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

GEN SEC-LIBERTY Request for Dismissal-Order_v1.DOC - 1 -

Request for Dismissal with Prejudice/Order

McC

U

R

D

Y

&

F

U

L

L

E

R

L

L

P

1080 Marsh Road, Suite 110

Menlo Park, C

A 94025

(650) 618-3500

MARY P. MCCURDY (SBN 116812) 

LAURA J. RUETTGERS (SBN 206636) 

MCCURDY & FULLER LLP 

1080 Marsh Road, Suite 110 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Telephone: (650) 618-3500 

Facsimile: (650) 618-3599 

Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Claimant 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GENERAL SECURITY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY; RAGHBIR SINGH, PARVINDER 

SINGH SUNER doing business as SUNER 

EXPRESS; PAUL SUNER; KAMALJEET 

KAUR DHILLON AND BALJEET DHILLON 

doing business as DHILLON TRANSPORT; and 

AVTAR S. SAHOTA doing business as ALIEN 

TRANSPORT, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV.S-04-1081 FCD KJM 

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE/ORDER THEREON 

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIM 

The parties to this action have reached a settlement agreement. Therefore, the parties 

respectfully request that the Court dismiss plaintiff General Security Insurance Company’s 

complaint with prejudice and that the Court dismiss counter-claimant Liberty Mutual Fire 

Insurance Company’s counter claim with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and fees. 

Dated: August 15, 2006 By: _____________________________

 LAURA J. RUETTGERS 

McCURDY & FULLER LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant and 

Counterclaimant LIBERTY MUTUAL 

FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY 

Case 2:04-cv-01081-FCD-KJM Document 45 Filed 08/21/06 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 

27 

28 

GEN SEC-LIBERTY Request for Dismissal-Order_v1.DOC - 2 -

Request for Dismissal with Prejudice/Order

McC

U

R

D

Y

&

F

U

L

L

E

R

L

L

P

1080 Marsh Road, Suite 110

Menlo Park, C

A 94025

(650) 618-3500

Dated: August __, 2006 By: _____________________________

 David J. Garthe, Esq. 

 BOORNAZIAN, JENSON & GARTHE 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 GENERAL SECURITY INSURANCE 

 COMPANY 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: August 21, 2006 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

Hon. Frank C. Damrell, Jr., 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01081-FCD-KJM Document 45 Filed 08/21/06 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN HARDNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1897 LKK GGH P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 2, 2005, the magistrate judge recommended that plaintiff’s

motion for a preliminary injunction filed October 7, 2005, be denied. Plaintiff did not file

objections. On January 11, 2006, this court adopted the November 2, 2005, findings and

recommendations and denied plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief.

On January 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the January

11, 2006, order. Plaintiff states that he did not receive the November 2, 2005, findings and

recommendations. Plaintiff requests an opportunity to file objections.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s January 26, 2006, motion for reconsideration is granted;

2. The January 11, 2006, order is vacated;

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 03/21/06 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

2

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-serve plaintiff with the November 2,

2005, findings and recommendations; plaintiff may file objections in the time specified in the

findings and recommendations.

DATED: March 20, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

hard1897.rec

Case 2:04-cv-01897-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 03/21/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit (13) b.

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

AS ENACTED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the annual report on Form 20-F of Komatsu, Ltd. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenji Kinoshita, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (s) 1350, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 29, 2007



By:

/s/ KENJI KINOSHITAKenji KinoshitaDirector and Senior Executive OfficerChief Financial Officer




29
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Jose Alfredo Soto,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 04-2122 MCE PAN P

vs. Order

D. Adams,

Respondent.

-oOoJune 2, 2005, the court found petitioner’s habeas

application contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims and

gave him 60 days to file an amended petition containing only

exhausted claims and a motion to hold this matter in abeyance.

July 25, 2005, petitioner filed an amended petition and a

motion to hold this action in abeyance but a different prisoner

purports to represent petitioner on the motion. 

A party appearing pro se may not delegate his appearance to 

any other person. L.R. 83-183(a). Only an attorney admitted to 

Case 2:04-cv-02122-MCE -EFB Document 21 Filed 11/23/05 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

2

practice in this court who has appeared on petitioner’s behalf

may represent petitioner and accept service of papers for him. 

L.R. 5-137(b), 83-180(a), 83-182(a). Petitioner makes no showing

his “jailhouse lawyer” satisfies these requirements. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s July 25, 2005, motion is denied

without prejudice to petitioner filing a motion to stay this

action within 30 days of the date this order is signed. 

