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

"#!$ !



!!%&'(
)!!)!
!!


&
#! $%&') !*++!*,&!'$ 
!%&'
 
!-)#!$

)
!

. 
)!!) %

&' ) /
   0  $
1!

1!

	

0,2	!0	0345++
6%&' !     !  1! )    
     
 "
1!   *        %&'!
!!!!1!7 
 
  8     
 
 !)

2)*22&9%/!!


!






7KH +RQRUDEOH 'RQDOG 3 /D\ &LU

&RXUW RI $SSHDOV IRU WKH (LJKWK &LUFXLW 



5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//

3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUF

(/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )

)LOH 1DPH D

	


2:9"7.$&;"7

<<<<<<<<<<<<

#1,7(' $7$7(6 2) *0(5,&$

	



=8/,2 5(6$5 %85,//2

&1,*8(=

		

*#!$

?


,4@=15

*!A=

?
!!!2!A2

BA%*9"&55


D*E5
=
0 	

 	


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<




	.% 25
F *? !:B*$$&$"*"#&".?$"*".$*"":9.E "! :  *   


. % 2 5
 F  *? ! : B *$$&$"*" #&".? $"*".$*"":9.E"!:*







B:E5.2%*9"&=55
=!=5

%&'
 #! $     #$5 G	04 36  7  !
 
 !  8
 !  !)! !C!)
)
 
!!!$5(!



	#$
44 306C!

!!
C!!
!!!!#!$$
 1!    
 )  )
!*%&'!!
2))*22&9%
!



:$40%&')
!!

#$5G	04))#!$)     * 1  :?
,%&'!
    !!   & !'$ 
$++:*40  ) 
!  B
 %&' )
 
!  ++,   0 #$5 G +03636

!

!)/


"++,
!

	
 	!! H
  )!!

" !)!


1!$
!    $
  0-
  8     
)

G 0D0 #D*-2#DDE9.%*&&1&"7.#&".?36B:D A36$

:5
36*1A&!! )!#!$3*6
 
  )
  
C36
 
C3 6
!C3 63 6   
4 C3B6
 
!)
  
 ! )
0 C356
 
  C3?6  
 
    C3.6
 

 
!
 

%&'
 )
!7!)
4 	

 	


2	! 	0+ 		0 3 5 06C  	
 		 !!	

,
0-D	4,,03
5?

06

%&' )  )!  

!  


 !)!
!!!)

  " #! $ 

  %&'  
!   ) 
 ( 
!&!:

 



 !  
!  8  !/! !!!	#$
+#)%&' !!!
 
 !   8  " 8 #$5G	04)%&' 
 !  
    *
!!!)
! 
    !  !  ) ! 	
"	!	 002	!	
	34506

#!8

!
 ! $
1! $ !8
!8)!
!	


	
$	0
42	!0	345063 !!6

%&'I)


2
)8
!!


++,
 
!


!)-%&')
!!
 
   !      
  "
!! 8!

 " $
1! G 
*0  36 $
  &?!A36"H
(


!8
!  306 &    
   )

	
 	 !   %

'    
!
/
 8


B
%&'(++,

 ! 

! )  %&' )/7)

"
!!

 )   
 $% 0+ 2	! 
+  34
J
1! 
!  )

%&'


I  !   ) 
!   ! 
 
 !0D036363*6  $
 	043L
M   M)  ) 
 !
"LM!"

1!$
0D036363*8  
      )    !* 1! 
  G 363
	6 #$$1 G 0D0 !  $
  
!
#$5G%&'( ++, 
 
!5!$!
)

 	

 	


    6   K   !

%&' 
!



 !8
!
- )
!  )!)!

))!
!8
!  !
  I  ! /!*#!$%&'/
!   

'      !
7
!
!!!!

)  ! 
I   " N :
!!/

) !

 )
)8%&')"/
!)!
!


 !

%&')!/



"
!K!#!$! O,)

"#!$*)
)!%&'! 
 ) 2 #! $!%&' !!)! 
I!)"
!%&'!
!)
!!

)!!

 !
B!
!
!

!! !

!!

!!
I!%&'(++,
 
 
!   !   



%&' 8   K  ) 


 
 !)

	
 	K ) )!  &	'
	" 5 !  $
 	  )
  '

! 	
"	506)!"5


! 
 )
  !! ) 
K!

!!!

"!%

 8
  !  ( !LM
 
  
 
!
!/! !!
+  -   ! *  
 ! !  &	'
 )"	0	

*) !

)
/)K   

   -  ) !!(  
 
 ))    $
 G+0
3
6)#$5G"!

!
     
   
 (&
)	0,2	!4++,	

!
 0,2	
	 	506C	
	&443,506C
No. 52845.

#### Oscar Leistner, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 68955-K, etc. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 58388.

protest 184122-K (San Francisco).

#### Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of toy pianos similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Langfelder, Homma & Carroll, Inc.*v. *United States*(32 Cust. Ct. 281, C. D. 1614), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

May 15, 1963

No. 67723.

