alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Testimony for the EPA Hearing on the P roposed 2014 to 2016 RFS R ulemaking Doug Dollison

, DuPont Pioneer

, Industry Relations Kansas City, KS June 25, 2015

Good afternoon . My name is Doug Dollison

. I am Sr. Industry R elations Manager with DuPont
Pioneer

. DuPont Pioneer is a leading supplier of high

- quality seeds and services to farmers around the world. A demonstrated partner to America’s farmers, DuPont Pioneer is committed to increasing yields and grower value

– delivering solutions to help meet the needs of a growing
world.

When Congress passed the RFS2 in 2007, it provided stability to a new, developing biofuels industry. F armers and corn ethanol producers responded by building additional corn ethanol capacity to meet the RFS biofuel volume requirement. The RFS delivered increased rural development. The RFS has reduced CO2 emissions, and improved air quality in America’s
cities. And it’s easy to forget during this time of inexpensive oil, but America’s corn ethanol industry accepted risk as a new industry and now serve s as a strong foundation from which new and innovative complimentary biofuels systems can grow.

Almost 90 years ago, Pioneer started with a bold idea

– hybrid seed technology. By investing in seed each year, growers got more yield at th e end of the season. Over the last decade or two,
DuPont Pioneer has offered specialized seed prod ucts designed for greater ethanol production

per acre. In fact, DuPont has doubled

- down on the benefits of biofuels with our strong commitment to serving corn farmers as well as our innovations in next

- generation biofuel s that complement the base corn ethanol has built.

We believe the bold idea of the RFS was to promote long

- term investments that strengthen

America

. We believe the RFS is clear that the general waiver can only be invoked when total renewable fuel production is below statutory level s

. It is important that the forward momentum
continue and not be stalled. Therefore, the best course of action is for the EPA to abandon this proposed rule, and issue a new proposal based on the ethanol and biofuel volumes that Congress provided and the amount of fuel that can be p roduced. In conclusion, with a stable and predictable RFS in place

, we look forward to expanding ethanol’s benefits and also deploying the next phase of biofuels technologies.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit our con cerns with the proposed RFS rule. Along with this testimony, DuPont will provide additional analysis and recommendations as part of the comment process.
#### Chester WILKES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-41.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 9, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

' Affirmed.
|    |                                                                                                               |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Whole Foods Market, 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: | January 26, 2015 |

|                            |
|----------------------------|
|                            |
| /s/ Walter Robb            |
| Walter Robb                |
| Co-Chief Executive Officer |
#### Walter BAILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-155.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 28, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
* 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 27, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40009

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ERWIN EUGENE SEMIEN

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-158-1

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Erwin Eugene Semien appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy

to possess with the intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine,

possession with the intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine,

possession with the intent to distribute less than 50 grams of

methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Semien argues that

the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions. He contends that no one

saw him give narcotics to Clint Larive, and there is no evidence of a conspiracy.
No. 07-40009

2

He also argues that numerous people had access to the narcotics and the

firearms that were seized. 

Testimony established thatLarive distributed cocaine and that he traveled

to the location on County Road 154 between narcotics transactions. A search of

the premises resulted in the seizure of large amounts of cocaine and

methamphetamine as well as drug paraphernalia. There was evidence that

Semien owned this property and owned or leased the vehicles on this property.

Further, photographs of Larive were found in Semien’s residence. Thus, the

evidence is sufficient to established that Larive engaged in a conspiracy with

Semien to distribute cocaine. 

