alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Record for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A B

Author: Abt Associates Inc.

Date Modified: 3/22/2011 Purpose: This file compiles PPI of Capital Goods for use in the capital expenditures estimate.

Fi le Contents: Worksheet Contents Average Calc Calculates the average PPI value for a specified set of years Data Original PPI data from the BLS

November 1, 2004 1 of 3 EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-DRAFT-1445.xls - File Info

## Range Start 1999 Select first year of the period over which you want to average

Range End 2008 Select last year of the period over which you want to average Average PPI Value 144.6Record for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 A B C D E F G H I 

### Producer Price Index-Commodities Data extracted on: July 14, 2010 (10:09:46 AM) Series Id: WPUSOP3210

Not Seasonally Adjusted

Group: Stage of processing Item: Manufacturing industries Base Date: 1982

Series Id Year Period Value WPUSOP3210 1991 M13 127.8 WPUSOP3210 1992 M13 129.3 WPUSOP3210 1993M13 131.2 WPUSOP3210 1994 M13 133.2 WPUSOP3210 1995M13 135.8 WPUSOP3210 1996 M13 137.2 WPUSOP3210 1997M13 137.7 WPUSOP3210 1998M13 137.9 WPUSOP3210 1999M13 138.5 WPUSOP3210 2000 M13 139.5 WPUSOP3210 2001 M13 140.4 WPUSOP3210 2002 M13 140.0 WPUSOP3210 2003M13 139.9 WPUSOP3210 2004 M13 142.4 WPUSOP3210 2005M13 146.0 WPUSOP3210 2006 M13 149.2 WPUSOP3210 2007M13 152.5 WPUSOP3210 2008M13 157.3 WPUSOP3210 2009M13 159.2

November 1, 2004 3 of 3 EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0667-DRAFT-1445.xls - Data
**Exhibit32.1**

CertificationFurnished Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First Financial Corporation (the"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on May 15, 2006 (the "Report"), the undersigned,who is the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

-  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 
-  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company forthe period covered by the Report.

|                       |  |                                                                                   |
|-----------------------|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                       |  |
| By:    |  | /s/ David W. Mann                                                                 |
|                       |  | David W. Mann

Chief Executive Officer and 	Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2006 |

 

 

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to FirstFinancial Corporation and will be retained by First Financial Corporation. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT (10)(w)

                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      This Second Amendment to Employment Agreement dated as of May 12, 2000
(this "Second Amendment") is entered into by and between Anne Nelson Zahner
(the "Executive") and First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments
(the "Company").

                                    RECITALS

      1.       The Executive and the Company executed an Employment Agreement
               dated November 2, 1998 (the "Original Agreement");

      2.       The Executive and the Company executed an amendment to the
               Original Agreement dated as of November 30, 1999 (the "First
               Amendment");

      3.       The parties hereto have determined to enter into this Second
               Amendment for purposes of amending the First Amendment and the
               Original Agreement.

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and
agreements set forth herein, and for other consideration the adequacy of which
is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

      A.       Any and all rights and obligations of all parties to the First
               Amendment pursuant Section C. of the First Amendment and all
               provisions of such Section C. are hereby waived and such Section
               C. is hereinafter null and void.

      B.       The Company shall pay the Executive a cash payment, subject to
               all applicable withholding taxes, of $110,000 within five
               business days from the date hereof.  The Executive shall be
               responsible for the payment of, and be liable for, all taxes
               imposed on her by reason of such payment.

      C.       The Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment and
               this Second Amendment, constitutes the entire agreement between
               the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof.



                                      -1-
<PAGE>   2
      D.       This Second Amendment shall inure to the benefit of and shall be
               binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs,
               legal representatives, successors and assigns. In addition,
               Imperial Parking Corporation shall be a third party beneficiary
               of this Second Amendment and shall be entitled to enforce this
               Second Amendment.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Second Amendment
as of the date first above written.

