alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 7, 2011

Gerardo Rios

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

‐ 3901

rios.gerardo@ epa .gov

Sent via e

‐ mail

Re: EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2010

‐ 1078

Revision to the South Coast Portion of the California State Implementation Plan, CPV Sentinel

Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System

Dear Mr. Rios:

On January 28, 2011, Region IX denied a request for extension of the comment period submitted by

California Communities Against Toxics, Communities for a Better Environment, and Natural

Resources Defense Council. We ask that you re

‐ consider your denial.

In the January 28 letter, Elizabeth Adams, deputy director of the Air Division, stated that Region IX

was denying our request because the “rule and supporting information has been under review by the

South Coast Air Quality Management District for a number of months.” We fail to understand,

however, why the rule and information under review at the SCAQMD has any impact at all on the

length of the comment period for the EPA’s Rulemaking.

Ms. Adams further explains in her letter “in addition, we provided our proposed approval of the rule

to you by electronic mail on December 30, 2010 to allow you some additional time....Therefore, the

comment period will not be extended....” Region IX did send the “Federal Register Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, Pre

‐ publication Version” to some of us; however, it did not contain any of the

attachments or the Technical Support Document—the documents that provide the critical

information needed to comment upon this Rulemaking.

Indeed, as you are well aware, we have raised concerns about the credits being generated in this

Rulemaking. We realize now that, although the Federal Register notice says “Documentation for

each of these offsetting emission reductions is included in the docket for this proposal,” that

documentation was not included as part of the record. The failure to include in the docket

information that is critical for commenting upon this proposed rule is yet another reason to extend

the comment deadline.We hope you will re

‐ consider your denial.

Sincerely,

Angela Johnson Meszaros Shana Lazerow Adrian Martinez

On behalf of Maya Golden

‐ Krasner On behalf of

California Communities On behalf of Natural Resources Defense

Against Toxics Communities for a Better Council

Environment

Cc: Laura Yannayon, yannayon.laura@epa.gov
----

----

| 1.     | The      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the LP. |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May      12,      2010                                                                                                |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                                                             |   |   |
| /s/      Mark Gatto                                                                                                              |   |   |
| Mark      Gatto                                                                                                                  |   |   |
| Co-Chief      Executive Officer and Co-PresidentICON      Capital Corp.General      Partner of ICON Income Fund Eight BL.P. |
CERTIFICATION



I, Scott Perren, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of US Biodefense, Inc.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; and



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial position, results of operations, and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.



4.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and



6.

The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date:  April 26, 2005



/s/ Scott Perren

Treasurer

Director
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 169 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 169

 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
   to identify a route that passes through the States of Texas, New 
    Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas as a high priority corridor on the 
                        National Highway System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2005

Mr. Bingaman (for himself, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Inhofe) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
   to identify a route that passes through the States of Texas, New 
    Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas as a high priority corridor on the 
                        National Highway System.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SOUTHWEST PASSAGE INITIATIVE FOR REGIONAL AND INTERSTATE 
              TRANSPORTATION.

    Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
            ``(46) The corridor extending from the point on the border 
        between the United States and Mexico at El Paso, Texas, where 
        United States Route 54 begins, along United States Route 54 
        through the States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas, 
        and ending in Wichita, Kansas, to be known as the `Southwest 
        Passage Initiative for Regional and Interstate Transportation 
        Corridor' or `SPIRIT Corridor'.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Lonnie E. WILLIAMS and John D. Carroll v. CARROLL FOODS, INC. (formerly Carroll’s Sirloin Pit, Inc.), Freddie O. Carroll, Individually, and Bonanza International, Inc.

No. 49614.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 26, 1977.

Arthur D. Currie, Jackson, for appellant.

Singley, Minniece, Neville & Hamill, James T. Singley, Deen, Cameron, Prichard & Young, J. L. Prichard, Meridian, for ap-pellee.