#### J. E. Bernard & Company, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 266293-K/7315, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of talyrond apparatus and equipment similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64440, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
October 15, 1952

No. 56908.

Suit 4693.

#### United States *v.*C. J. Tower & Sons.

C. D. 1337 affirmed May 28, 1952. C. A. D. 491.
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 of Dragon International Group
Corp. on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David Wu, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. The Report 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.


November 20, 2007


                                        By: /s/ David Wu
                                        ----------------
                                        David Wu, CEO
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7580

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

.

v. MARK EDWARD COULTER, Defendant

- Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. James K. Bredar , Chief District Judge. ( 1:12

- cr - 00603

- JKB

- 1; 1:17

- cv - 01672

- JKB )

Submitted : May 24, 2018 Decided: May 29, 2018 Amended: May 29, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Mark Edward Coulter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mark Edward Coulter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or w rong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable , and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coulter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificat e of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
No. 67712.

#### Ferri Bros., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 61/13006 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rosary bracelets the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 66761, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

d0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

139151

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139151 COA: 292285 Berrien CC: 2005-403828-FH MICHAEL MILO ENDERS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 15, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
No. 63992.

protests 59/25996, etc. (New York).

#### Lacy Falk *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 14, 2009

Decided October 28, 2009

Before

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 08

‐ 3207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

v.

JOAQUIN J. TANKEY,

Defendant

‐ Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Western Division.

No. 3:06

‐ cr

‐ 50074

‐ 1

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Joaquin Tankey pleaded guilty to conspiring to acquire and distribute cocaine, and

to carrying a gun during that crime. He was sentenced to a total term of 216 months (156 +

60) on the two counts. Tankey has appealed despite the fact that he waived his right to do

so in a written plea agreement. His appointed counsel now seeks to withdraw under Anders

v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Tankey opposes counsel’s motion. See C IR

. R. 51(b).

Counsel says Tankey wants his guilty pleas vacated, but the record is unclear on this

point. At any rate, because Tankey did not move to withdraw his pleas in district court, our

review of the plea colloquy would be limited to plain error. United States v. Griffin

, 521 F.3d

727, 730 (7th Cir. 2008). 

### NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 08

‐ 3207 Page 2

We agree with counsel that any argument challenging the adequacy of the plea

colloquy or the voluntariness of Tankey’s guilty pleas would be frivolous. Counsel asserts,

and we agree, that the district court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11(b) before accepting Tankey’s guilty pleas. It is true, as counsel points out, that

the district court did not advise Tankey of the court’s authority to order restitution, or that

Tankey could compel the attendance of witnesses at trial. But mentioning restitution was

unnecessary because none was, or could be, imposed. And the court’s failure to mention

Tankey’s right to compulsory process was harmless because that information was already

covered in the written plea agreement. See United States v. Driver

, 242 F.3d 767, 771 (7th Cir.

2001).

So the guilty pleas are not subject to challenge, and that also means that the appeal

waiver will be enforced. See United States v. Linder

, 530 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2008); United

States v. Blinn

, 490 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2007). Tankey responds that the waiver could not

have been voluntary because both his own counsel and the prosecutor misled him into

believing that his sentence would ultimately rest on a finding of 3.5 kilograms, not 20, of

cocaine. Tankey swore during the plea colloquy, however, that he read and understood the

entire plea agreement. The agreement includes Tankey’s concession that “at least” 3.5

kilograms were at issue, as well as the government position that the actual number was 20

kilograms.

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to withdraw filed by counsel and DISMISS

Tankey’s appeal.
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet 

Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

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

Appendix B 

Conceptual Description 

 Appendix B - 1

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

Appendix B - 2

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Introduction

Air Resources Specialists, Inc (ARS) was contracted by Visibility Improvement - State and

Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS)

• to describe current visibility conditions and particulate matter concentrations at the Class

I areas in the VISTAS region, 

• to investigate the relative contributions of regional and local sources of emissions to fine

particle concentrations and visibility in Class I areas, 

• to discuss the rate of improvement in visibility that would demonstrate a uniform rate of

progress toward visibility improvement goals between current visibility conditions and

natural background visibility conditions in 2064, and 

• to describe special monitoring studies undertaken by VISTAS to better understand

temporal and spatial variability in fine particles that contribute to visibility impairment

and source contributions to measured organic carbon.

Appendix B.1 contains the ARS report submitted to VISTAS

Appendix B.2 contains a white paper written by VISTAS’s contractor Ivar Tombach that

discusses the new IMPROVE equation and why this new equation should be used to calculate

visibility.

Appendix B.3 contains an journal article by Pat Brewer, VISTAS technical coordinator and Joe

Adloch, ARS, about trends in speciated PM2.5 data and visibility across monitoring networks in

the Southeastern United States.

Appendix B.4 contains a journal article by Pat Brewer and Ivar Tombach about natural

background visibility and regional haze goals in the Southeastern United States.

