alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Christopher Grundler/AA/USEPA/US

To: "Epstein, Alan PW" <Alan.Epstein@pw.utc.com>

Cc: "Sepulveda, Domingo PW" <domingo.sepulveda@pw.utc.com>, Glenn Passavant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Samulski/A A/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/10/2012 12:52 PM Subject: Re: Aircraft

Hi Alan:

I apologize for not getting back sooner on this But as I'm sure you know our staffs have worked closely through this entire process and I n ow understand that both the concerns about the six engines and the potential impacts on military sales have been resolved to our

mutual satisfaction. So at this point I see no need for you and your staff to come to Michigan to discuss these matters furthe r. We are moving forward quickly to complete our internal reviews of the final rule and am hopeful that Pratt will be in a position to support the final package at OMB.

By the way, I note that in the current and upcoming CAEP cycles we are expecting to

co nsider a PM test procedure and certification requirement and a CAEP/8 NOx production

cut

- off. We look forward to working with P&W to craft a way forward in these important

areas.

Christopher Grundler Deputy Director Office of Transportation and Air Qua lity

734

- 214

- 4207

"Epstein, Alan PW"

--- 01/31/2012 07:46:18 AM

--- Chris,

From: "Eps tein, Alan PW" <Alan.Epstein@pw.utc.com>

To: Christopher Grundler/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Rich Wilcox/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, "Walsh, Susan M PW" <SUSAN.WALSH@UTC.COM>, "Martella, Roger" <rmartella@sidley.com>, "Sepulveda, Domingo PW" <domingo.sepulveda@p w.utc.com>, Glenn Passavant/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/31/2012 07:46 AM Subject: Di

Chris,

As I am sure you know, your team, working with the FAA, has engaged P& W on the proposed NOx
regulation and production cutoff. I believe the ongoing dialog has been productive to both parties by helping further the understanding of respective issues and concerns. We appreciate the government’s
recent proposal to AIA on a po tential path forward, but several aspects of the proposal raise some
questions and potential concerns. We share EPA’s goal of wanting to close on this matter at the earliest
opportunity but need a clear understanding of EPA’s intentions and path forward b efore being in aposition to endorse a proposed rapid enactment of the rule before OMB. To that end I would request the

opportunity to meet with you to gain a fuller understanding of the EPA’s position on these issues. Given
the time pressures EPA has ide ntified, I believe it would be most efficient if we could have such a
conversation in person, if possible. We are willing to come to Ann Arbor or meet in DC if you wish. Since
time is important in this matter, sometime in the next two weeks is preferable. If a face to face meeting is
not feasible, then perhaps we can arrange a teleconference. We will be standing by to discuss further at
your convenience; thank you for your consideration.

Best

Alan

P.S. I am constrained to be in DC next Tuesday and Wednesday (could meet there), but am otherwise

free to meet in Ann Arbor.
April 7, 2 0
Mr. Wre n United St a Region 6 1445 Ros s Dallas, T X Re: C V V C Dear Mr. This lett e selection applicati o applicati o If you ha contact m email at m Sincerely ,

Mona Ca e

cc: Matt Lin d 0 14

n Stenger a tes Environ m s Avenue, Sui X 75202-2733

onsolidated A ictoria Powe r ictoria, Victo r N602656548 ; Stenger, e r is provide

of the GHG P o n. Victoria o n.

ve any ques t m e via email m lindsey@ca m

e sar Johnson ,
d sey- CAMS, D m ental Prote c te 1200 A sset Manag e r Station r ia County ; RN1002149 d in respon s P SD permitti n WLE, LP el e
t ions or nee d at mjohnson @ m stex.com .

, P.E.

D irector of R e 919 Hou s Ph Fax 7

c tion Agency

e ment Servic e 80

s e to your c n g authority e cts to have d additional @ camsespar

e gulatory Co m Milam Street, S u s ton, TX 77002 713.358.9700 7 13.751.0392

e s (Victoria W

c orresponde n for the pend

EPA remai n information c.com or co n

m pliance u ite 2300

FedEX Tr a

W LE)

n ce dated M

ing Victoria P n the permi t

please call m n tact Matt Li n a cking No. 7 9

M arch 27, 20

P ower Statio n t ting authori t

m e at (281) n dsey at (71 3 9 84 6980 957

14 related t n GHG PSD p t y for this p 333-3339 x2 3 ) 357-9734 1

o the p ermit p ermit 2 01 or

or via
#### The B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Robert TATE, Appellee.

No. O-162.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 1, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 21, 1971.

Dawson, Galant, Maddox, Boyer, Sulik & Nichols, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Fred C. Isaac of Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Bennett, Jacksonville, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Stirling v. Sapp, 229 So.2d 850 (Fla.1969).

CARROLL, DONALD K„ Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
#### Thomas MACKEY, Appellant, v. E. Wilson PURDY, Appellee.

No. 67-796.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 19, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### KOPPERS COMPANY, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Appellant, v. VICTOIRE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 71-996.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 13, 1972.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### HANCOCK BANK, Trustee for the Estate of Anna F. C. Martin, Deceased, et al. v. Mrs. Mabel W. MARTIN et al.

No. 50051.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 29, 1978.

Eaton, Cottrell, Galloway & Lang, Ben H. Stone, Gulfport, for appellants.

Roberts & Easterling, M. M. Roberts, Hattiesburg, Gwin & Gwin, L. C. Gwin, Jr., Natchez, Teller, Rogers & Teller, Landman Teller, Vicksburg, for appellees.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Harrison County; Frank W. Alexander, Chancellor.

Before ROBERTSON, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and COFER, JJ., concur.
#### Herbert H. BURSTEIN v. Carole Hyman BURSTEIN.