Although Semien argues that numerous people had access to the cocaine,

methamphetamine, and firearms, it is reasonable to infer that Semien had

knowledge of and access to the contraband. See United States v. Mergerson, 4

F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, a reasonable trier of fact could have found

Semien guilty of all the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States

v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7846 

To ensure access to Pandemic Unemployment Assistance for workers who 

are unable to obtain child and family care, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2020 

Ms. PORTER (for herself and Ms. SA ́NCHEZ) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To ensure access to Pandemic Unemployment Assistance for 

workers who are unable to obtain child and family care, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Support Working 

5 Families Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT AS7 SISTANCE ELIGIBILITY FOR PRIMARY CARE8 GIVING. 

9 Section 2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(dd) of the CARES Act 

10 (15 U.S.C. 9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(dd)) is amended by strikVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:02 Aug 20, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7846.IH H7846

SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7846 IH

1 ing ‘‘that is closed as a direct result of the COVID–19 

2 public health emergency’’ and inserting ‘‘because the 

3 school or facility is closed or only partially reopened due 

4 to COVID–19, because child or family care is not available 

5 or affordable during the hours work is available due to 

6 COVID–19, or because physical attendance at the school 

7 or facility presents an unacceptable health risk for the 

8 household or the individual in need of care due to COVID– 

9 19,’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK126QN23PROD with BILLS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 8, 2010, I caused to be filed via hand delivery and electronic mail
delivery an original and twelve (12) copies of the foregoing Affidavit of Robert B, Toth [Public], and that
the electronic copy is a true and correct copy of the paper original and that a paper copy with an original

signature is being filed with:

Donald S, Clark, Secretary

Office of the Secretary

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Rm. H-135
Washington, DC 20580

secretary@ftc.gov

I hereby certify that on July 8, 2010, I caused to be served one copy via electronic mail delivery
and two copies via overnight mail delivery of the foregoing Affidavit of Robert B. Toth [Public] upon:

The Honorable D, Michael Chappell
Administrative Law Judge

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580

oalj@ftc.gov

I hereby certify that on July 8, 2010, I caused to be served via first-class mail delivery and
electronic mail delivery a copy of the foregoing Affidavit of Robert B, Toth [Public] upon:

J. Robert Robertson, Esq. Steven Dahm, Esq.

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580 Washington, DC 20580

trobertson@ftc.gov

sdahm@fte.gov

2 ;

5~ AAG
Brian R. Weyhrich¢fsq.

Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP
Three Wachovia Center

401 South Tryon Street, Suite 3000
Charlotte, NC 28202

Telephone: (704) 335-9534
Facsimile: (704) 335-9776



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

In the Matter of Docket No. 9327

Polypore International, Inc.

)
)
)
) PUBLIC
)
a corporation )
)

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT B.TOTH

ROBERT B. TOTH, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

1, I am the Chief Executive Officer of Polypore International, Inc., a party to the
captioned action. I am over the age of eighteen years and I make this affidavit on personal
knowledge of its content and in further support of Respondent’s Third Motion to Reopen the
Hearing Record.

2. On Thursday, May 20, 2010, I met with Alex Molinaroli, Vice President of JCI,
Inc. and President, Power Solutions Group of Johnson Controls, Inc. (“JCI”). Over the course of

a meeting we discussed, among other subjects, {

3, Mr. Molinaroli informed me that {

}. He advised me that {

4, This was the first time that I had heard first-hand that {

}. [had previously heard some



rumor around the same time of the 2010 BCI meeting that {
}.
5, I reminded Mr. Molinaroli that {

}. L understood from my conversation with Mr, Molinaroli that {

Further Affiant sayeth not.

Sworn to June Zo, 2010,

qa IE Ne
Robert B, Toth



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG __

1, En Shevlin, a Notary Public of ffecblcnbaa. County, State of North Carolina,

do hereby certify that ROBERT B. TOTH personally -appeared before me this day and
acknowledged the execution of the forgoing instrument,

Witness my hand and seal, this 3D day of June, 2010.

\

AAW
Notary(Pablic

My Commission Expires:

Febuany!¥,2015-

[NOTARY SEAL]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7765 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7765

 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for a minimum 
 annual cost-of-living increase for Social Security benefits, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 23, 2020

 Mr. Walberg introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for a minimum 
 annual cost-of-living increase for Social Security benefits, 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 ``Certainty for Older Living Americans 
Act of 2020'' or the ``COLA Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. COMPUTATION OF COST-OF-LIVING INCREASES.

