideline range. Ashford was sentenced to concurrent terms of

imprisonment of 90 months on each count to be followed by a fiveyear term of supervised release.

Ashford argues that the 90-month sentence imposed for the

conspiracy offense exceeded the statutory maximum term of

imprisonment of 60 months and the sentence should be vacated and

the conspiracy count remanded for resentencing. The government

concedes that the sentence imposed for the conspiracy count

exceeded the five-year maximum statutory penalty and should be

vacated and remanded for resentencing.

We agree. A district court may not impose a sentence that

exceeds the maximum sentence specified in the statute under which

a defendant is convicted. United States v. Carrion-Caliz, 944 F.2d

220, 227 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 965 (1992); see

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a)(if the guideline range exceeds the statutory

maximum, the latter shall be the guideline sentence). The maximum

statutory penalty for conspiracy to commit armed robbery under 18

U.S.C. § 371 is a fine or imprisonment of “not more than five

years, or both.” The 90-month sentence imposed by the district

court for the conspiracy offense exceeded the statutory maximum,

and, thus, under the terms of the plea agreement, Ashford did not

waive his right to appeal that portion of his sentence.

Although Ashford’s concurrent 90-month sentence for the armed

robbery offense appears to be valid, see 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a),
Ashford’s sentence for the conspiracy count must be vacated and the

case remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Lewis, 92

F.3d 1371, 1379 (5th Cir. 1996).

VACATE sentence in part; REMAND for resentencing.
Exhibit 32






Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Jaguar Mining Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Daniel R. Titcomb, as Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and James Roller, as Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his 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/ Daniel R. Titcomb





Name:
Daniel R. Titcomb


Title:
Chief Executive Officer


Date:
March 24, 2010




/s/ James Roller





Name:
James Roller


Title:
Chief Financial Officer


Date:
March 24, 2010





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 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 Registrant for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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

1

 Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address dated May 10, 2006, in which he requested a fortyfive day stay of all of his cases because he had been moved to the King County Jail and apparently lacked

the resources necessary to pursue this litigation. The undersigned has therefore postponed

consideration of the matters pending in MC05-5029.

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_________________________________ )

RICHARD ROY SCOTT, ) No. MC05-5029

)

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER PERMITTING CASE TO PROCEED

)

SPECIAL COMMITMENT CENTER, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________ )

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

April 25, 2006, the Clerk of Court received a proposed complaint, a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, a written consent for payment of costs, a praecipe for service, and a declaration signed

by Mr. Scott. Dkt. # 61 and 62. As directed in the bar order, the Clerk forwarded the

documents to the undersigned for review.1

Case 3:05-mc-05029-RSL Document 70 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 1 of 2

Case 3:06-cv-05359-RBL Document 3 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 1 of 2

Scott v. Special Commitment Center Doc. 3

Dockets.Justia.com
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-

Plaintiff’s proposed complaint alleges deprivations of liberty and property without

due process of law arising out of the “Treatment Plan Addi_____” (illegible) and “Behavior

Management Report” systems used at the Special Commitment Center. In particular, plaintiff

seeks a declaration that defendant’s disciplinary policies, which allow the deprivation of liberty

and/or property without hearing, without appeal, and without the detainee’s effective

participation, violate the Due Process Clause. 

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit asserting that none of the claims for declaratory

relief asserted in the proposed complaint have been litigated before. The undersigned finds that

the issues raised in the April 25, 2006, proposed complaint (Dkt. # 61) have not been finally

resolved 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

April 25, 2006, submission. 

DATED this 26th day of June, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik,

Chief Judge, United States District Court 

Case 3:05-mc-05029-RSL Document 70 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 2 of 2

Case 3:06-cv-05359-RBL Document 3 Filed 06/26/2006 Page 2 of 2