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

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

235 Promenade Street, Providence, R102908-5767 TDD 401-222-4462 

14 December 2007 

David Conroy 

EPA - New England, Region I 

1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

Dear Mr. Conroy: 

As you are aware, sections 110(a) (1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) provide procedural, 

timing and infrastructure requirements related to compliance with National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). In 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a 

Consent Decree with Earth Justice which obligates EPA to determine whether states have made 

the submissions necessary to meet the 110(a)(1) and (2) requirements for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by 15 December 2007 . To meet this obligation, EPA issued a guidance memo on 

2 October 2007 directing states to review their existing ozone State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 

and, if the existing SIP is adequate to meet the 110(a) requirements, to certify that adequacy in a 

letter to the EPA. This letter will serve as the required certification for Rhode Island . 

The guidance memo identifies fourteen elements required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2). 

Those elements and the sections of the Rhode Island program that are consistent with those 

elements are identified in the attached table. The Rhode Island SIP, which was approved in May 

1972, and its numerous subsequent revisions fulfill most of these requirements . Other Section 

110(a)(2) requirements are fulfilled in Section 23-23 of the Rhode Island General Laws (RIGL) 

and in the Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulations (APCR) that have been incorporated 

into or submitted to the EPA for incorporation into the Rhode Island SIP . 

If you have any questions, please contact me at (401) 222-4700, extension 7010 or Barbara 

Morin of my staff at extension 7012. 

d 

Very truly yours 

Stephen M jkut, Aief 

Office of Air Resources 

cc . Anne Arnold, EPA Region I 

~4FW- 

" 30% post-consumer fiber
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 22-40672 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Flavio Tamez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:12-CR-418-1 

______________________________ 

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Defendant-Appellant Flavio Tamez, federal prisoner # 14812-379, 

appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Tamez focuses a majority of his brief on 

challenging the district court’s holding that COVID-19, family and 

community circumstances, rehabilitative efforts, and changing attitudes 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

March 31, 2023 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 22-40672 Document: 00516696303 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 22-40672 

2 

toward marijuana did not amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons 

warranting early release. Employing liberal construction, Tamez also asserts 

that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion based on a 

balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, given that court’s 

“misstatement[s]” that he was involved in a conspiracy between 2003 and 

2012, as well as that court’s failure to consider good-time credits when 

concluding that he had served less than half of his 262-month sentence. 

We review the district court’s denial of a compassionate release 

motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 

691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Tamez’s assertions are incorrect because Tamez 

pleaded guilty to a superseding indictment charging him with a conspiracy 

that existed between 2003 and 2012. Also, the district court correctly used 

the actual sentence imposed when determining that Tamez had served 123 

months (47%) of his 262-month sentence. See United States v. Rodriguez, 27 

F.4th 1097, 1100 (5th Cir. 2022). The district court was also aware of 

Tamez’s good-time credits and explicitly noted them. Tamez may disagree 

with the way that the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, but his 

disagreement does not provide sufficient grounds for reversal. See Chambliss, 

948 F.3d at 694. Those are the reasons that we do not consider Tamez’s 

reasons for challenging the district court’s conclusion that he failed to show 

extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See Ward v. United 

States, 11 F.4th 354, 360–62 (5th Cir. 2021). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 22-40672 Document: 00516696303 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2023
1 The HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., United States District Judge

for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the HONORABLEH. DAVID YOUNG, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-1351

___________ Bufford McDonald, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Jay Winters, Sheriff, Pope County * Sheriff’s Department; John Does, * [UNPUBLISHED] Employees of the Pope County * Sheriff’s Department, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 18, 2001 Filed: June 20, 2001

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Bufford McDonald appeals from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed-2-

the record and the parties’ briefs, we agree that summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. See Liebe v. Norton , 157 F.3d 574, 578 (8th Cir. 1998) (de novo review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
----

**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

     I, Joel Cohen, Chief Financial Officer of the IntelGenx Technologies Corp. (the "Registrant"), certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements  made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements  were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial  statements,  and other  financial information  included  in this  annual  report, fairly  present  in all material respects the financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for,  the  periods  presented  in this annual report;