    (a) In General.--Section 215(i) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 415(i)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``with respect to 
        which the applicable increase percentage is greater than 
        zero;''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A)--
                            (i) in clause (ii), in the matter following 
                        subclause (III), by striking ``applicable 
                        increase percentage'' and inserting ``the 
                        increase percentage determined under clause 
                        (iv) for such year''; and
                            (ii) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(iv) The increase percentage determined under this clause for a 
year shall be the greater of--
            ``(I) the applicable increase percentage with respect to a 
        cost-of-living computation quarter in such year; or
            ``(II) the arithmetical mean of the increase percentages 
        determined under this clause for each of the years in the 10-
        year period ending with the year before such year.''; and
                    (B) in the first sentence of subparagraph (D), by 
                striking ``and the percentage thereof'' and inserting 
                ``, the percentage thereof, and the increase percentage 
                determined under subparagraph (A)(iv) for the following 
                year''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply with respect to cost-of-living computation quarters ending on or 
after September 30, 2020.
                                 <all>
```
7:45-9:00 am Registration

Enter at 7th and D Street, SW and proceed through security.

9:00-9:25 Opening

James Kohm

Associate Director, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC

Welcome

Jessica Rich 

Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC

Introduction

Miles McEvoy

Deputy Administrator, National Organic Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA

9:25-9:30 Introductions by the Discussion Group

These speakers will participate in each of the day’s discussions:

• John C. Bernard, University of Delaware

• Lisa Brines, National Organic Program, National List Manager, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, USDA

• Scott Faber, Environmental Working Group

• Gwendolyn Hustvedt, Texas State University

• Angela Jagiello, Organic Trade Association 

• Matthew Jones, Bureau of Economics, FTC 

• Laura Koss, Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC

• Laura MacCleery, Consumer Reports
9:30-10:30 Discussion 1:

Consumer Misperceptions of Organic Claims in the Marketplace:

Conclusions and limitations of the evidence concerning 

non-agricultural products

Moderator:

Hampton Newsome, Federal Trade Commission

10:30-10:45 Break

10:45-11:45 Discussion 2: 

Approaches to Improving Organic Claims: 

Further discussion of the evidence

Moderator:

Brad Winter, Federal Trade Commission

11:45-12 pm Break
12:00-1:00 Discussion 3: 

Broader Policy Approaches to Address Deception

Moderator:

Julia Ensor, Federal Trade Commission

1:00-1:30 Closing Remarks

Ginger Jin

Director, Bureau of Economics, FTC
IN THE MATTER OF: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIDNGTON, D.C. H 

) Case No. 2015WA910066 

MICHELLE KRAEMER ) FDMS No. FAA-2015-2441 

) 

Respondent. ) Judge Douglas M. Rawald 

) 

) STIPULATED NOTICE 

) OF SETTLEMENT 

~!! 0 "" ! L fJl 

Now come the Complainant, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"), and the 

Respondent, Michelle Kraemer, by and through legal counsel, hereby gives notice that the parties 

have entered into an agreement of settlement and resolution with respect to each and every 

alleged violation, penalty and other matter contained in the Complaint filed by the FAA against 

Ms. Kraemer in the above-captioned matter. By their execution of a Settlement Agreement on 

May 2, 2016, the parties have stipulated to an Order Assessing Civil Penalty in this matter, with 

Ms. Kraemer agreeing to pay the sums specified therein, and waiving all rights to appeal such 

Order, in full and final resolution this matter. 

The FAA hereby voluntarily withdraws the Complaint pursuant to 14 CFR 13.215. 

Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that these proceedings be dismissed with prejudice. 
Respectfully Submitted, 

Bri~ Pliot Law, P.C. 

1551 9'h Avenue 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

San Diego, California 92101 

Telephone: (866) 512-2465 

Facsimile: (619) 231-4984 

Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 

Phone: 847-294-7652 

Fax: 847-294-7498 

Email: blawler@pilotlawcom.com 

Attorney for Respondent, 

Email: brian.k.khan@faa.gov 

Counsel for Complainant 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original and one copy of the foregoing Stipulated 

Settlement were sent via Overnight Mail this '2.-:;- day of May, 2016, to the following address 

for filing with the Federal Aviation Administration: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 

Washington D.C. 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Stipulated 

Settlement was served upon the following via Overnight Mail this 2.$' day of May, 2016. 