So ordered.

Dated: November 22, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02122-MCE -EFB Document 21 Filed 11/23/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMIAN TREVOR O’KEEFFE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

NO. CIV. S-04-1695 WBS GGH PS

ORDER

Defendants have filed a summary judgment motion to be heard on June 1, 2006. 

Therefore, pretrial and trial dates must be continued.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The pretrial conference is reset to October 5, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. before the

Honorable Gregory G. Hollows.

3. The trial is reset to October 31, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable

William B. Shubb.

DATED: 5/9/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH/076

O'Keeffe1695.ctn.wpd

Case 2:04-cv-01695-GGH Document 35 Filed 05/09/06 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 Court records reflect that petitioner paid the $5.00 filing for this action on March 25, 2005, 1

and again on May 2, 2005. Good cause appearing, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to refund

to petitioner the $5.00 overpayment.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD COLLINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2049 MCE PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE GOVERNOR

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, 

et al.,

 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.1

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of

constitutional rights is proved, respondents will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s

application. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to refund to petitioner the $5.00

overpayment made on May 2, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02049-MCE -EFB Document 7 Filed 03/01/06 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

2

2. Respondents are directed to file an answer within forty-five days from the date

of this order. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Respondents shall include with

the answer any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination of the issues

presented in the application. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases;

3. Petitioner's traverse, if any, is due on or before thirty days from the date

respondents’ answer is filed;

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus on Jo Graves, Senior Assistant Attorney

General; and

5. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on the Financial

Department of the Court.

DATED: February 28, 2006. 

 

12

coll2049.100fee

Case 2:04-cv-02049-MCE -EFB Document 7 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY LOUIS TAYLOR,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2065 DFL PAN P

vs.

JAMES K. SINGLETON, JR., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner without counsel, has filed this civil rights action seeking

relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections and amended objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02065-DFL-PAN Document 35 Filed 06/14/05 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 13, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed

Dated: 6/10/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02065-DFL-PAN Document 35 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 2
Evidence Table A1. Articles/arms for class CLEANSER (TOPICAL).

CompTrial Treatment Dose, route, frequency Comments, ancillary treatment

TARGET COMPARATOR Outcome

Table(s)

HEADING

Treatment Dose, route, frequency Comments, ancillary treatment

A.01.01 197 Composition of this soa Continuous

Discrete

Acidic syndet No dose information. 

bar

Bar soap No dose information. 

A.01.015 239 Aluminum No dose information. Continuous (M)

Oxide

Pumice No dose information. 

A.01.04 235 Povidone-iodine No dose information. Vehicle No dose information. Up to tid. Discrete

A.01.05 204 Silicic acid No dose information. Vehicle No dose information. Continuous

"(M)" indicates that data are found on the Multi-Arm tables. Evidence Table A HEADING: Page 1 of 1
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-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit  Fund VI,  L.P.,  Series 11 (the  "Partnership")  for the  quarter  ended
December 31, 2004 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper,
Jr.,  President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc.,  general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

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

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
February 14, 2005
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANSAR MUHAMMAD,

Petitioner, No. CIV-S-04-1127 KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner has requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no

absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d

453, 460 (9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at

any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing

§ 2254 Cases. In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be

served by the appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s March 10, 2010

request for appointment of counsel (Docket No. 41) is denied without prejudice to a renewal of

the motion at a later stage of the proceedings.

DATED: March 18, 2010. 

/md; muha1127.110

Case 2:04-cv-01127-TJB Document 42 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Grace Fusco, Appellant, v American Colonial Insurance Company, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 316]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered November 1, 1994, which dismissed plaintiffs action, and bringing up for review an order of the same court and Justice entered August 4, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff seeks to compel defendant insurer to pay a default judgment entered against the latter’s insured. The policy contained a provision requiring the insured to "immediately forward to the company every demand, notice, summons or other process received by him or his representative.” Insurance Law § 3420 (a) (3) essentially provides that an injured party may give an insurer any notice which is the responsibility of the insured. However, neither the insured nor plaintiff notified defendant insurer of the commencement of the action until 16 months had passed, and a default judgment had been entered against the insured. Timely notice of the commencement of an action is a condition precedent to liability on the part of the insurer *(Tennant v Farm Bur. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,*286 App Div 117, 120-121). "Absent a valid excuse, a failure to satisfy the notice requirement vitiates the policy * * * and the insurer need not show prejudice before it can assert the defense of noncompliance.” *(Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Acker-Fitzsimons Corp.,*31 NY2d 436, 440.) Since timely notice was not given defendant insurer, its cross motion for summary judgment was properly granted. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.
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 This period includes an additional three days for service pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUD CAVINESS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GORDON R. ENGLAND, SECRETARY OF

THE NAVY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

NAVY,

 Defendant.