Before INZER, P. J., ROBERTSON and BOWLING, JJ., and EDWARD C. PRI-SOCK, Commissioner.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lauderdale County; William Neville, Chancellor.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Plan Administrator

Total System Services, Inc. 

2012 Employee Stock Purchase Plan: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statement (No. 333-181790) on Form S-8 of Total System Services, Inc. of our report dated April 24, 2013, with respect to the statement of financial condition of the Total System Services, Inc. 2012 Employee Stock PurchasePlan as of December 31, 2012, and the related statement of operations and changes in plan equity for the period from inception (July 1, 2012) to December 31, 2012, which report appears in the December 31, 2012 annual report on Form11-K of the Total System Services, Inc. 2012 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, included as Exhibit 99.1 to the December 31, 2012 annual report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Total System Services, Inc. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

April 24, 2013
* 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

September 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30961

Summary Calendar

RONALD MARSHALL

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CV-219

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Marshall, Louisiana prisoner # 336016, appeals from the denial of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his armed robbery conviction. The

district court granted Marshall a certificate of appealability (COA) on the

following issues: whether counsel was ineffective for (1) allowing the jury to

hear Detective Calvin Brazley’s hearsay testimony regarding the substance of

an anonymous tip; (2) failing to investigate, interview, and secure witnesses; and

(3) failing to investigate and find impeachment evidence.
No. 06-30961

2

Marshall’s brief is devoid of discussion of the issues on which the district

court granted him a COA. Marshall alleges that he is unable to address the

merits of his ineffective assistance claims because he was required to leave

behind his legal materials when he was evacuated from the Orleans Parish

Prison during Hurricane Katrina. The record discloses, however, that despite

the unavailability of his legal materials, Marshall nevertheless sufficiently

objected to the magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning the three

ineffective assistance issues on which he was ultimately granted a COA. The

record further discloses that Marshall’s request for a free copy of the record was

granted by the district court. 

Marshall did not wait for this court to rule on his request for a free copy

of the record before asking that a pleading devoid of discussion of the ineffective

assistance issues be filed as his merits brief. Based on the preceding, we hold

that his failure to brief the issues on which COA was granted renders them

abandoned. Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999). 

AFFIRMED.
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. David A. TOFFOLIO and Russell L. Johnson, Appellees.

No. EE-200.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 9, 1977.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Wallace E. Allbritton, Donald K. Rudser and Charles F. McClamma, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.

Giles P. Lewis, Joseph S. Farley and Bartley K. Vickers of Mahon, Farley & Vickers, Jacksonville, for appellees.

SMITH, Judge.

The State appeals from an interlocutory order granting appellees’ motions to suppress as evidence the marijuana taken from their vehicle in a warrantless search. Acting on suspicion that appellees were dumping garbage illegally, an officer approached their vehicle, which was parked in a vacant lot next to the highway. At the vehicle, the officer smelled marijuana. He searched for it, seized it and arrested appellees for possession of it.

Appellees did not claim to have any interest in the vacant lot creating an expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment. The officer was privileged to approach the vehicle. Once there, the smell of marijuana emanating from the vehicle justified searching the vehicle and seizing the marijuana. *Berry v. State,*316 So.2d 72 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); *State v. Boyle,*326 So.2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); *Mattson v. State,*328 So.2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

REVERSED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
**Livestock and Poultry Inventories (95131)**
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Robert GAYLORD, Appellee.

No. 52331.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 9, 1978.

*314Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.

Charles Holcomb, Cocoa, for appellee.

KARL, Justice.

We have for review by direct appeal an order of the trial judge finding Section 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (1975), unconstitutionally vague and overly broad and dismissing the information against appellee. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution.

Appellee was charged by information with aggravated child abuse in that he maliciously punished Harold Wilmore, a child thirteen years of age, by beating the child with a hose. Appellee moved to dismiss the amended information on the grounds that Section 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (1975), is unconstitutionally vague, indefinite and overbroad, and that the undisputed facts do not, and cannot, constitute a crime under the laws of the State of Florida. In his motion to dismiss, appellee alleged that he was Harold’s stepfather and custodian and that as a result of Harold’s repeated disobedience, insolence and intentional disregard of appellee’s instructions, appellee administered corporal punishment to Harold using a length of garden hose. The trial judge granted the motion to dismiss on the basis that Section 827.03(3), Florida Statutes (1975), is unconstitutionally vague and over-broad.