Hon. Douglas M. Rawald, Administrate Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, D.C. 2059 

Date: May 2- 'f, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7337 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7337

To provide that an eligible facilities request under section 6409(a) of 
      the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is 
    categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare certain 
           environmental or historical preservation reviews.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2020

Mr. Carter of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
    to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
    Committee on Natural Resources, 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 provide that an eligible facilities request under section 6409(a) of 
      the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is 
    categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare certain 
           environmental or historical preservation reviews.

    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 ``Proportional Reviews for Broadband 
Deployment Act''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF NEPA AND NHPA TO WIRELESS FACILITIES DEPLOYMENT.

    Section 6409(a)(3) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 
Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1455(a)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(3) Application of nepa; nhpa.--
                    ``(A) NEPA categorical exclusion.--
                            ``(i) In general.--An eligible facilities 
                        request shall be categorically excluded from 
                        the requirement to prepare an environmental 
                        assessment or an environmental impact statement 
                        under section 102 of the National Environmental 
                        Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
                            ``(ii) Relation to extraordinary 
                        circumstances procedures.--The use of the 
                        categorical exclusion under clause (i) shall 
                        not be considered to include extraordinary 
                        circumstances under section 220.6 of title 36, 
                        Code of Federal Regulations, or section 1508.4 
                        of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (or 
                        any successor to those regulations).
                    ``(B) National historic preservation act 
                exemption.--An eligible facilities request shall not be 
                considered an undertaking under section 300320 of title 
                54, United States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4180]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

agency: National Park Service, Interior.

action: Publication of certain concession policies and procedures.

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

summary: The National Park Service (NPS) authorizes private businesses 
known as concessioners to provide necessary and appropriate visitor 
facilities and services in areas of the National Park System. NPS is 
undertaking a review of its policies and procedures concerning 
concession management activities. Certain policy and procedural changes 
have been published for comment previously. Pending completion of a 
full review, NPS is publishing the remainder of its staff manual (NPS-
48) dealing with the administration of concession authorizations for 
comment. Although not required by law to seek public comment on these 
policies and procedures, NPS will consider all comments received in a 
timely manner.

comment due date: March 24, 1997.

addresses: Comments should be addressed to Robert Yearout, Program 
Manager, Concessions Program, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, 
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127.

for further information contact: Copies of those sections of NPS-48 
which have not been published for comment previously may be obtained by 
contacting Wendelin Mann, Concessions Program, National Park Service 
(202) 565-1219.

supplementary information: The following sections of NPS-48 have been 
published for comment previously and are not included under this 
notice:
    1. NPS Franchise Fee Determination System: Published for comment in 
the Federal Register on August 7, 1985; final notice published in the 
Federal Register on December 31, 1996.
    2. Sample Prospectus and Related Guidelines: Rescinded Chapters 6, 
7, 8 and 11 of NPS-48. Published for comment in the Federal Register on 
March 17, 1994; final notice published in the Federal Register on 
February 22, 1995.
    3. Revision of Commercial Use License Program to Incidental 
Business Permit Program: Rescinded Chapter 13 of NPS-48. Adopted and 
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 7, 1995; no 
further changes were made.

    Dated: February 13, 1997.
Robert K. Yearout,
Acting Associate Director, Park Operations and Education.
[FR Doc. 97-4180 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-70-M