CIV. S-04-2388 GEB PAN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

—NFN—

On June 6, 2005, this court directed plaintiff for the

second time properly to serve the summons and complaint upon

defendant. The court’s order gave plaintiff specific

instructions and imposed a deadline of eleven days (or until

Monday, June 20, 2005)1 to file proof of service with the court. 

The court noted that plaintiff’s failure to comply would result

Case 2:04-cv-02388-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

in a recommendation this case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Plaintiff has neither filed proof of service nor

otherwise responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, I recommend this action be dismissed due to

plaintiff’s failure timely and properly to effect service of

process (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)) and failure to comply with the

rules and orders of this court (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). See

also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) (authorizing dismissal pursuant to

Rule 37(b)(2)(C) “[i]f a party . . . fails to obey a . . .

pretrial order”); E. D. Cal. L. R. 11-110 (“[f]ailure of . . . a

party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court

may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent

power of the court”).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Jr., the United States District

Judge assigned to this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Written

objections may be filed within ten days after being served with

these findings and recommendations. The document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” The failure to file objections within the

////

////

////

////

Case 2:04-cv-02388-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s

order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 29, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02388-GEB-DAD Document 9 Filed 06/30/05 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-40267

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

ARNULFO ZEPEDA, JR.,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 5:16-CR-1088-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arnulfo Zepeda, Jr., pleaded guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent 

to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846

and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) (Count 1) and possession with intent to distribute 

50 kilograms or more of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

 

* 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

December 5, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-40267 Document: 00514261007 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2017
No. 17-40267

2

(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 2). The district court sentenced Zepeda to 

96 months of imprisonment concurrently on each count. Zepeda contends that 

his within-guideline sentence is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 

18 U.S.C. § 3553 and is therefore substantively unreasonable. He claims that

the district court placed too much emphasis on his criminal history while ignoring his limited role in the offense. This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007).

Though Zepeda never urged a mitigating-role adjustment under 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, the district court heard his theory that a lower sentence was 

warranted because he was a “mere carrier” rather than a leader or organizer 

and because his crime involved a relatively small amount of marihuana. 

Zepeda’s mere belief that the mitigating factors should have been balanced differently is insufficient to disturb the presumption that the within-guideline 

sentence is reasonable. See United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592, 597 (5th 

Cir. 2012).

Because his criminal history significantly increased the guideline range, 

Zepeda claims that the criminal history overstated the seriousness of his past 

criminal conduct. The significant impact that Zepeda’s criminal history had 

on his sentence, however, does not make the sentence unreasonable. See 

United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 530 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the

court’s consideration of Zepeda’s arrest record, which was sufficiently corroborated and reliable, was authorized under this court’s precedent. See United 

States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012).

Zepeda has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness. See United 

States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the judgment

of sentence is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-40267 Document: 00514261007 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2017
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

KATHLEEN BABJNEAUX BLANCO 

QOVERNOR 

ph D. 

December 11,2007 

Mr. Guy R. Donaldson, cmef, Air Plannmg Secrion 

Mail Code 6-PD-L 

US EPA Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

RE: State Implementation Plan (SIP) infrastructure requirements under Section 110(a)(l) 

and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Dear Mr. Donaldson: 

The state of Louisiana, through the Department of Environmental Quality, has evaluated 

its existing SIP for implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2,$ MAAQS to 

determine if it includes all the requirements in Section 110(a)(l) and (2) of the CAA and 

is consistent with the guidance provided to the Regional Air Division Directors from 

William T. Hamettt, Director, Air Quality Policy Division on October 2,2007. We 

conclude and certify that the Louisiana SIP does meet theserequirements. 

If you have any further questions pertaining to this matter, please contact James Orgeron 

of the Air Quality Planning Division at 225-219-3578. 

Sincerely, 

~ikia-~. 

/.$e 

McDanieJ 

0. &dl 

Ph.D. 

d 

Secretary 

OFFlCE 06 THE SECRETARV 

: nOX1301,MTON ROUGE, LA 70821-4301 

P:225-21%3!353 Fa-2193971 

%'AwEQ-