alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CONTACT REPORT Person Calling: Keith Barnett U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OAQPS/ESD/OCG 919-541-5605

Person Called: Curtis Lesslie Ash Grove Cement 913-319-6065

Date of Contact: July 20, 2010

Contact Summary: Ash Grove sent the notice of complete construction for the activated carbon injection system at the Durkee f acility on July 14, 2010. They still have a few small items to fix. They are now entering the 18 month shakedown peri od that is part of th eir order.

The week of the 26 th they will begin the RATA in their carbon trap system.

______________________________________________________________________________ Confirmation: I confirm that the information above is __ correct ___ correct with the changes noted above. Signature: ___________________________________
<Page>

                                                                  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

   The undersigned, Eleanor L. Thomas, President (chief executive officer) of
the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the 'Managing
Owner'), of World Monitor Trust--Series B ('Series B'), hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1) Series B's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 27,
       2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
       hereof (the 'Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       Series B.

/s/ Eleanor L. Thomas
------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor L. Thomas
President (chief executive officer) of the Managing Owner
August 11, 2003
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION IX
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94105·3901
 

OFFICE OF THE 

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

MAY 1 3 2010 

The Honorable Dr. Clinton Pattea 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 

P.O. Box 17779 

Fountain Hills, Arizona 85269 

Dear President Pattea: 

The purpose ofthis letter is to infonn you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) intends to designate the lands ofthe Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation as 

"unclassifiable/attainment" for the 2006 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). 

On October 14,2009, my predecessor, Laura Yoshii, sent you a letter notifying you that, 

based on 2006-2008 air quality data, Pinal County, Arizona was newly violating the 2006 24­

hour PM2.

5NAAQS. Because your reservation is located in an adjacent county with emissions 

that could potentially contribute to violations in Pinal County, she also notified you of EPA's 

decision to defer the designation for Pinal County, as well as eight surrounding counties1

, for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5NAAQS so that EPA could collect and evaluate additional infonnation 

before promulgating designations for these counties and the tribal lands within them. 

Now that we have assessed the air quality data in Pinal County and the surrounding area, 

I am writing to notify you of our intention to designate a portion of Pinal County as 

"nonattainment" for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; however, EPA intends to designate the 

surrounding counties and the tribal lands within them as ''unclassifiable/attainment'' for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

The enclosed analysis of Pinal County and the surrounding area serves as the basis for
 

EPA's intended designations. Should you have additional infonnation that you wish to be
 

considered by EPA in this process, please provide it to us by June 18,2010, as we intend to make
 

final designation decisions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.

5NAAQS in August 2010.
 

1 The additional counties for which EPA deferred designation are Cochise County, Gila County, Graham County, La
 

Paz County, Maricopa County, Pima County, Yavapai County, and Yuma County. See the Federal Register notice
 

for final 24-hour PM2.

5 designations, at: www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/?006standards/regs.htm#3 .
 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
We look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff to ensure a healthy 

environment. Should you or your air quality staffhave any questions, please contact Colleen 

McKaughan, Associate Air Division Director at 520-498-0118. 

Sincerely, 

Jar Blumenfeld 

Regional Administrator 

Enclosure 

cc: Mark Frank, Acting Environmental Manager
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 5/14/2020 1

Keeping Early Ballots Secret

Saball v. Town of Groton

(Leo T. Sorokin, D. Mass. 1:18-cv-12312)

A pro se federal complaint alleged that voters’ names on envelopes 

containing early cast ballots violated the secret ballot. The district 

judge denied immediate relief for want of compelling arguments and 

for want of service on the defendants.

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Early voting; pro se 

party.

A pro se federal complaint filed in the District of Massachusetts on the day 

before the November 6, 2018, general election, alleged that election officials in 

Groton, Massachusetts, denied the early-voting plaintiff a secret ballot, because that ballot was in an envelope with the plaintiff’s name on it.1 With his 

form complaint, the plaintiff filed a hand-written emergency request for relief 

before the secret ballots were opened.2

The complaint alleged that election officials told the plaintiff that “they 

would not look at [his] personal ballot because ‘they don’t have the time.’”3

On the day that the complaint was filed, Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered a 

docket sheet order denying emergency relief without prejudice: the plaintiff 

had not provided the court with compelling legal arguments and had not 

shown service on the defendants.4

Judge Sorokin dismissed the case on March 15, 2019,5 on an unanswered 

February 20, 2019, order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed 

for failure of service on the defendants.6

1. Complaint, Saball v. Town of Groton, No. 1:18-cv-12312 (D. Mass. Nov. 5, 2018), D.E. 1.

2. Emergency Request, id. (Nov. 5, 2018), D.E. 2.

3. Complaint, supra note 1, at 5.

4. Docket Sheet, Saball, No. 1:18-cv-12312 (D. Mass. Nov. 5, 2018) (D.E. 6).

5. Id. (D.E. 8).

6. Order to Show Cause, id. (Feb. 20, 2019), D.E. 7.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 27, 2009 

0518 

Order 

 

