alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### Brown, Kelly

Subject: FW: Ozone comments for planned meeting with Janet M cCabe

From: Sasser, Erika Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 3:11 PM To: Kelly Ferguson Cc: Stone, Susan Subject: RE: Ozone comments for planned meeting with Janet McCabe

Hello Kelly—

Thank you for your comments on the ozone proposal. We were aware of your upcoming meeting with Janet M cCabe on May 4, and we were planning to participate in that briefing, so there is no need to schedule a separat e time. We will be glad to hear your thoughts on the proposal. Susan will make sure all the materials are reflected in t he docket as well.

Thanks for reaching out, and we look forward to tal king with you on May 4.

Erika

_________________ Erika N. Sasser, Ph.D. Director, Health and Environmental Impacts Division Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. EP A 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, MD C504-02, RTP, NC 27711 (919) 541-3889 sasser.erika@epa.gov

From: kellferg@gmail.com [ mailto:kellferg@gmail.com ] On Behalf Of Kelly Ferguson Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:40 PM To: Sasser, Erika Cc: Stone, Susan Subject: Ozone comments for planned meeting with Janet McCa be

Hi Dr. Sasser--

My name is Kelly Ferguson and I'm a member of the D etroit Reproductive Advocacy Matters (DREAM) team i nvolved in the Reach the Decision Makers Program . Our group is interested in advocating for pregnan t women residing in sensitive or vulnerable communi ties who are exposed to multiple factors that put them at in creased risk of effects of air pollutant exposure. We have recently submitted comments in response to the proposed ozone rule (see attached), and are planning a trip to meet with Janet McCabe on May 4 to discuss them.

We are particularly interested in including pregnan t women and communities exposed to multiple risk fa ctors simultaneously in the finalized federal register, and because of their omission in the HREA and ISA processes we support the lower ran ge (60-65ppm) of the proposed standard. I've attached "one-pagers' summarizing ou r arguments and the state of the science to support them.

I've spoken with Susan Stone about our meeting with Janet, and just wanted to let you know about it as well since you play such an integral role in this process. If you would be interested in talking on the phone to discuss our comments my te am would welcome that opportunity.

Best wishes--

Kelly Ferguson



### -- Kelly K. Ferguson, PhD Research Fellow Department of Environmental Health Sciences2 

### University of Michigan School of Public Health
#### JOHN W. EVANS ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. CITY OF PATERSON, APPELLANT.

Submitted December 9, 1918

Decided February 6, 1919.

On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 91 *N. J. L.*133.

For the respondents, *John O. Benson*and *John W. Evans.*

For the appellant, *Francis Scott.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Black in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, MINTURN, KALISCH, WHITE, Heppenheimer, Williams, JJ. 10.

*For reversal*— None.
Exhibit 10.4



                                   RESOLUTION

         A special meeting of the Board of Directors of Southern States Power
Company, Inc. was held at 8:30 a.m. April 16, 2001. At the telephonic meeting, a
majority of the Board approved the following resolution:

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the company has been diligently working for
the past several months to seek additional sources of funding to proceed with
the construction of one or more plants for the manufacture of biodiesel fuel to
service existing and new customers; and

WHEREAS, the Board members have been successful in negotiating and reaching a
mutually satisfactory agreement for the infusion of approximately one million
dollars ($1,000,000) in new capital which can be used by the Company for such
purposes, via a convertible debenture program involving the transfer of valuable
technology into the Company and a subsequent merger with Southern States Power
Company; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors desire to compensate the individuals comprising
the Board who were responsible for arranging this financing and funding for the
Company, recognizing that these services by these Board members are not
adequately compensated by salaries or other monetary means, and that these
members are deserving of additional forms of compensation for their services
rendered to the Company in this regard.

THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED this 16th day of April, 2001 that in consideration of
the services performed and rendered by the Directors who names follow, the Board
of Directors hereby grants to the following Directors options to purchase and
acquire additional shares of stock in the Company for and upon the consideration
shown:

                Lawrence W. Taggart, Chairman               250,000 shares
                Harrison A. McCoy III                       150,000 shares
                William O. Sheaffer                         100,000 shares
                Curtis Wright                               100,000 shares

RESOLVED FURTHER, that these grant of options shall be exercisable for a period
of three years from the date hereof upon written notice and payment of the
correct amount inform acceptable to the Company. The price by which these
options can be exercisable is $0.01 per share, and any exercise must include all
shares granted hereby to the respective Director exercising its option.

RESOLVED FURTHER, that upon exercise of the options resolved hereby, the shares
shall be included as part of an S-8 registration with the Securities and
Exchange Commission under special rules pertaining to shares issued in
conjunction with services rendered to the Company.

