alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Moore, Bruce

From: Sent: To: Subject:

David, Bruce, and Chris: Matthew Todd <ToddM@api.org> Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:59AM Cozzie, David; Moore, Bruce; Stoneman, Chris API October 22 Meeting Attendees

I'm expecting the following folks for our meetings next week.

Matt 

# Br 

# "ce._MitNt'.**-- tt** **-s"~~ ·**  J).e..(.-**1\l~!** Name Company 

### State 

## LV Tom Monahan XTO TX**~**

### ~ 

### 2.p Grover Campbell Devon OK 

### 3. v

...**C~"Ltt** VTI"l 

# co 4. M+ke-&eont't& 

## x=re - TX 

### 5. 

# v Jason Zapalac Anadarko 

### TX 

# v r 6. 

# v Angela Zivkovich Anadarko

### ~a 

# ) v 

# v 7. ..Mark-'Ba1eta Williams 

## co 

# 8.{/ Jeff Adams BP 

### TX 

### ,_- 1,/" 

# 9. t Dana Wood BP TX**~** .._..,/ 10. / Jenny Yang ConocoPhillips 

### TX V' 

## \/' 11. J.im**~allan** Shell TX 

### 12. ,.&r;ae-Mer..eHo- Shell TX 

# B. V Jim Cooper Chesapeake OH**~** 

# --- 14

.**~uhmtml'** Chesapeake OK 

### 15. -/ Adam Berig Encana 

# co / 

## /**16.~** Shankar Ananthakrishna Chevron 

## )..0"7 

# K 

# v ·-·'/ 17. 

# v Vanessa Ryan Chevron CA 

## '/

# ~ 18. \/ Dennis Newman Oxy TX 

# v 19.**Reeti** ONEOK OK 

### 20. ./ CJohn Wagner API DC 

### 21. 

# v Matt Todd API DC 

# / 

# /
22. V' Phil Norwood ERM NC 

# -./'" V"""'"' 23. -ARd y. W.a&£Re £.. ERM PA 

### 24.**aa&i~r:t.toort** ERM NC

Matthew

# rod**~ Vlj** **~** Vd -kr Uf+ 

# t-Pt\**~~~.682.8319 Am~**  

# aMbr 1 ' 

# c,l'-. (x )( \) ;" YVl \) 

# b

, J 

# / / 

# r Y'lf\ 

# I lAIIo s. 

# JAa**"fl:fu;~** 

# 0J:+osklj \S'P4**~,~** 

# us,

_**1/rt?mr~o.** 

# t3- 

# r!J.**C..1~L 6-JSti?£L-L/S**  g:' ft-1

,..,-

### Nrz.~ 

# t=:f'A
1

From: Biscoe, Melanie  

Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 2:13 PM

To: Donovan, William

Cc: Doh, Austin; Morton, Thurston; Spatz, Dana; Louie‐Juzwiak, Rosanna

Subject: RE: Metaldehyde revisit

Will,

During the windows upgrade I lost my metaldehyde runs, so I redid the runs using the updated model and

scenarios.  They result in fairly comparable maximum peak and post‐breakthrough average EDWCs (they are the same

order of magnitude, anyway).   

Below is a comparison table with the first row indicating the recommended EDWCs from the 2013 DWA (DP404861),

and the second row the EDWCs I ran today (they are in PPB).   

Because our daily time series model output is not in PPM (it’s in PPB), I exported it to an excel file and created a column

with PPM.  Two excel files are attached ‐ one file is for FL Citrus (highest peak value) and one file is for NC Coastal

(highest post‐breakthrough average).  I have also attached the point‐estimates for a batch run of all the scenarios so you

have that if you want to see how other scenarios fared in this updated model run.  If you have any questions, just let me

know.

Metaldehyde ground water

modeling comparison

30‐year simulation  

(metaldehyde applied first 6 years only)

Acute  

(Peak)

ug/L

Chronic  

(Post‐Breakthrough Average)

ug/L

2013 Drinking Water Assessment

PRZM‐GW v. 1.0

1,740

(WI Sands)

635

(WI Sands)
2

Initial Scenarios

PRZM‐GW v. 1.07

1,880

(FL Citrus)

915

(NC Coastal) Revised Scenarios distributed

March 2014

Best Regards,

Melanie Biscoe 

Environmental Risk Branch III

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA

biscoe.melanie@epa.gov

703‐305‐7106
3

From: Donovan, William  

Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 7:23 AM

To: Biscoe, Melanie

Cc: Doh, Austin; Morton, Thurston

Subject: Metaldehyde revisit

Hi Melanie,

HED is evaluating a new use petition for metaldehyde to add pea, bean, ginseng and clover uses.  Last year you provided

metaldehyde EDWCs based on the turf use pattern.  The highest estimates came from the PRZM‐GW results, with the

acute value of 1740 ppb from the 30 year simulation.  Because food and drinking water dietary risk is now at 100%

aPAD, we would like to look into running the full distribution of water numbers instead of using the point

estimate.  Could you please send us the full result file in ppm?   

