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

DATE: September 2, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA

SUBJECT: August 25, 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 25, 2014 to 

discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Hawaii Officials

Keith McFall Environmental Engineer, Clean Air Branch, Hawaii Department of Health 

Michael Madsen Engineer, Clean Air Branch, Hawaii Department of Health

EPA Officials

Christen Fellner, Sector Policies and Programs, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Ray Saracino, Clean Energy & Climate Change Office, Region 9
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
Youhave reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection(FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in theFDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suiteof cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications (CGP).
**Title:****Annual report of the Diabetes MellitusInteragency Coordinating Committee [electronic resource].
 
1994 | 1995 | 1997 | 1998
2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3301/2:
Item Number:0506-A-09 (online)
CGP System Number:000612216
 
September 25, 2017**
No. 41963.

#### Protests 758169-G, etc., of L. Adels Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 225 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 225

    Designating the month of November 2005 as the ``Month of Global 
                               Health''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 29, 2005

  Mrs. Murray (for herself, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Ms. 
 Cantwell, Mr. Dayton, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. 
Santorum) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

                            October 18, 2005

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Designating the month of November 2005 as the ``Month of Global 
                               Health''.

Whereas child survival is a key element of global health and is of utmost 
        importance to the United States and all countries of the world;
Whereas child survival must be addressed on a global scale;
Whereas increasing child survival rates is critical to population growth in 
        countries around the world;
Whereas child survival depends on access to key nutrients that can avert 
        millions of unnecessary deaths in third world countries from preventable 
        diseases;
Whereas 5 simple interventions, if delivered to children before the age of 5, 
        may significantly increase their chances of survival;
Whereas these 5 interventions--vaccines, antibiotics, Vitamin A and 
        micronutrients, oral rehydration therapy, and insecticide-treated 
        bednets--can be provided to third world countries at minimal cost; and
Whereas 10,000,000 children die each year from preventable diseases in third 
        world countries and 6,000,000 of those deaths could be prevented by the 
        use of these interventions: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates the month of November 2005 as the ``Month of 
        Global Health'';
            (2) reaffirms its commitment to ensuring that children 
        around the world receive the interventions necessary for 
        survival as an integral component of efforts to improve global 
        health; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the ``Month of Global Health'' with appropriate participation 
        in key activities, programs, and fundraising in support of 
        worldwide child survival.
                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal L 30/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.030.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 30 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5630 January 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.030.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 30

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5630 January 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | GUIDELINES |
| | | 2013/47/EU |
| | * | Guideline of the European Central Bank of 5 December 2012 on a Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system (TARGET2) (ECB/2012/27) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

GUIDELINES

2013/47/EU

*

Guideline of the European Central Bank of 5 December 2012 on a Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system (TARGET2) (ECB/2012/27)

(ECB/2012/27)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# Official Journal L 247/2015

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 247 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5823 September 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 247

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5823 September 2015

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1554 of 11 September 2015 laying down rules for the application of Directive 2006/88/EC as regards requirements for surveillance and diagnostic methods
  (notified under document C(2015) 6188)

   (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1554 of 11 September 2015 laying down rules for the application of Directive 2006/88/EC as regards requirements for surveillance and diagnostic methods
  (notified under document C(2015) 6188)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2015) 6188)

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
(Reap. Dec. 8979)

Entry No. 893853 #1.

#### United States *v.*General Aniline & Film Corp.

(Decided August 29, 1957)

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

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise in the above enumerated appeal to reappraisement herein consists of coal tar dyes, dutiable under the provisions of paragraph 28 of the Tariff Act of 1930, wherein paragraph 28, subdivision (c) provides that “the ad valorem rates provided in this paragraph shall be based upon the American selling price (as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 402, Title IV) of any similar competitive article manufactured or produced in the United States.”

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that at the time of exportation of the merchandise herein the American selling price of an article manufactured or produced in the United States which is similar and competitive to the merchandise embraced in the invoices covered by this stipulation, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for delivery, at which such article is freely offered for sale for domestic consumption to all purchasers in the principal market of the United States, in the ordinary course of trade and in the usual wholesale quantities in such market is as follows:

> $3.40 less 1% per pound, net weight, packed, and that such value is the value of the merchandise herein and that there was no higher value.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal to reap-praisement covered hereby may be submitted upon this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find the American selling price, as that value is defined in section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $3.40, less 1 per centum, per pound, net weight, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 10:42 AM

To: 'luroyale@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: DroneWorks, Inc. (FAA-2015-0502)

May 12, 2015 

Dear Mr. Cadenas: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0502). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e. - fixed-wing,rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by May 26, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D .C. 20460 ,

OFFICE O F CHEMICAL SAFETY AND PO LLUTION PR EVEN TION Septemberl3 ,2010
Telisport W

. Putsavage Carter, Ledyard & Milburn LLP 701 8th Street NW, Suite 410 Washington DC 20001
Dear Mr. Putsavage,
I have received your July 6 , 2010 letter urging Peter Caulkins to revise the position stated in his May 11 , 2010 letter to you, and to clarify the regulatory status of existing stocks ofcertain products. Dr. Caulkins ' is no longer acting branch chiefofRisk Management & Implementation Branch I, the branch responsible for managing the implementation ofthe Risk Mitigation Decision for Ten Rodenticides ("RMD") (May 29, 2008, revised June 24, 2008). If I understand correctly , the clarification you seek is whether regi strants who filed timely applications for amended registration to conform to the RMD, would be allowed to distribute or sell existing stocks of non-conforming product after June 4, 20 11. As stated in the May 11 ,2010 letter to you, it was and remains EPA' s intention that registrants should cease distribution and sale ofnon-conforming products by June 4, 2011. This applies to all products within the scope ofthe RMD, including those for which applications for amended registrations were filed by December 

### 4 ,2009

. I hope thi s has adequately clarified the Agency 's position. We have considered your request that we revise this position, however, we believe that the risk mitigation measures identified in the RMD are important and should be implemented without further delay. Inasmuch as the June 4 , 2011 target is a full nine months away, we do not think that the perceived ambiguity in the RMD should cause an unreasonable hardship to registrants who filed their applications for amended registration by December 

### 4, 2009. Ifyou have any further questions regarding rodenticide reregistration, please direct them to Rusty Wasem of my staff at 

### 703-305 -6979 or wasem.russellraJepa.gov

.

