alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Subject: FW: Question about your 2010 Am J Respir Crit Care Med Paper

From: Strickland, Matthew [ mailto:mjstric@emory.edu ]

Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 4:40 PM

To: Sacks, Jason

Subject: RE: Question about your 2010 Am J Respir Crit Care Med Paper

Sure thing Jason:

PM2.5 (24

‐ hr ave, ug/m 3 )

5% 95%

9.55 30.89

SO2 (1

‐ hr max, ppb)

5% 95%

2.12 21.46

Best,

Matt

From: Sacks, Jason [ mailto:Sacks.Jason@epa.gov ]

Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 3:51 PM

To: Strickland, Matthew

Subject: Question about your 2010 Am J Respir Crit Care Med Paper

Hi Matt,

I hope all is well. I have a quick question for you with respect to your 2010 paper in Am J Respir Crit Care Med, “Short

‐

term associations betwe en ambient air pollutants and pediatric asthma ED visits”. In figure 1 you present the C

‐ R

relationship for each of the pollutants examined. By any chance do you have the 5 th and 95 th percentile concentrations

for the pollutants detailed in these figures available?

Right now I’m interested in SO2 since we are working on the SOx ISA, but I could see us also being interested in the PM

concentrations with us working on that document too.

Thanks in advance,

Jason

Jason D. Sacks, M.P.H.

Epidemiologist

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Center for Environmental Assessment

Phone: 919-541-9729

Fax: 919-541-1818
#### Melanie MOSES v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50089.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 28, 1977.

Bullard & Gee, Robert W. Gee, Vicksburg, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Henry T. Wingate, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1793 

To extend certain apportionments to primary airports. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2005 

Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. 

HARKIN, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

A BILL 

To extend certain apportionments to primary airports. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF APPORTIONMENTS. 

4 Section 47114(c)(1)(F) of title 49, United States 

5 Code, is amended by striking ‘‘and 2005’’ each place it 

6 appears in the text and in the heading and inserting ‘‘, 

7 2005, and 2006’’. 

Æ
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6904** 

JAMES WILLIAM MORRIS, JR. , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal f rom the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 9:10

- cv - 02299

- JFA )

Submitted : October 13, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. James William Morris, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit
.2 PER CURIAM: James William Morris, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. 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 M iller

- 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 ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the d enial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense w ith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Brodereck Hearne v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00243

- CR

Trial court case number: 1330405

Trial court: 230th District Court of H arris County , Texas

On December 16, 2011, appellant pleaded guilty to the felony offense of injury to a child without an agreed recommendation on punishment. On February 24, 2012, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and imposed a sentence of con finement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for fifteen years. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel, Connie Williams, timely filed a notice of appeal along with a motion to withdraw and a request for a free record and court

- appointed counsel on appeal. The trial court granted the motion to withdraw and determined that appellant was entitled to a free record and court

appointed counsel on appeal. However, the record contains no appointment of counsel on appeal, and no counsel has appeared on behalf of appellant in this case. If a defendant in a criminal case is indigent, he is entitled to court

- appointed counsel for both the trial of the cause and an appeal to a court of appeals. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 1 .051(a), (c), (d)(1) (West Supp. 2011).

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remove it from this Court’s active docket

. We

direct the trial court to enter a written order appointing appellant counsel on appeal , containing counsel’s name, state bar numb er, address, and phone number . The order must be a separate written order, and not a docket sheet, because a docket sheet may not be considered by this

Court. See Rush v. Barrios , 56 S.W.3d 88, 95 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (an ap pellate court may not consider docket entries since t hey are only made for the

clerk’ s convenience and are usually unreliable).

The written order of the trial court appointing counsel on appeal shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and sent to this Court within 15 days of the date of this order

.The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental

clerk’s record containi ng the trial court’s written order appointing counsel is filed in this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Rebeca Huddle  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 20, 2012
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 176 (Thursday, September 11, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24005]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96-253; RM-8962]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Bainbridge, GA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Chattahoochee Broadcast 
Associates, allots Channel 270A to Bainbridge, GA, as the community's 
second local FM service. See 61 FR 67765, December 24, 1996. Channel 
270A can be allotted to Bainbridge in compliance with the Commission's 
minimum distance separation requirements without the imposition of a 
site restriction, at coordinates 30-54-30 North Latitude and 84-34-30 
West Longitude. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective October 20, 1997. The window period for filing 
applications will open on October 20, 1997, and close on November 20, 
1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 96-253, adopted August 27, 1997, and 
released September 5, 1997. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, 
as amended.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Georgia, is 
amended by adding Channel 270A at Bainbridge.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-24005 Filed 9-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
- 132 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

297 Nebraska Report

FARMERS CO-OP v. STATE

Cite as 297 Neb. 132

Farmers Cooperative, a cooperative corporat

organized under the laws of the Sta

Nebraska, appellant, v. State

Nebraska et al., appellees.