                                   /s/ Lawrence W. Taggart
                                       ----------------------------
                                       Lawrence W. Taggart, Secry of the Meeting
<page>
                                 EXHIBIT 32.01

                  CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Michael Pacult, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
White Oak Financial Services, Inc. as general partner of Providence Select
Fund, L.P., certify that (i) the Form 10Q- for the period ended June 30, 2007
of Providence Select Fund, L.P. fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Providence Select Fund, L.P.


PROVIDENCE SELECT FUND, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
By:	White Oak Financial Services, Inc., General Partner


By: /s/ Michael Pacult
Michael Pacult
Chief Executive Officer &
Chief Financial Officer

Date:	August 20, 2007

<page>
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.50


[logo]  B.P. ROP  BANQUE POPULAIRE
B.P.ROP
                                                     Saint Quentin en Yvelines
                                                     October 20, 2000


MANAGEMENT OF SERVICES FOR                           ROWECOM FRANCE
BUSINESSES AND PROFESSIONALS                         Rue de la Prairie
Our ref: KC/NF - Tel: 01.30.14.67.20                 VILLEBON SUR YVETTE
                                                     91 762 PALAISEAU Cedex


ATTN: MR. PRUDHON


         Dear Sirs:

         In reference to our recent discussions.

         We are confirming the agreement of our institution for the
         establishment of the credits below for the company Rowecom France:

         CASH:

         Amount          : FRF 5,000,000

         Rate            : Eonia + 0.50%

         Guarantee       : Transfer of invoices in the context of the Dailly Law

         Duration        : Undetermined


         INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2000/2001 SEASONAL CREDIT:

         Form            : Cash credit by notes
                           Drawing terms: 1 month

         Amount          : 45,000,000 francs

         Rate            : Euribor for the period + 0.50%


[illegible footer]


<PAGE>


         Guarantee       : Transfer of invoices in the context of the Dailly Law

         Duration        : 4 months, from 11/15/2000 to 3/15/2001

         The integration of the operating business assets in the company Rowecom
         France is a prior condition for the establishment of these types of
         credit.

         This offer is valid one month from this day. We must be informed of its
         acceptance within this period by the return of a copy of this document
         duly signed.

         We remain available for any additional information you may require.

         Sincerely,


         [signature]                                          [signature]
         Nicolas Frankewitz                                   Michel Jarde





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BANK ACCOUNT INFORMATION  ROWECOM FRANCE
                              RUE DE LA PRAIRIE
                              VILLEBON SUR YVETTE

      ----------------------
                              91762 PALAISEAU CEDEX
          [illegible]
      ----------------------  --------------------------------------------------

                              BPROP MONTIGNY BX ENTREP

                                                    Domicile
                              --------------------------------------------------

                              --------------------------------------------------
                              18707       00082       06521062951     42

                              Bank        Branch      Account No.     RIB key
                              --------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### James M. Shaw and another, *Appellants, v.*Charles S. Frost, *Respondent.*

— Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to’ abide event. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0598

DCN: SGE00724.A05









THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7706** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOHNNY LEE GORE, a/k/a Manager , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. C. Weston Houck , Senior District Judge. ( 4:01

- cr - 00627

- CWH

- 9; 4:11

- cv - 70069

- CWH )

Submitted : March 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Johnny Lee Gore, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; Stanley D. Ragsda le, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Johnny Lee Gore 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) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu tional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). 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 wrong. 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 ruli ng 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
Gore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, David R. Bradley, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of UnitedNational Group, Ltd.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol 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 financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 11, 2004 /s/ David R. BradleyName: David R. BradleyTitle: Chief Executive Officer
Order filed November 20, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00561-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF V.D.A., a Child

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-04440J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment signed June 25, 2014, in a suit 

in which the termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue. Appeals in 

parental termination cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of 

the date the notice of appeal is filed. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a). 