Thanks for your help.

Will

William H. Donovan

US Environmental Protection Agency

OCSPP/HED/RABV

Washington, DC 20460

703‐305‐7330
Exhibit 21.1

SCHEDULE OF TRANSMONTAIGNE INC. SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES AT JUNE 30, 2005

|Ownership of
Subsidiary |   | Name of Subsidiary                    |  | Trade
Name |  | State/Country
of Organization
|----------------------- | - | ------------------------------------- |  | ---------- |  | -----------------------------
|
|100                     | % | Coastal Fuels Marketing, Inc.         |  | None       |  | Florida                      
|100                     | % | Coastal Tug and Barge, Inc.           |  | None       |  | Florida                      
|100                     | % | TransMontaigne Product Services Inc.  |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|100                     | % | TransMontaigne Transport Inc.         |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|100                     | % | TransMontaigne GP L.L.C.              |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|100                     | % | TransMontaigne Services Inc.          |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|41                      | % | TransMontaigne Partners L.P.          |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|41                      | % | TransMontaigne Operating GP L.L.C.    |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|41                      | % | TransMontaigne Operating Company L.P. |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|41                      | % | Coastal Terminal L.L.C.               |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|41                      | % | Razorback L.L.C.                      |  | None       |  | Delaware                     
|41                      | % | TPSI Terminals L.L.C.                 |  | None       |  | Delaware                     

---



QuickLinks
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Smart-Tek Solutions
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q Amendment No. 1 for the period ended September
30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|Date: July 8, 2011                                  | 
|--------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                    | 
|/s/ Brian Bonar                                     | 
|                                                    | 
|Brian Bonar                                         | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer | 

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO 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 on Form 10-K/A of SkyTerra Communications, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Alexander H. Good, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge: 

(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 

 

 

|                 |   |                                  |
|----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                 |
| /s/ ALEXANDER H.GOOD |
| Name:                |   | Alexander H. Good                     |
| Title:               |   | Chief Executive Officer and President |

 

April 28, 2008
* 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

March 2, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40034 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL ANGEL GONZALEZ-VARGAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-1519-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Miguel Angel Gonzalez-Vargas appeals his sent e nce from a

guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a deported alien. S ee 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1). Gonzalez-Vargas argues that his sentence

should be vacated and remanded because the district court sentenced

him und er a mandatory Guideline scheme held unconstitutional in

United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005).

As the Government concedes, Gonzalez-Vargas’s “Fanfan” claim

is reviewed for harmless error. S ee United States v. Walters

, 418No. 05-40034

-2-

F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 2005). The instant record fails to provide

clear commentary from the district court regarding whether it would

have imposed the same sentence under a post- B ooker environment.

See id. Accordingly, the district court’s “Fanfan” error was not

harmless on the instant record. See id.

Gonzalez-Vargas also challenges the constitutionality of 8

U .S.C. § 1326(b). His constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States

, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).

Although Gonzalez-Vargas contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would

overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey

, 530

U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the

basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. S ee United States v.

Garza-Lopez

, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 126 S. Ct.

298 (2005). Gonzalez-Vargas properly concedes that his argument is

foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but

he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

We VACATE Gonzalez-Vargas’s sentence and REMAND for

resentencing.
#### James Fred RHODES, Jr., and Betty Joy Lee Rhodes, his wife, and Robert Barnett and Marion Barnett, his wife, Appellants, v. CITY OF HOMESTEAD, a Municipal Corporation, and Faye Bogner, Appellees.

No. 70-728.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1971.

Marcus & Barry, Homestead, for appellants.

Thomas J. Walsh, Homestead, for City of Homestead.