Frontier Cooperative Company, a cooperat

corporation organized under the laws o

State of Nebraska, appellant, v. Sta

Nebraska et al., appellees.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed July 7, 2017. Nos. S-16-312, S-16-313.

supplemental opin

Appeals from the District Court for Lancaster County: 

Andrew R. Jacobsen, Judge. Supplemental opinion: Fo

opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.

Thomas E. Jeffers and Andrew C. Pease, of Crosby Guenzel, 

L.L.P., for appellants.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and L. Jay Bartel for 

appellees.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller‐Lerman, Cassel

and Funke, JJ

Per Curiam

Cases Nos. S-16-312 and S-16-313 are before this court on 

the appellees’ motion for rehearing concerning our opinion 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

09/29/2017 08:11 AM CDT
- 133 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

297 Nebraska Report

FARMERS CO-OP v. STATE

Cite as 297 Neb. 132

in Farmers Co‐op v. State.

1

 We overrule the motion, but we 

modify the original opinion as follows:

(1) We withdraw the last two sentences in the paragraph 

preceding the subheading “(b) Frontier’s Refund Claims” 

and substitute the following: “Farmers appealed the Tax 

Commissioner’s decision to the district court for Lancaster 

County.”2

(2) We withdraw the last two sentences in the paragraph 

preceding the subheading “(c) District Court’s Decisions” 

and substitute the following: “Frontier appealed the Tax 

Commissioner’s decision to the district court for Lancaster 

County.”3

(3) We withdraw the second to the last sentence in the 

second paragraph under the subheading “3. The Cooperative

Failed to Establish They Were Entitled to Refun

Denied by Tax Commissioner” and substitute the followi

“Neither of the Cooperatives requested a formal hearing from 

the Department prior to the Tax Commissioner taking action 

on their refund claims, so no additional evidence was developed on the record regarding the denied claims.”4

 And we 

withdraw the last sentence of that same paragraph, which 

stated, “Further, the Cooperatives did not submit any additional evidence to the district court on its appeal.”5

The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

Former opinion modifi

 Motion for rehearing overr

Stacy, J., not participatin

1 Farmers Co‐op v. State, 296 Neb. 347, 893 N.W.2d 728 (2017).

2 Id. at 351, 893 N.W.2d at 733.

3 Id. at 352, 893 N.W.2d at 734.

4 Id. at 364, 893 N.W.2d at 740.

5 Id.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lloyd HOLLAND.

No. 60965.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 1978.

*428John M. Blanchard, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., William L. Brockman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On October 21, 1975, defendant Lloyd Holland, having previously been convicted of manslaughter and possession of heroin, was charged by bill of information with carrying a concealed weapon, in violation of La.R.S. 14:95.1. He was tried before a twelve person jury which found him guilty as charged. On December 15, the state charged that defendant was a multiple offender, subject to an enhanced penalty under La.R.S. 15:529.1. After defendant’s motion to quash the multiple offender information was denied, he pleaded guilty to the charge and was subsequently sentenced to serve 20 years at hard labor. On appeal, he contests the legality of the sentence.1

Defendant aptly argues that the penalty-enhancing provisions of La.R.S. 15:529.1 were inapplicable in this case, under *State v. Sanders,*337 So.2d 1131 (La.1976). In *Sanders,*we held:

> “ * * * [T]he penalty provisions enacted in R.S. 14:95.1 were intended by the legislature to delimit the permissible punishment for that offense because the statute itself takes into account the fact of defendant’s previous felony conviction and the legislature gave no indication that it wanted the multiple-billing procedure to remain available as a vehicle for further enlargement of the penalty.” 337 So.2d at 1135.

Since defendant’s status as a prior felon subjected him to an enhanced penalty under La.R.S. 14:95.1, his sentence could not be further enlarged by application of La.R.S. 15:529.1. *State v. Sanders,*supra.

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction is affirmed, but his sentence is annulled and set aside. The case is remanded for resentenc-ing in accordance with law.

1

. Two assignments relating to alleged trial errors were neither briefed nor argued, and are considered abandoned. *State*v. *Russell,*352 So.2d 1289 (La.1977).
PUBLIC LAW 115–161—APR. 3, 2018 132 STAT. 1249 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2030: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): Dec. 21, considered and passed Senate. 

Vol. 164 (2018): Mar. 19, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–161 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To deem the compliance date for amended energy conservation standards for ceiling 

fan light kits to be January 21, 2020, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation 

Harmonization Act’’. 

SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE DATE FOR AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION 

STANDARDS FOR CEILING FAN LIGHT KITS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The compliance date for the amended energy 

conservation standards established for ceiling fan light kits in the 

final rule entitled ‘‘Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling Fan Light Kits’’ (81 Fed. Reg. 580 

(January 6, 2016)) is deemed to be January 21, 2020. 

(b) CONFORMING CHANGES.—Not later than 60 days after the 

date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall make 

such technical and conforming changes to any regulation, guidance 

document, or procedure as may be necessary to implement subsection (a). 

Approved April 3, 2018. 

Ceiling Fan 

Energy 

Conservation 

Harmonization 

Act. 

Apr. 3, 2018 

[S. 2030] 


dkrause on DSKBC28HB2PROD with PUBLAWS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

s0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140386 & (17) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140386 

 COA: 293610 

Wayne CC: 76-005523 

DARRYL McGORE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 24, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

add an issue is DENIED.
254 La. 1103

#### SANBORN & O’NEIL TOWING, INC. v. GEORGE ENGINE COMPANY, Inc., et al.

No. 50203.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1969.

In re: Sanborn & O’Neil Towing, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 226 So.2d 560.

Writ refused. On' the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Walter H. HEAD, Jr., Respondent.

No. 69-567.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Dec. 3, 1969.

Certiorari dismissed.
Exhibit
32.2





Accountabilities,
Inc.


Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(18
U.S.C. Section 1350)





In
connection with the annual report of Accountabilities, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen
DelVecchia, Chief Financial 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 in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
      results of operations of the
Company.





Dated: December 28,
      2009
                  By:
                  /s/ Stephen DelVecchiaStephen
      DelVecchiaChief
      Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 36165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14423]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, June 19, 2013, 8:00 a.m.-8:05 a.m. EDT.

PLACE: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW., 4th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20036.

SUBJECT: Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet at the 
time and location listed above. A quorum of the Board will not be 
present on the date of the meeting.
    The public may attend this meeting in person at the address listed 
above as seating capacity permits. Member of the public seeking to 
attend the meeting in person must register at http://bbgboardmeetingjune2013.eventbrite.com/ by 9:00 a.m. (EDT) on June 18. 
For more information, please contact BBG Public Affairs at (202) 203-
4400 or by email at pubaff@bbg.gov. This meeting will also be available 
for public observation via streamed webcast, both live and on-demand, 
on the BBG's public Web site at www.bbg.gov. Information regarding this 
meeting, including any updates or adjustments to its starting time, can 
also be found on the Agency's public Web site.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-14423 Filed 6-13-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

 Place holder page for: 

 Docket Number EE-RM-93-801-RAC 

 Comment Number 18 

 Title: Energy Conservation Standards for Room Air Conditioners 

 

 

Comment Number 18 

 Memo for the Record: Telephone conversation 

 with Joel Zillioux, Friedrich Air Conditioning 

 Company; Name and Title of Commentator: Kathi 

 Epping 

EE-RM-93-801-RAC COMMENT 18
facid

Location 

type 

(U=UTM, 

L=lat/lon)

Latitude 

(decimal) or 

UTM Easting 

(m)

Longitude 

(decimal) or 

UTM Northing 

(m)

UTM 

zone

Elevation 

(m)

21141NEIKY2114100 L 36.952083 -86.931980

18093NEI3IN18093Rec L 38.923699 -86.514150
Type of receptor 

(P=house, school, 

etc.; B=boundary; 

M=monitor) Hill Height

P

P
EXHIBIT 32.1




RULE
13a - 14(b) CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF


FINANCIAL
OFFICER




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officers of Source Interlink
Companies, Inc. (the “Corporation”) hereby certify that the Corporation’s
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended January 31, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Corporation.




Date:
      May 30, 2008/s/
      MICHAEL R. DUCKWORTHName:
      Michael R. DuckworthTitle:
      Chairman of the Board of Directors/s/
      MARC FIERMANName:
      Marc FiermanTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24460]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-9-001]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

September 10, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 5, 1997, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

Sub Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 20
Sub Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 21A
Sub Twenty-Fourth Revised Sheet No. 22
Sub Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 22A
Sub Fifth Revised Sheet No. 23A
Sub Third Revised Sheet No. 23C

    Tennessee states that the purpose of the filing is to correct an 
error reflected in the August 29, 1997 filing in this docket. This 
filing correctly reflects the $.0022 ACA surcharge in the maximum 
effective commodity rates.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with 385.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations. All such protests must be filed as provided in Section 
154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24460 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M