May 27, 2009 

138138 

MACHINING ENTERPRISES, INC., a/k/a 

ENTERPRISE AUTO SYSTEMS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138138 

 COA: 277950 

Oakland CC: 2004-056494-CK 

WAUSAU BUSINESS INSURANCE 

COMPANY and AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

STEVEN RODTS, 

 Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 2008 

judgment 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.
Exhibit 4.1

               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA


Number                                                                    Shares

                             Easy CD Yearbook, Inc.
                    TOTAL AUTHORIZED ISSUE 150,000,000 SHARES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<C>                                                     <C>
100,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE 0.0001 EACH                  50,000,000 SHARES PAR VALUE OF 0.0001 EACH
            COMMON STOCK                                                 PREFERRED STOCK
</TABLE>

This Certifies that ____________________________________________ is the owner of
________________________________________________________________________________
                   TOTAL AND NON ASSEABLE OF COMMON STOCK OF
                             Easy CD Yearbook, Inc.

transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person
or by duly  authorized  Attorney  upon  surrender of this  Certificate  properly
endorsed.

Witness,  the seal of the  Corporation and the signatures of its duly authorized
officers.



Secretary                             SEAL                             President
(Reap. Dec. 8648)

Entry Nos. 776818, etc.

#### W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

(Decided September 14, 1956)

Barnes, *Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the plaintiffs and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States concerning the merchandise referred to in the attached Schedule A, as follows:

> 1. Said merchandise consists of binoculars and leather carrying cases which, in *John P. Herber & Co. Inc.*v. *United States,*C. D. 1519, this court held to be subject to appraisement separately according to the value of each class of articles.

> 2. At the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers, in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, is the unit price as shown in the attached Schedule A, in United States currency, less the deductions from said unit price as invoiced, cases and packing as shown in said Schedule A, the foreign value of such or similar merchandise being no higher.

> 3. The above reappraisements are abandoned as to all entries and merchandise not listed in the attached Schedule A, and said reappraisements may be deemed to be submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were as set forth in said schedule “A,” less the deductions from such itemized unit prices, as invoiced, cases and packing as shown in said schedule *“A.”*

*506The appeals having been abandoned insofar as they relate to all merchandise not listed in. said schedule *“A,”*to that extent the appeals are hereby dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

*507
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 1563

_____________________________
R ENARD T ERRELL G AULDIN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA
Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Borello , Judge.

October 4, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , B.L. T HOMAS , and R OBERTS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas
, Public Defender, Maria Ines Suber, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody , Attorney General, Be njamin L. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
No. 49146.

#### Protests 937957-G, etc., of A. D. Cohen Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The testimony showed that certain items consist of hats similar in all material respects to those involved in Abstract 47291. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as to those items.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/17/2023 1

Direct-Mail Campaigning to Absentee Voters 

Sheldon v. Grimes (David L. Bunning, E.D. Ky. 2:14-cv-60) 

A primary-election candidate filed a federal complaint to obtain 

mailing addresses for persons who had been sent absentee ballots so 

that she could target her campaign to them. The district judge declined to invalidate the state law that protected the voters’ temporary 

mailing addresses from the candidate. 

Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: Campaign materials; 

absentee ballots; primary election. 

A candidate in a May 20, 2014, primary election for state senate filed a federal 

complaint in the Eastern District of Kentucky on April 3 challenging the constitutionality of local election officials’ refusal, pursuant to a new statute, to 

provide the candidate with mailing addresses for voters who had requested 

absentee ballots so that the candidate could inform the voters “about her background as a veteran, mother, and lifelong Republican.”1

 With her complaint, 

the candidate filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.2

On April 4, Judge David L. Bunning set a telephonic status conference for 

April 7.3

 At the conference, he ordered briefing, including on legislative history, to be completed on April 16.4

 At an April 18 teleconference, he set the 

case for hearing on April 28.5

At the April 28 hearing, he denied the candidate immediate relief,6 and he 

issued an opinion with his reasons on May 1.7

 “At the heart of this case lies 

one simple question: Under the First Amendment, does the government have 

a duty to disclose information to candidates in order to facilitate their campaign efforts? The Court thinks not.”8

Following additional briefing, Judge Bunning granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case on August 26.9

 An appeal was dismissed as settled on 

November 13.10

1. Complaint, Sheldon v. Grimes, No. 2:14-cv-60 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 3, 2014), D.E. 1; see

Amended Complaint, id. (Apr. 11, 2014), D.E. 13. 

2. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Apr. 3, 2014), D.E. 5. 

3. Order, id. (Apr. 4, 2014), D.E. 7. 

4. Order, id. (Apr. 7, 2014), D.E. 8. 

5. Order, id. (Apr. 18, 2014), D.E. 23; see Order, id. (Apr. 16, 2014), D.E. 21 (setting a 

teleconference for April 18, 2014). 