This Court has recently upheld the constitutionality of Section 827.03, Florida Statutes (1975), in *Faust v. State,*354 So.2d 866 (Fla.1978), against the attack of vagueness and overbreadth. Therein, this Court held that Section 827.03, Florida Statutes (1975), conveys a sufficiently definite warning to those subject to its provisions as to what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties. See also *Jordan v. State,*334 So.2d 589 (Fla.1976).

Contrary to appellee’s assertions, we find that the term “maliciously” does provide a definite standard of conduct understandable by a person of ordinary intelligence. Malice means ill will, hatred, spite, an evil intent. Cf. *Huntley v. State,*66 So.2d 504 (Fla.1953).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith..

It is so ordered.

' OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
#### David Wayne TALBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. JJ-149.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 15, 1978.

*173Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Sidney L. Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; however, the provision in appellant’s sentence that he be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper. *Ussery v. State,*350 So.2d 839 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977); *McDonald v. State,*321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1975). Accordingly, this ease is REMANDED for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentencing order; it is otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  6)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-K of American Spectrum Realty, Inc.;7)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;8)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
report;9)
    
    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 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 known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this 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; andc)
    
    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;
 10)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions);
 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;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date:  May 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/ G. Anthony EppolitoG. Anthony EppolitoChief Financial Officer
#### Whitmore v. Crawford *et al., Appellants.*

DIVISION ONE.

Practice: failure of proof : ejectment. Where, in an action of ejectment, the plaintiff fails to offer any evidence of title in himself, and the trial court refuses to grant a new trial upon the ground that there is no evidence to support the verdiot, the judgment in plaintiff’s favor will be reversed upon appeal.

*Appeal from Knox Circuit Court.*— Hon. Ben. E. Turner, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

*Blair & Marchand*for appellants.

*O. D. Jones*for respondent.

Brace, J.

This is an action in ejectment to recover a lot in the town of Hurdland in Knox county! The plaintiff obtained judgment, and defendants appeal.

George M. Janes is the common source of title. The plaintiff to show title in himself introduced a war. ranty deed from said Janes and wife to Milton B. Crawford duly executed, acknowledged and recorded, and dated August 20, 1883. The record of a judgment rendered by the circuit court of Knox county on the seventh of June, 1884, is in favor of H. R. Whitmore & Co. against the said Crawford for the sum of $300. And (over the objections of defendants) a deed from the sheriff of said county to *Henry H.*Whitmore, made on a sale under an execution issued upon said judgment, to the lot in controversy. And this was all the evidence of title introduced by the plaintiff. The record contains no evidence of a deed from Henry R. Whitmore to the plaintiff, William D. Whitmore, or any evidence *436of any title whatever in plaintiff to the lot in controversy. The trial court erred in refusing to sustain the defendants’ motion for a new trial on the ground that there was no evidence to support the verdict, and for this error the judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for new trial. *Avery v.*Fitzgerald, 94 Mo. 207 ; *Robbins v.*Phillips, 68 Mo. 100 ; *Wilson v.*Albert, 89 Mo. 537; *Morris v.*Barns, 35 Mo. 412; *Heyneman v. Garneau,*33 Mo. 565 ; *Hartt v.*Leavenworth, 11 Mo. 630.
**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 of Third Century Bancorp on Form 10-QSB
      for
      the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert D. Heuchan, Chief Executive Officer of
      Third Century Bancorp, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to § 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 results of operation of Third
                Century Bancorp.










/s/
                Robert D. HeuchanRobert
                D. HeuchanPresident,
                Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)





May
      4,
      2007








The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350
      and is not being filed for any other purpose.