     4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and  15d-15(e))  for the registrant and we have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material  information relating to the  Registrant,   including  its consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

         b)  evaluated  the   effectiveness  of  the  Registrant's disclosure  controls and  procedures  and  presented in this report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of the  disclosure  controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c)  disclosed  in this report any change in the  Registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most  recent  fiscal  quarter  that  has  materially  affected, or  is reasonably  likely to  materially  affect,  the  Registrant's  internal control over financial reporting; and

     5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent  evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors  and the audit committee of the Registrant's  board of directors (or persons  performing  the equivalent function):

         a) all significant  deficiencies and material  weaknesses in the design or operation of internal  control over financial reporting which are reasonably  likely to  adversely  affect  the  Registrant's  ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other  employees  who  have a  significant  role  in  the  Registrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

Date:  March 29, 2007

/s/   Joel Cohen----------------------------------

Joel CohenChief Financial Officer

----
No. 44037.

#### Protests 128805-G, etc., of John Wanamaker (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is similar to that involved in *United States*v. *International Clearing House*(24 C. C. P. A. 117, T. D. 48416). The claim under paragraph 1114 was therefore sustained.
No. 53075.

#### Chong Kee Jan & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 83905-K, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Annual Report of Total Entertainment, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Sandy J. Masselli, Jr., 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; and

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


                                       /s/ SANDY J. MASSELLI, JR.
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Sandy J. Masselli, Jr.

July 24, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*J. Conlon, *v.*James Jourdan, *Police Commissioner.*

— Order dismissing relator from police force affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs. Opinion by Barnard, P. J.
Exhibit 32.7

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Long Only Commodity Series.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                    
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                        
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                                      
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                       
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                           
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Long Only Commodity Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: May 14, 2008
No. 38917.

#### Protests 933678-G/87563, etc., of Chicago Mail Order Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *United States*v. *Field*(25 C. C. P. A. 308, T. D. 49422) and *Anniston*v. *Davis*(301 U. S. 337) the protests were dismissed.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TONI L. SEXTON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-1275 ) OSCAR DENNIS HERNANDEZ, JR., ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed March 24, 2017. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Wesley D. Tibbals, Judge. Rory B. Weiner of Rory B. Weiner P.A., Brandon, for Appellant. Dennis Hernandez and Luis Figueroa of Dennis Hernandez & Associates, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

BLACK, Judge. Toni Sexton's appeal from the order granting Oscar Hernandez, Jr.'s expedited motion requesting equal timesharing of the parties' c hildren during their 2016 spring break is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.- 2 - Mr. Hernandez's motion required the trial court to interpret the 2013 Final Parenting Plan as the result of a change in the children's scho ol and school calendar. On February 11, 2016, following a hearing, the court entered an order clarifying the Parenting Plan with respect to the parties' timesharing arrange ment for spring break 2016. The court's ruling was limited to the period of March 11 through March 18, 2016, and the court ordered the parties to mediate the terms of the P arenting Plan to eliminate

future issues. Ms. Sexton filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied, an d she ultimately filed her notice of appeal on March 22, 2016. The court's February 11, 2016, order is an appealable nonfina l order determining the rights of a party regarding timesharing under a parenting plan. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)(b). However, we lack jurisdicti on to review the order because Ms. Sexton's motion for rehearing did not toll renditio n of the order and her notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020 (i); 9.130(b); Bodkin v. Sweeney, 805 So. 2d 847, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

KELLY and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, William D. Davis, Chief Executive Officer of MD
Technologies Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of MD Technologies Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MD
Technologies Inc.