6. Minutes, id. (Apr. 28, 2014), D.E. 25. 

7. Sheldon v. Grimes, 18 F. Supp. 3d 854 (E.D. Ky. 2014). 

8. Id. at 856. 

9. Opinion, Sheldon, No. 2:14-cv-60 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 26, 2014), D.E. 46. 

10. Order, Sheldon v. Kentucky, No. 14-6192 (6th Cir. Nov. 13, 2014), D.E. 13.
|     |                                                                                                                         |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of 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. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   | /s/   Abu M. Arif |
| Name:  | Abu M. Arif |
| Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
| Date:  | February 24, 2015 |
|   |
|   |
|   | /s/   Ross P. Palacios |
| Name:  | Ross P. Palacios |
| Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
| Date:  | February 24, 2015 |
# sf133_schp--OUTPUT

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2022-04	&"Arial,Bold"&9V SF 133/Sch P - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout December 1, 2021
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 1000 1500 2000 1000 18 12 06 00 06/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.50 N 76.81 WMeters AGL
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS3868 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-51154

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RAUL CESAR RIOS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-450-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raul Cesar Rios appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation 

of his term of supervised release. He argues that the district court erred 

because it did not give reasons for its decision to impose his revocation sentence 

to run consecutively to the sentence imposed for his new offense. 

* 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

January 30, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-51154 Document: 00512921073 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2015
No. 13-51154

Because Rios did not object to his sentence on this basis, review is for 

plain error only. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923, 930 (5th Cir. 

2001). To establish plain error, a defendant must show a forfeited error that 

is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. Puckett v. United 

States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has 

the discretion to correct the error but will do so only if it seriously affects the 

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. A 

defendant who wishes to establish a plain error with respect to his sentence 

“must prove that the error affected the sentencing outcome.” United States v. 

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 262-63 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted).

Even if we assume arguendo that the district court committed plain error 

by not giving reasons for its decision to run the sentences consecutively, Rios 

still does not prevail, as he has not shown that the error affected his 

substantial rights. The district court imposed a sentence at the low end of the 

advisory guidelines range that complied with the relevant policy statement, 

which states that revocation sentences “shall” run consecutively to any other 

term of imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. 7B1.3(f) & comment. (n.4). There is no 

indication that an explanation would have resulted in a different sentence. See

Whitelaw, 580 F.3d at 262-63; United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 

357, 365 (5th Cir. 2009). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

2

 Case: 13-51154 Document: 00512921073 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2015
Exhibit 32





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





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ameriprise Certificate Company (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2017 , as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Abu M. Arif , as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Janet C. Langner , as Principal and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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 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:  February 22, 2018By/s/ Abu M. ArifAbu M. ArifChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)








Date:  February 22, 2018By/s/ Janet C. LangnerJanet C. LangnerChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)








E-6
Re: Revised RTR package 

Ken Hustvedt to: Higgins, Cortney, nbeck 09/14/2010 08:03 AM

Cc:

Ann Johnson, Dave Guinnup, Dave Salman, Elaine Manning, Fred Talcott, 

George Woodall, Jan Tierney, Mark Morris, Mary Kissell, Paula Hirtz, Peter 

Tsirigotis, Phil Mulrine, Randy Mcdonald, Rick Vetter, Sarah Mazur, Stan Durkee, 

Steve Shedd, Ted Palma, Tim Benner, Wendy Blake

History: This message has been forwarded.

here is a compare version for the last two submittals which shows changes based on the clarifications we 

discussed yesterday

In addition, there are several changes that we have made. As you can see we continue to make editorial 

changes. Also, we found that language on p. 114 had inadvertently changed since our previous submittal 

and we put it back the way it was. We also removed the paragraph on the CD and have made additional 

changes on the SSM language in MTVLO 

thanks, kch

Compare

OMB

version 9

11 vs 9

13.docx 

Compare

OMB

version 9

11 vs 9

13.docx 

Ken Hustvedt Here is the revised version per our discussion to... 09/13/2010 07:23:35 PM

From: Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, nbeck@omb.eop.gov

Cc: Ann Johnson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave Guinnup/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave 

Salman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Elaine Manning/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred 

Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, George Woodall/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jan 

Tierney/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Morris/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary 

Kissell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula Hirtz/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Phil 

Mulrine/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Randy Mcdonald/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rick 

Vetter/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sarah Mazur/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Stan 

Durkee/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Shedd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ted 

Palma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tim Benner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Wendy 

Blake/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter 

Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Wendy Blake/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/13/2010 07:23 PM

Subject: Re: Revised RTR package

Here is the revised version per our discussion today. Due to the timing the rest of Agency has not seen 

these changes.

[attachment "RTR Bins12 OMB ProPkg13Sep10.doc" deleted by Ken Hustvedt/RTP/USEPA/US] 

Ken Hustvedt here is the revised package and a compare v the... 09/11/2010 01:20:00 AM