alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
APPENDIX A-2

2011 Point Source Ozone Season Inventory

Provided in Electronic Form Only

Bureau of Air Quality

Department of Environmental Protection
[This page intentionally left blank.]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6783

JUSTIN M. PORTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN ANTHONY; SOUTH CAROLINA STATE LEGISLATURE; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-03-2557-9-18BG) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 22, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Justin M. Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Justin M. Porter appeals a district court’s order accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Porter 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40701 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ

- RODRIGUEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:13

- CR

- 880

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Benjamin Rodriguez

- Rodriguez challenges the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry following deportation , in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326

. He claims the district court erroneously imposed a 16

- level enhancement , pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) , based on his 2001 Texas conviction for possession of a controlled substance , with intent to deliver

.

* Pursuant to 5 th 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 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 12, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40701 Document: 00513076505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/12/2015No. 14

- 40701

2 Although post

- Booker , the Guidelines are advisory only, and a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse

- of

- discretion standard, the district court must still properly calculate the advisory Guidelines

- sentencing range for use in decidin g on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo ; its factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States

v . Cisneros

- Gutierrez , 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). Rodriguez first contends that , because his state conviction could have been obtained under Texas law by administration of a controlled substance, it does not constitute a drug trafficking offense fo r purposes of the enhancement. As h e concedes, this claim is foreclosed by United States v. Teran

- Salas , 767 F.3d 453, 458

- 62 (5th Cir. 2014). He additionally claims , for the first time on appeal , that the court plainly erred by applying the enhancement b ecause , under Texas law, delivery of a controlled substance does not require proof of commercial activity or remuneration , and , thus , does not fall within the ordinary meaning of a drug trafficking offense

. This claim is foreclosed by United States v. Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F.3d 198 , 205 (5th Cir. 2015 )

. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-40701 Document: 00513076505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/12/2015
----

----

| Nelnet, Inc.        |
|---------------------|
|                     |
| /s/ James D. Kruger |  |

| James D. Kruger                      |
|--------------------------------------|
| Chief Financial Officer, Nelnet Inc. |
|                                 |
| /s/ Joseph E. Popevis                |  |

| Joseph E. Popevis                       |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| President, Nelnet Diversified Solutions |   |

----

|   | Trust Name:                       |
|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   | SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1     |
|   | SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-2     |
|   | Navient Student Loan Trust 2014-2 |
|   | KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 1999-B |
|   | KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2000-A |
|   | KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2000-B |
|   | KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2002-A |
|   | KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2003-A |
|   | KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2004-A |
|   | KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2005-A |
|   | KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2006-A |
|   | GOAL NCMSLT 1                     |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2003-1                 |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2004-1                 |
|   | GOAL NiCSLT 2005-1                |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2005-2                 |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2006-1                 |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2006-2                 |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2006-3                 |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2006-4                 |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2007-1                 |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2007-2                 |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2007-3                 |
|   | GOAL NCSLT 2007-4                 |
|   | GOAL NCT 2006-A                   |

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 25, 2019

No. 04-19-00780-CV

STONEBROOK MANOR SNF LLC d/b/a Advanced Rehabilitation & Healthcare of Live 

Oak,

Appellants

v.

Leticia MENDOZA, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Hector Chacon, Deceased,

Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CI-11033

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On November 18, 2019, this court notified the trial court clerk that the clerk’s record was 

late. The trial court clerk responded to our notice by stating that the clerk’s record was not filed 

because appellant had failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the 

record and that appellant was not entitled to appeal without paying the fee. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten 

(10) days of the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements 

have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the 

clerk’s fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed 

for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of November, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert S. Yorgensen, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of STR Holdings, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: April 27, 2018 | /s/ Robert
S. Yorgensen
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|                     | Name:                  
|                     | Title:
#### BROWARD COUNTY v. Lawrence S. HURWIT.