Frates, Floyd, Pearson & Stewart, and Alan G. Greer, Miami, for Faye Bogner.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants sued the City of Homestead and the individual defendant, seeking to have a special use permit, issued to the latter by the city to conduct a real estate business in a zoned residential area declared to be invalid and to enjoin the exercise thereof. The complaint charged the permit was issued illegally by the city in that the city failed to give notice and conduct a public hearing after notice, as required by the city charter. In addition, the complaint challenged the propriety of the action granting the special use permit.

The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, stating as a ground that the plaintiffs did not show injury to them different from that to the general public. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss with leave to amend. An amended complaint was filed. Defendants moved to dismiss, on the same ground as previously asserted. The motions were granted, again with leave to amend. Plaintiffs stood on the amended complaint, whereupon the court dismissed the cause with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed.

We find error, and reverse. The rule or ground presented by defendants in moving to dismiss has no application where a person affected seeks to challenge such action of the city on the ground that the action was illegal, or that the proceedings *675of the city board or council which resulted in such action were conducted contrary to provisions of the charter, such as by failure to the city to give notice required by its charter, as alleged here. See City of Hollywood v. Pettersen, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 919; Ellison v. City of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.1966, 183 So.2d 193.

Judgment of dismissal reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                            PAGEMART WIRELESS, INC.
                    COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------
                                                     NUMBER                PERCENT            EQUIVALENT
                                                    OF SHARES            OUTSTANDING            SHARES
                                                   ----------            -----------         -----------
<S>                                                <C>                   <C>                 <C>
COMMON STOCK

    From Founders' Stock                            2,300,000                 100.00%          2,300,000
    Stock Options Exercised                         1,167,063                  95.78%          1,117,811
    Preferred Stock Converted to Common Stock      15,310,943                 100.00%         15,310,943
    1994 Common Stock Offerings                    11,242,857                 100.00%         11,242,857
    1995 Common Stock Offerings                     4,323,874                 100.00%          4,323,874
    1996 Common Stock Offering                      6,000,000                 100.00%          6,000,000
    Employee Stock Purchase Plan Shares Issued        127,399                 100.00%            127,399
    Warrants Exercised                                130,513                  78.40%            102,317
                                                   ----------                                -----------
                                                   40,602,649                                 40,525,201

WEIGHTED AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING                                                           40,525,201

NET LOSS                                                                                     (24,243,367)

NET LOSS PER SHARE                                                                           $     (0.60)
                                                                                             ===========
</TABLE>
<PAGE> 1


Exhibit 21.0 - List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant



   The following is a list of subsidiaries meeting the requirements of Exhibit
21.

   a)  The Grant County Bank (incorporated in West Virginia), doing business as
       The Grant County Bank.

   b)  Capon Valley Bank (incorporated in West Virginia), doing business as the
       Capon Valley Bank.

   c)  HBI Life Insurance Company, Inc. (incorporated in the state of Arizona),
       doing business as HBI Life.

   d)  Highlands Bankshares Trust Company (incorporated in the state of West
       Virginia), doing business as Highlands Bankshares Trust Company
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 15

- 00626

- CR Mark Anthony GUAJARDO , Appellant

v. The STATE The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013CR70 64 Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 9, 2015
DISMISSED Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, Marc Anthony Guajardo pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to thirty years and a fine of $1500 in accordance with the terms of his plea

- bargain agreement. On September 1, 2015, the tria l court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2). After Guajardo filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies o f the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The04

- 15

- 00626

- CR

- 2

- clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been filed. See id. 25.2(d). “In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) thos e matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by th e court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permissi on to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea

bargain case and that Guajardo does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal ha s not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d). We, therefore, informed Guajardo that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d), unless an amended trial court certification showing that he had the right to app eal was made part of the appellate record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order). No such amended trial court certification has been filed. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed pursuant to R ule 25.2(d).
PER CURIAM Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       8,418,554
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             6,590,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 31,628,676
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      18,763,944
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        18,820,701
<LOANS>                                    230,867,514
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,261,406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             310,010,987
<DEPOSITS>                                 224,361,498
<SHORT-TERM>                                48,411,273
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          9,569,427
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,403,974
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,264,815
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             310,010,987
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             20,456,992
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,137,823
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               455,733
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            24,050,548
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           9,501,153
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,043,635
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       13,006,913
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  360,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              (4,134)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             11,762,316
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,478,188
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,478,188
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,907,849
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.96
<LOANS-NON>                                    981,801
<LOANS-PAST>                                   377,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               973,559
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,335,788
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  571,018
<RECOVERIES>                                   136,636
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,261,406
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,261,406
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>