                                         FIRST UNION REAL ESTATE EQUITY
                                           and MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS



                                         By: /s/ William A. Ackman,
                                             ----------------------------------
                                                  William A. Ackman, Chairman
EXECUTIVE:


/s/ Anne Nelson Zahner
--------------------------
Anne Nelson Zahner





                                      -2-
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

August 26, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10120

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaint iffAppellee,

versus

LAQUISIA PATRICE GREEN,

DefendantAppellant.

----------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CR-132-ALL-A

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

Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Laquisia Patrice Green appeals her judgment of conviction and sentence, following a guilty

plea, for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1344. Green argues

that the district court deprived her of counsel of her choice and also argues that the court should have

construed a particular pro se letter to the court as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea.-2-

Green does not dispute that then-retained counsel’s motion to withdraw did not satisfy the

requirements of Local Criminal Rule 57.12. District courts may implement and enforce local rules.

E.g.

, United States v. Yeatts

, 639 F.2d 1186, 1188 (5th Cir. 1981). Green has not demonstrated that

the district court’s order, changing counsel’s status from retained to court-appointed, infringed on

her constitutional rights. S ee United States v. Hughey , 147 F.3d 423, 429 (5th Cir. 1998). Green

is not entitled to the appointment of counsel of her choice. U nited States v. Breeland

, 53 F.3d 100,

106 n.11 (5th Ci r. 1995) ; Y ohey v. Co llins

, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 1993)(28 U.S.C . § 2254

case).

Green has not demonstrated plain error with respect to her argument that the district court

should have construed a pro se letter as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. S ee F ED

. R. C RIM

. P.

52(b); United States v. Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States

v. Olano

, 507 U.S. 725, 730-37 (1993)), abrogated in part

, Johnson v. United States

, 520 U.S. 461

(1997).

AFFIRMED.
#### Jose Emilio REIGOSA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2655.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 26, 1978.

*715Bennett H. Brummer, Public' Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and James H. Greason, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD,* C. J., and BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ.

*

Chief Judge Haverfield participated in the decision in this case but did not hear oral argument.

KEHOE, Judge.

This is an appeal of an order of involuntary hospitalization under the Baker Act, specifically Section 394.467, Florida Statutes [1977]. We reverse.

A careful review of the record of the hearing on the state’s petition for involuntary hospitalization reveals that although it was adequately proven that appellant was mentally ill, he was not shown to be dangerous to himself. Neither did the state show by clear and convincing evidence that he was dangerous to others, physically or emotionally, or without the capacity to survive in freedom with the help of family or friends. Indeed, the record is barren of any exploration of less restrictive alternatives to involuntary hospitalization.

Absent clear and convincing proof that an individual is dangerous to himself or others, the state may not deprive him of his freedom on the basis of mental illness alone if he is capable of surviving with help in freedom. *O’Connor*v. *Donaldson,*422 U.S. 563, 95 S.Ct. 2486, 45 L.Ed.2d 396 (1975); *In re Beverly,*342 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1977); *In re Smith,*342 So.2d 491 (Fla.1977).

The order of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to consider the possibilities of other means of treating appellant than by involuntary hospitalization, and to explore all possible alternatives to this draconian procedure.

Reversed and remanded.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0 165 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. IOLA MAERRIEA JOHNSTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 29, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 24 2021

08/24/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0165
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41767

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HEATH LANNY LAKE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 682

Filed: August 20, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Melissa Moody, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of six years, for possession of a controlled 

substance, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Heath Lanny Lake was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance 

with intent to deliver and one misdemeanor count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Pursuant 

to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, Idaho 

Code § 37-2732(c), and the other charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Lake to a 

unified term of seven years with a minimum period of confinement of six years. Lake appeals, 

contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 
2

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Lake’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
EXHIBIT32.2

** **

FIRSTHARTFORD CORPORATION

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First HartfordCorporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended July 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Stuart I. Greenwald,Treasurer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

-  
The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

-  
The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

              /s/ Stuart I. Greenwald            

Stuart I. Greenwald

Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer

 

Date: October 6, 2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.7

                             CERTIFICATE OF TRUST OF
                            SOLECTRON CAPITAL TRUST I

     THIS Certificate of Trust of Solectron Capital Trust I (the "Trust"), dated
December 21, 1998, is being duly executed and filed by First Union Trust
Company, National Association, as trustee, to form a business trust under the
Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. C. Section 3801 et seq.).