No. 38258.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 216 So.2d 225.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 218 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 218

    To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture from issuing moratoriums on issuing new oil and gas leases 
              and drill permits on certain Federal lands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2021

  Mr. Pfluger (for himself, Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mrs. Bice of 
 Oklahoma, Mr. Jackson, Ms. Herrell, Mr. Babin, Mr. Roy, Mr. Crenshaw, 
Mr. Fallon, and Mr. Arrington) introduced the following bill; which was 
referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the 
Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture from issuing moratoriums on issuing new oil and gas leases 
              and drill permits on certain Federal lands.

    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 ``Saving America's Energy Future 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON MORATORIUMS OF NEW OIL AND GAS LEASES ON CERTAIN 
              FEDERAL LANDS.

    (a) Prohibition.--The Secretary concerned may not issue a 
moratorium on issuing new oil and gas leases and drill permits, nor 
renewals of such permits, on Federal lands under such Secretary's 
jurisdiction.
    (b) Definitions.--The term ``Secretary concerned'' means--
            (1) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National 
        Forest System lands; and
            (2) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to public 
        lands administered by such Secretary.
                                 <all>
```
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2047 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility for Post-9/ 

11 Educational Assistance to members of the National Guard who perform certain full-time duty. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Mr. MOORE of Alabama (for himself, Mr. BOST, and Ms. MACE) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand eligibility 

for Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to members of the 

National Guard who perform certain full-time duty. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR POST-9/11 

4 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO MEMBERS OF 

5 THE NATIONAL GUARD WHO PERFORM CER6 TAIN FULL-TIME DUTY. 

7 Section 3301(1)(C)(ii) of title 38, United States 

8 Code, is amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2047 IH

1 (1) by inserting ‘‘(not including training)’’ after 

2 ‘‘title 32’’; and 

3 (2) by striking ‘‘for the purpose of responding 

4 to a national emergency declared by the President 

5 and supported by Federal funds’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Frequently Asked Questions on the Government Securities Investment Fund

March 5, 2019

1. What is the Government Securities Investment Fund?

The G Fund is a money market defined-contribution retirement fund for Federal employees.

2. How does the debt ceiling affect the G Fund?

The G Fund is invested in special-issue Treasury securities, which count against the debt limit. 

The entire balance matures daily and is ordinarily reinvested. In 1987, Congress granted 

Treasury the statutory authority to suspend reinvestment of all or part of the balance of the G 

Fund when the Secretary determines that the Fund cannot be fully invested without exceeding 

the debt limit.

3. How much headroom will this Treasury action involving the G Fund provide?

As of February 28, $257 billion. The balance of the G Fund can fluctuate for a variety of 

reasons. Based on recent historical trends, Treasury expects that approximately $230 billion is a 

more accurate estimate of the value of the G Fund when projecting how long extraordinary 

measures may last.

4. What impact will this action have on Federal employees and their retirement benefits?

By law, the G Fund will be made whole once the debt limit is increased. Federal retirees and 

employees will be unaffected by this action.

5. Has Treasury ever suspended reinvestment of all or part of the G Fund before?

Yes, in the past 23 years, Treasury used this extraordinary measure in 1995-96, 2002, 2003, 

2004, 2006, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2017-2018.
Treasury approves Montana’s plan to invest $119.9 million of CPF funding 

in broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality internet 

to locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Montana

 

▪ Program Summary: $119.9 million for Broadband Infrastructure (100% of CPF allocation)

▪ Locations to Be Served: 61,100 (estimated)

▪ Program Description: The ConnectMT program is a

competitive broadband grant program designed to fund

broadband infrastructure projects in areas that currently

lack access to reliable internet. ConnectMT prioritizes last

mile fiber-to-the-home projects that will provide residents

with affordable, high-speed internet. 

‒ The program is designed to provide internet service with speeds of 100/100 Mbps upon 

project completion.

‒ Each of the internet service providers funded by the program will participate in the FCC’s 

Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy for low-income families. 

▪ Key State Contact: The Montana Department of Administration (DOA)

Montana’s Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

As reported by Montana, 

estimates show that 

investments made using the 

Capital Projects Fund will 

serve ~47% of locations still 

lacking high-speed internet 

access in the state.

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
254 La. 760