No. 62931.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 22, 1978.

In re: Carole Hyman Burstein, applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans, and for a stay order.

Writ denied.
## SERVED: March 25, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF BRADLEY L. GOOD FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0043

ORDER OF DISMISSAL On February 14, 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafterreferred to as "Complainant") filed a Complaint. On January 29, 2013, Bradley L. Good (hereinafter referredto as "Respondent") filed a Request for Hearing. On March 20, 2014, Complainantrequested that its Complaint be withdrawn. 14 C.P.R.§ 13.215 states: "At any time before orduring a hearing, an agency attorneymaywithdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney · withdraws the·complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings underthis subpart withprejudice." WHEREFORE, the within filed Motionto Withdraw Complainthaving beenread and considered, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Complainant's Request to Withdraw Complaint be and is hereby granted; and 2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed withprejudice.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment

- Service Listf
...

SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Michael Shannon, Respondent's Counsel 301 E. Colorado, Suite 320 Pasadena, CA 91101 Bradley Lawrence Good, Respondent 385 E. Green St, #2611. Pasadena, CA 91101 TEL: 818-726-2101 EMAIL: bgood@ourgroup.org Lierre Green, Complainant's Counsel ONE COPY

Attorney, Office oftheRegional Counsel (AWP-7.6) Western Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009 TEL: 310-725-7117 FAX: 310-725-6816 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0043 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal. Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
2
#### NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. Charles Samuel MOYER, an incompetent, by and through William Trickel, Jr., et al., Appellees.

No. 71-166.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 27, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Annual Report of Sierra Health Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul H. Palmer, 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: 

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

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ No. 1D 18

- 451 6

_____________________________ R.C.O., a child, Appellant,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Suzanne Bass, Judge

. August 5, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

. L EWIS , B.L. T HOMAS , and R OBERTS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kasey Helms Lacey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ray T. WOODALL, Jr.

No. 62466.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Ray T. Woodall, Jr., applying writ of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Orleans Parish.

Writ granted in part; denied in part. Relator granted permission to machine copies of public records.

SUMMERS, J.,

dissents from this grant. The trial judge’s letter of March 9, 1978 declared that applicant’s pro se motions would not be considered as long as he was represented by counsel.
* 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 January 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10955 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HENRI ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-1-ALL-R

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Henri Rocha pleaded guilty in the Western District of Texas to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 10 months in prison and two years of supervised release. His supervised release term commenced in August 2003 but was revoked in July 2004. The district court imposed a revocation sentence of 24 months. Rocha now appeals, contending that the sentence is unlawful.No. 04-10955 -2- Rocha’s 24-month sentence is the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed upon revocation of a term of supervised release from a Class D felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The Government contends that Rocha’s underlying marijuana offense was a Class D felony, but Rocha argues, based on his 10-month underlying sentence, that it was a Class A misdemeanor, or, at most, a Class E felony. There is nothing properly in the record from which we may determine the classification of Rocha’s offense, which is necessary to determine the maximum authorized revocation sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3583(e). The Government has supplemented the record with the Statement of Reasons from Rocha’s underlying judgment, but this document does not indicate the statutory maximum sentence for Rocha’s offense from which the classification under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) may be inferred. We note also that the district court did not discuss at the revocation sentencing the classification of Rocha’s underlying offense or the suggested sentencing guideline range. Given the lack of clarity in the record, we REMAND to the district court for the limited purpose of making findings as to Rocha’s offense of conviction, i.e. what provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) supported the conviction, the statutory maximum sentence, and the classification of the underlying offense.
See F ED . R. A PP . P. 10(e)(2)(C). This court retains jurisdictionNo. 04-10955 -3- of the appeal during the pendency of the limited remand. See Wheeler v. City of Columbus , 686 F.2d 1144, 1154 (5th Cir. 1982).
LIMITED REMAND.
#### THOMPSON *v.*WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 17,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided October 9, 1962.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and SybERT, JJ.

PER Curiam.

For the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Charles D. *636Harris in the court below, the application for leave to appeal will be denied.

*Application denied.*
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Wayne B. Fuquay, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Analytical Surveys, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and the registrants have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under
our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such
evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this annual report any change
in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: May 17, 2004                   
|                                     
|/s/ Wayne B. Fuquay                  
|Wayne B. Fuquay                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
# C_2021278EN.01004801.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/48

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 26 May 2021 — Darment v Commission

(Case T-92/21 R)

(Application for interim relief - Environment - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Decision imposing a penalty on an undertaking that exceeded the quota allocated to it - Application for interim measures - No urgency)

(2021/C 278/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Darment Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 279 TFEU seeking, first, an order requiring the Commission to cease applying to the applicant, as regards the year 2021 and subsequent allocation periods, a penalty under Article 25(2) of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195), and, secondly, an order requiring the Commission to allocate to the applicant a quota for the bulk import of hydrofluorocarbons for the 2021 allocation period and subsequent allocation periods.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Exhibit 31.1 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION  I, Edwin G. Marshall, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report of Medizone International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007;  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;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting.  Date: July 23, 2008  /s/Edwin G. Marshall Edwin G. Marshall, Principal Executive Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                        [LETTERHEAD OF BRISCOE & BURKE 
                  CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS APPEARS HERE]









                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------
                 



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
LaTex Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-8 of our report dated 
November 6, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of the
Company for the years ending July 31, 1996, 1995, and 1994, respectively, which
report is included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended July 31, 1996.







                                               /s/ Briscoe & Burke
                                            ----------------------------
                                                   BRISCOE & BURKE
                                            Certified Public Accountants


November 12, 1996 
Tulsa, Oklahoma