Appellant has established indigence or is presumed to be indigent. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 20.1(a). On July 14, 2014, three volumes of the reporter’s record from 

the trial were filed. Volume 3 contains the exhibits admitted at trial. The court 

reporter included a notation that Petitioner’s Exhibits No. 1-4 were admitted during 

a hearing on a previous motion for continuance. On September 12, 2014, appellant, 
W.J., the father, filed his brief. In his brief, W.J. complains that requested portions 

of the record were not filed. Because the record appears to be incomplete, we issue 

the following order:

We order Cara Skinner, the official court reporter, to file the supplemental 

reporter’s record in this appeal on or before December 5, 2014. The supplemental 

reporter’s record shall contain the following:

1. The record from the hearing on the pre-trial motion for continuance 

during which Petitioner’s Exhibits 1-4 were admitted;

2. Petitioner’s Exhibits 1-4;

3. The record from the pre-trial hearing on W.J.’s special exceptions;

4. The record from the Permanency Hearing held March 3, 2014; 

5. The record from the Permanency Hearing held June 9, 2014;

6. A record of the hearing, if any, on W.J.’s motion for new trial.

If Cara Skinner does not timely file the supplemental record as ordered, the 

court may issue an order requiring her to appear at a hearing to show cause why 

the supplemental record has not been timely filed and why she should not be held 

in contempt of court for failing to file the record as ordered.

If any requested record was not reported, the court reporter shall file a 

certified statement that no record was taken of the requested proceeding and file 

the statement with this court by the due date for the supplemental record.

PER CURIAM
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without o ral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. The court ge nerally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and ju dgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 18 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

DARRON EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. DAVID MCKUNE; STATE OF KANSAS, Respondents-Appellees. No. 02-3208 (D.C. No. 01-CV-3425-DES)

(Kansas)



### ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , HENRY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.
Darron Edwards, a pro se state prisoner, filed this petition for habeas corpus relief on October 18, 2001, challenging his state court conviction in 1992. The district court dismissed the application upon c oncluding that it was barred under the one year period of limitation imposed by the Antiterrorism and-2-

Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), enacted April 24, 1996. In so holding, the district court recognized that under 28 U.S.C. § 22 44(d)(2) the period is tolled during the time a properly filed application for st ate post-conviction relief is pending, and held that under this tolling provisionthe limitation period began running on May 31, 1996, and expired one year lateron May 31, 1997. We grant Mr. Edwards’ motion to supplement the reco rd regarding the tolling of the statute of limitations. We acknowle dge that for some of the intervening time, various pending motions tolled th e statute of limitations. However, because the last of these was decided by an order of the Kansas Supreme Court on June 6, 1997, even if the entire t ime up to that point had been tolled, it still would have expired by June 6, 1998 . Thus, Mr. Edwards’ motion for state post conviction relief filed February 12, 1999 would itself have no tolling effect. This petition for habeas relief was filed October 1 8, 2001, well past the expiration of the limitation period. Accordingly, we GRANT Mr. Edwards’ motion to supplement the record, DENY his request for a certificate of appealability, and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephanie K. Seymour Circuit Judge
Exhibit 4.6

                               ARS NETWORKS, INC.

         The undersigned  hereby agrees that for a period commencing on the date
hereof and expiring on the  termination  of the Equity Line of Credit  Agreement
dated March ___, 2001,  between ARS Networks,  Inc., (the "Company") and Cornell
Capital Partners,  L.P., (the "Investor") (the "Lock-up Period"),  he, she or it
will not,  directly  or  indirectly,  without the prior  written  consent of the
Investor,  issue,  offer,  agree or offer to sell, sell, grant an option for the
purchase  or sale of,  transfer,  pledge,  assign,  hypothecate,  distribute  or
otherwise  encumber  or dispose of except  pursuant  to Rule 144 of the  General
Rules and  Regulations  under the  Securities Act of 1933, any securities of the
Company, including common stock or options, rights, warrants or other securities
underlying,  convertible into, exchangeable or exercisable for or evidencing any
right to purchase or subscribe for any common stock (whether or not beneficially
owned by the undersigned), or any beneficial interest therein (collectively, the
"Securities").

         In  order  to  enable  the  aforesaid  covenants  to be  enforced,  the
undersigned  hereby  consents  to the  placing of legends  and/or  stop-transfer
orders with the transfer agent of the Company's  securities  with respect to any
of the  Securities  registered in the name of the  undersigned  or  beneficially
owned by the undersigned,  and the undersigned hereby confirms the undersigned's
investment in the Company.

Dated: _______________, 2001.

                                    Signature


                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Patrick Shea
                                    Address:
                                            ------------------------------------

                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    City, State, Zip Code:
                                                          ----------------------


                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Print Social Security Number or Taxpayer
                                    I.D. Number
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES E. SWANSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:11-cr-27

Judge Peter C. Economus

ORDER

There being no objections, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Dkt. 14) that Defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The Court accepts 

Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information, on which Defendant is hereby adjudged 

guilty. The Court’s decision on acceptance or rejection of the plea agreement is deferred for 

consideration after the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Peter C. Economus - July 27, 2011

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 2:11-cr-00027-PCE-EPD Doc #: 17 Filed: 07/27/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>