Appendix B.5 contains a power point presentation about VISTAS special monitoring studies on

carbon analyses for PM2.5 and regional haze.

Appendix B.6 contains a power point about VISTAS special monitoring studies on continuous

measures of speciated PM2.5.

Appendix B.7 contains the final report from the VISTAS contractor ICF International for

characterization of meteorology and its relationships to fine particulate mass and visibility in the

VISTAS region. 

Appendix B - 3

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

Appendix B - 4

 Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
Exhibit 32.1





Certification





Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:



(1)

I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of InLand Capital Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of InLand Capital Fund, L.P.





|By:    | Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation
    General Partner
|------ | -------------------------------------------------------------
|       |                                                              
|       |                                                              
|By:    | /S/ Brenda G. Gujral                                         
|       |                                                              
|Name:  | Brenda G. Gujral                                             
|       |                                                              
|Title: | President of the General Partner and principal               
|       | executive officer of InLand Capital Fund, L.P.               
|       |                                                              
|Date:  | November 10, 2005
<Page>

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 17 to Registration
Statement No. 33-56790 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company
Separate Account One on Form N-4, of our report dated March 26, 2003 of
Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company relating to the statutory
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 and of
our report dated February 21, 2003 of Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance
Company Separate Account One relating to the financial statements as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2002, appearing in the Statement of
Additional Information, which is a part of such Registration Statement, and
to the reference to us under the headings "Experts" in such Statement of
Additional Information.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Hartford, Connecticut
October 6, 2003
Exhibit 99.11



LOGO

Ref.: 1772

March 15, 2012

Penn West Petroleum Ltd.

200, 207 Ninth Avenue SW

Calgary, AB T2P 1K3

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We refer to our report dated February 6, 2012 and effective as of December 31, 2011, evaluating the crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids reserves and the net present value of future
net revenue attributable to certain of the oil and natural gas assets of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (Penn West) effective as at December 31, 2011 (the Report).

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name and the Report, and the information derived from the Report, as described or incorporated by
reference in: (i) Penn Wests Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011; and (ii) Penn Wests Registration Statement on Form F-3 (No. 333-171675), filed or to be filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission.



Sincerely,SPROULE ASSOCIATES LIMITEDOriginal Signed by Gary R. Finnis, P.Eng.Gary R. Finnis, P.Eng.Supervisor, Engineering and Partner


LOGO
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                                          0000878377
<NAME>                                         CPX Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     DOLLARS

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,311
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,311
<PP&E>                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              9
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                          15
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,311
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  35
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   58
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                      58
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0



</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 84 E/0440)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0368/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject:   Irish Government charges and the Seveso II Directive

What has been the Irish Government's reply to the reasoned opinion announced on 18 July 2003 (IP/03/1048) regarding the Irish Government's decision to charge members of the public for expressing an opinion on developments concerning major industrial installations under the Seveso II Directive on the control of major industrial accidents involving dangerous substances (Council Directive 96/82/EC (1)).

What action is the Commission proposing to take in this matter?

----

(1)OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.

----
Before the Second Division,

November 3, 1955

No. 59397.

protests 248035-K and 248035-K (Baltimore).

#### Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that the items of merchandise consist of plate steel (not crucible plate steel nor saw plate steel), not thinner than 0.109 inch, valued at over 3 cents per pound, not coated or galvanized with spelter, zinc, metal or alloy of metals, not containing layers of metal or metals imposed thereon by any process, not pickled or cleaned by acid or by any other material or process, and cold-rolled, smoothed only, and not polished. Upon the agreed facts, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsMeeting DocumentationDateStaffContactInformation(Name, email,phone #)Name ofOrganization(Attach list of allattendees namesand emails ifpossible)Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability,reporting requirements, etc.)WrittenCommentsProvided?Did they alsosubmit toDocket?Date sentto EPACCDJune 30, 2010,(telephonecorrespondence)Paul Stewart, ICFInternational, 202-862-1135,pstewart@icfi.comon behalf of EPAunder ContractEP-W-07-068,Task Order 68Bonneville PowerAdministration(BPA), SteveLowder, 360-418-8335,smlowder@bpa.govCall was to discuss the scales currently in use atBPA as well as BPA’s concerns about certainrequirements in subpart DD of the proposedMandatory Reporting Rule.The following is key information provided byBPA:They purchased twenty new DILO +/- 0.1lbs. accuracy scales for their entire systemin anticipation of mandatory reporting rulescale accuracy requirements. Theyacknowledged that the scale accuracyrequirements could change from theproposed rule to the final rule, but wantedto be cautious and prepared. They alsomentioned they considered purchasingIntercomp brand scales before purchasingthe DILO scales.Their primary concern about the proposedRule was not scale accuracy requirements,but rather recalibration frequencyrequirements. They explained that theyhave a system in place to recalibrate all ofthe scales throughout their system on twoyear intervals and that a requirement forannual recalibration would be very costlyfor them.Writtencomments weresent to SallyRand at EPA on03/09/2010.These commentswere notsubmitted todocket.N/A