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 11, 2004 |  | /s/ William D. Davis   
|                   |  | William D. Davis       
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 55 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5181]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2006-23872; Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-9]
RIN 2120-AA66


Establishment of Offshore Airspace Area 1485L and Revision of 
Control 1485H; Barrow, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This technical amendment corrects a final rule published in 
the Federal Register on June 30, 2006 (71 FR 37492), Docket No. FAA-
2006-23872, Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-9. In that rule, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9O. The correct 
reference is FAA Order 7400.9P. This technical amendment corrects those 
errors.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March 22, 2007. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tameka Bentley, Airspace and Rules, 
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 30, 2006, a final rule was published in the Federal 
Register, Docket No. FAA-2006-23872, Airspace Docket No. 06-AAL-9 that 
amended Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 71 by establishing 
and revising offshore airspace; Barrow, AK (71 FR 37492). In that rule, 
the reference to FAA Order 7400.9 was published as FAA Order 7400.9O. 
The correct reference is FAA Order 7400.9P.

Amendment to Final Rule

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the reference 
to FAA Order 7400.9 for Airspace Docket No. FAA-2006-23872, Airspace 
Docket No. 06-AAL-9, as published in the Federal Register on June 30, 
2006 (71 FR 37492), is corrected as follows:
0
On page 37493, column 1, line 30, and column 3, line 41, amend the 
language to read:


Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

* * * * *

``FAA Order 7400.9P'' instead of ``FAA Order 7400.9O''.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, March 14, 2007.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
[FR Doc. E7-5181 Filed 3-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Case No. 7,954.

#### KURTZ v. JONES.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 433.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1823.

Attachment — Whethek Preliminary Proceed- *■ ixgs must 'Show .Citizenship of Plaintiff— Maryland Attachment Act 1795.

In the affidavit and warrant for attachment under the act of Maryland of 1795. c. 56 [1 Dorsey's I.aws, 320], it is not necessary to state the plaintiff to be a citizen of the United States or of any of the states.

Mr. Key was allowed by the court to appear for defendant [Dennis Jones],

and moved to quash the attachment, because it did not appear in the warrant of the magistrate ordering the attachment, nor anywhere else in the affidavit or proceedings, that the plaintiff [John Kurtz] was a citizen of the District of Columbia, or of the United States, or of any state of the United States.

Mr. Marbury, for plaintiff,

contended that it was not necessary that it should appear in any of the preliminary proceedings, but that it was sufficient if he now proved it, upon the motion for judgment of condemnation of the attached effects; and he now offered evidence that the plaintiff was at the time of his application for the attachment, and still is, a citizen of the District of Columbia. Campbell v. Morris, 3 Har. & McH. 553. This objection was expressly overruled by this court in Birch v. Butler [Case No. 1,425], in June, 1806.

The act, in describing the matter of the oath which the plaintiff is to make in order to obtain an attachment, does not require that he shall make oath that he is “a citizen of the state of Maryland or of any other of the United States,” although he must, in fact, be such a citizen; and it may now be proved.

Mr. Key, in reply.

The principle upon which this court yesterday quashed the scire facias, because the recognizances contained only one person as bail, was, that all special authorities must be strictly. pursued. The proceedings must, upon their face, show everything necessary to sustain the jurisdiction. The justice had no authority to grant a warrant for attachment to any but a citizen. His authority should be manifest upon the face of his warrant or the affidavit of the plaintiff annexed to it. Smith v. Middleton [Case No. 13,079], at April term, 1821; Man-deville v. Love [Id. 9,012], at October term, 1821; Wise v. Withers, 3 Cranch [7 U. S.] 331; Bingham v. Cabot, 3 Dali. [3 U. S.] 382; and Abercoombia v. Dupuis, 1 Cranch .[5 U. S.] 343.

1

 [Reported by Hon. "William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. eon.) permitted evidence now to be given that the plaintiff was a citizen of the District of Columbia; and said that the point was decided by this court in 1806, and as that decision has been acquiesced in and practised upon ever since, and as there is a superior tribunal who can correct the error, if it be one, this court will not now overrule its former decision. Judgment of condemnation.

A bill of exceptions was taken by the defendant’s counsel; but no writ of error was prosecuted. The debt was $769.88.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Bruce M.
McWilliams, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Bruce M. McWilliams              
|Bruce M. McWilliams                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 11, 2007                         

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael A. Forman, Acting Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Charles A. Webster                              
|Charles A. Webster                                  
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|May 11, 2007