# Si**7fJJ '-**  _ Neil Anderson , ChiefRMIB I Pesticide Re- Evaluation Divi sion

CC : Dr

. Peter Caulkins
#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6731.

Entry No. 741106, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, January 29, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 2, 1942, etc.

(Decided January 9, 1947)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts shows export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions made by the importers on entry because of advances in similar eases.
# C_2016335EN.01002001.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Republic of Poland v European Commission

(Case C-210/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EAGGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and No 1698/2005 - Early retirement of farmers and farm workers - Definitive cessation of all commercial farming activity))

(2016/C 335/26)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Szmytkowska and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

1

---
No. 56144.

protest 173874-K (New York).

#### Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by.

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-89,619-01

EX P ARTE LARRY CHARLES PERR Y, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 58250-A IN THE 30TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM WICHITA COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of evading arr est or dete ntion and sentenc ed to thirty y ear s’ imprisonment. Applicant, throug h habea s counsel, contends that his counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use counsel failed to timely file a notice of appea l. There is no response from trial counsel or finding s in the habea s rec ord. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte2

Axe l , 757 S.W .2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). I n these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we he ld in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960) , the trial cour t is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel t o re s p o n d to Applicant’s claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hear ing, it sha ll de termine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall ap p o i nt an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw as t o wh ether Applicant

was denied his rig ht to a meaning ful appea l beca use Applicant’s counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact a nd conclusions of law that it deems re levant and a

ppropriate to the dispositi on of Applica nt’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental t ra n s cr i p t containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of t he date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: Apr il 17, 2019 Do not publish
Before the Third Division,

May 23, 1949

No. 53173.

#### Sunrise Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 108702-K/91502, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellant v RONALD A. ALETKY, Specialist Five, U. S. Army, Appellee

16 USCMA 536, 37 CMR 156

No. 19,833

March 3, 1967

*Captain L. Dean Moore*argued the cause for Appellant, United States. With him on the brief were *Colonel Peter S. Wondolowslci*and *Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick.*

*Edward J. Bellen, Esquire,*argued the cause for Appellee, Accused. With him on the brief were *Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Captain Frank J. Martin, Jr.,*and *Captain Thomas R. Spradlin.*

Opinion of the Court

Ferguson, Judge:

Tried by general court-martial, the accused was found guilty of wrongful appropriation, in violation of Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, 10 USC § 921, and bad check offenses, in violation of Code, supra, Article 123a, 10 USC § 923a. He was sentenced to bad-conduct discharge, partial forfeitures, confinement at hard labor for six months, and reduction. The convening authority approved the sentence. The board of review reversed and ordered a rehearing, whereupon the Judge Advocate General, United States Army, certified the propriety of its decision to this Court.

On oral argument, we were informed the accused has since been tried by court-martial for another offense; convicted; sentenced, among other things, to a punitive discharge; and that discharge executed, without appellate proceedings in this Court.

*537Examination of the board of review opinion leaves us in substantial doubt whether it acted on the basis of its legal or fact-finding powers. Cf. United States v Bedgood, 12 USCMA 16, 30 CMR 16. The question involved was whether the law officer erred in failing to instruct the court-martial that usury was a defense to charges of writing bad cheeks and wrongful appropriation arising out of giving such checks in connection with loans allegedly made to the accused. The board concluded usury was such a defense and reversed as to all charges and specifications. Yet, instructions to that effect were in fact given by the law officer as to the bad check offenses, albeit not with regard to the charge of wrongful appropriation. At the same time, the board found the verdict of the court-martial incorrect *in fact*as well as in law. Cf. United States v Bedgood, supra, and United States v Gilley, 14 USCMA 226, 34 CMR 6.

Thus, we are asked to decide the correctness of a decision by the board of review, the basis of which is at best doubtful and in which, as accused has now been separated from the service because of other proceedings, there is no probability of a rehearing of the execution of any punishment. Cf. United States v Moreno, 6 USCMA 388, 20 CMR 104. Under these peculiar facts, we consider the inquiry academic and, accordingly, decline answer to the certified question. Compare United States v Gilley, supra.

The certificate is ordered dismissed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge Kil-day concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6232

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY DENNARD MCNEAIR,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (4:96-cr-00070-JAB-1)

Submitted: April 28, 2011 Decided: May 4, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Dennard McNeair, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael 

Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina; Paul Alexander Weinman, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Dennard McNeair appeals the district court’s 

order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion for a 

sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. United States v. McNeair, No. 4:96-cr00070-JAB-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2011). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32

Securities
and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of TEL Offshore Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.

The Bank of New York Mellon
Trust Company, N.A.,
Corporate Trustee for TEL Offshore TrustDate: August 14, 2013

By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. ULRICH Michael J. Ulrich Vice President


---



QuickLinks