#### Early J. MECHE, etc. v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 49942.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: Early J. Meche individually and for the use and benefit of Darlene Ann Meche applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 222 So.2d 339.

Writ refused. The result is correct.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion a writ should be granted.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1796 Prepped byKeeia Richards
Document

Number: 

# 62)VI-B-1 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:38 PM Sheet 62 of 107P. 2 A-90-3 7 VI-B-1 3 Thi s documen t

ha s bee nmove dt o IV-E-2 9 a t th ereques t

o f th e projec t officer . I t

wa s incorrectl y categoriz eoriginally .

> -
Exhibit
99.1.1  Certification
Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002   I, Eugene R. McGrath, the Chief Executive Officer of
Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the Company) certify that the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003, which this
statement accompanies, (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.   /s/ Eugene R.
  McGrathEugene R.
  McGrathDated:
  May 15, 2003   A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2.2**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Joan S. Freilich, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2005, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in theForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: August 3, 2005
Exhibit 10.29

 

[FTSI LETTERHEAD]

 

June 15, 2017

 

Karen Thornton

Hand Delivered

 

Re: Retention Bonus

 

Dear Karen,

 

You contribute a great deal to the organization, and we know that you have been asked to take on additional responsibilities with the recent changes that have occurred.  I assure you that your contribution to this team is valued.  As such, it is a pleasure to offer you a retention bonus in the amount of $108,000.

 

The bonus will be payable on June 15, 2018.  To be eligible for the retention bonus, you must be an active full-time employee of the Company on the applicable bonus payment dates.

 

If you are terminated without cause or the Company completes a sale of a majority of its equity or substantially all of its assets, the retention bonus will be paid to you at that time provided that you sign FTSI’s Separation and Release Agreement.  If you tender your resignation or are terminated for cause, you will not be eligible for the retention bonus payable thereafter.

 

We need you engaged in the business at hand and comfortable that your employment status is secure. I hope that this plan allows you to continue focusing on accomplishing our goals.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

	
/s/ Michael Doss
    	
 
    
	
Michael Doss
    	
 
    
	
Chief Executive Officer
    	
 
    


 

 

I agree to and accept the terms set forth in this letter.

 

	
/s/ Karen Thornton
    	
 
    	
6/20/17
    
	
Employee Signature
    	
 
    	
Date
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 March 11, 2011
    /s/ John HillenJohn HillenPresident and Chief Executive Officer A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31576]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 64, 70, and 71

[FRL-5928-5]
RIN 2060-AD18


Compliance Assurance Monitoring

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; availability of guidance document.

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

SUMMARY: On October 22, 1997 (62 FR 54900), EPA published a final 
Compliance Assurance Monitoring Rule (CAM). The final rule preamble 
described a Guidance Development Process in which the Agency would 
develop non-prescriptive examples of the types of monitoring that can 
be used to satisfy part 64 for various types of control devices and 
emissions units. In order to provide an opportunity for source owners 
or operators and other interested parties to submit suggestions, review 
drafts and generally clarify the part 64 requirements, a Draft CAM 
Technical Guidance Document is now available. The Agency emphasizes 
that the development of example monitoring approaches in this guidance 
document is intended to assist both regulated industry and permitting 
authorities to streamline permit review in those instances where a 
source owner or operator proposes monitoring based on one of the 
examples. These examples should not be considered as an implied 
limitation on the owner or operator's ability to propose a different 
approach that the owner or operator can demonstrate satisfies the part 
64 requirements or on the permitting authority's authority to require 
additional monitoring. A final CAM Technical Guidance Document should 
be available by the end of March 1998.

DATES: Comments on the Draft CAM Technical Guidance Document should be 
received no later than January 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Dan Bivins, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, MD-19, 
RTP, NC 27711, or to: Bivins.D<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#62030c220712030f030b0e4c0712034c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82e3ecc2e7f2e3efe3ebeeace7f2e3ace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>
    The Draft CAM Technical Guidance Document is available on U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's EMTIC Homepage on the Technology 
Transfer Network (via the Internet at ``<a href="http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/
html/emticwww/index.htm">http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/
html/emticwww/index.htm</a>'', 24 hours a day, 7 days a week , except 
Monday, 8-12 a.m. EST).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Bivins at (919) 541-5244.
Henry C. Thomas,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-31576 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>