     1.   Name. The name of the business trust formed hereby is Solectron
          Capital Trust I.

     2.   Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of the
Trust in the State of Delaware is First Union Trust Company, National
Association located at 920 King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (Attention:
Corporate Trust Group).

     3.   Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as of the
          date filed.

     IN   WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of
Trust as of the date first-above written in accordance with Section 3811(a)(i)
of the Delaware Business Trust Act.

                              FIRST UNION TRUST COMPANY,
                              NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
                              as trustee


                              By:  /s/ Sterling C. Correia
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                   Name:  Sterling C. Correia
                                   Title: Vice President

                                  /s/ Susan S. Wang
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                   as Regular Trustee
                                   Name: Susan S. Wang

                                  /s/ Robert W. Hirt
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                   as Regular Trustee
                                   Name: Robert W. Hirt
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31727-31728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12507]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0073; FRL 9677-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Illinois; Small Container Exemption From VOC Coating Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing 
the April 16, 2012, direct final rule approving a revision to the 
Illinois State Implementation plan (SIP). EPA will address the comment 
in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, 
also published on April 16, 2012. EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 77 FR 22497 on April 16, 
2012, is withdrawn as of May 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6052, 
rosenthal.steven@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is withdrawing the April 16, 2012 (77 FR 
22497), direct final rule approving a revision to the Illinois SIP that 
added a ``small container exemption'' for pleasure craft surface 
coating operations in the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment areas. In the direct final rule, EPA stated that if 
adverse comments were received by May 16, 2012, the rule would be 
withdrawn and not take effect. On April 16, 2012, EPA received a 
comment, which it interprets as adverse and, therefore, EPA is 
withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA will address the comment in a 
subsequent final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also 
published on April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22550). EPA will not institute a 
second comment period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

[[Page 31728]]

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.720 published in the Federal 
Register on April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22497) on page 22500 is withdrawn as 
of May 30, 2012.

[FR Doc. 2012-12507 Filed 5-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### Jack Franklin FELDMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1038.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, R. James Kelly, certify thatthe quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2003,of Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

 

(a)                                  fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and

 

(b)                                 theinformation contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Family DollarStores, Inc.

 

 

Date: July 2, 2003

 

 
| /s/ R. James Kelly                         |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|
| R. James Kelly                             |
| Vice Chairman and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and will be retained by FamilyDollar Stores, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
May 19, 2011

Sgt. J. Matt Tarczynski Pennsylvania State Police

Aviation Patrol Unit 3 575 Airport Drive New Cumberland, PA 17070

Dear Sgt. Tarczynski:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from § 43.3 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR). It explains why we can’t process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can’t Process Your Request:

The FAA has reviewed your petition for exemption from § 43.3 and are unable to process your request any further. For the FAA to fu rther consider your petition, please provide the following information:

 What specific operation you will be performing when using this relief if granted.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption wouldn’t adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety as least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request

What You Should Do:

If you want us to process your request any further, you m ust send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Don’t Hear From You:

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/ Brenda D. Courtney Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division
EXHIBIT 11.1

Computation of Earnings Per Share

The following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share, Consolidated Statements of Income for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, included in this report as Exhibit 13.3.

Earnings Per Share

Net Income / Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for the period



|                                    |  |                            |           |      |   |          
|----------------------------------- |  | -------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                    |  | Three months endedJune 30,
|                                    |  | 2009                       |           | 2008
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                            | 1,589,411 |      |   | 1,589,411
|Net Income                          |  | $                          | 546,225   |      | $ | 511,217  
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                          | 0.34      |      | $ | 0.32     
|                                    | 
|                                    |  | Six months endedJune 30,  
|                                    |  | 2009                       |           | 2008
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                            | 1,589,411 |      |   | 1,589,411
|Net Income                          |  | $                          | 1,069,819 |      | $ | 1,147,558
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                          | 0.67      |      | $ | 0.72     

No common stock equivalents exist.
#### Elaine O. FIORVANTI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-920.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.