alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: "DELONEY, SCOTT" <SDELONEY@idem.IN.gov>
To: Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA,
Cc: Andy Chang/R5/USEPA/US@EPA, "PEDERSEN, CHRISTINE" <CPEDERSE@idem.IN.gov>, "Knapick, Ryan" <RKnapick@idem.IN.gov>
Date: 06/25/2012 11:31 AM Subject: Indiana Infrastructure SIP



### Doug, per U.S. EPA’s guidance, we have reviewed our ambient monitoring data for PM2.5. As a result, we have confirmed that observed 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations have been below 140 ug/m3 at all locations throughout Indiana since the PM2.5 network was established in 1999. Consistent with U.S. EPA's guidance, "Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2005 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)" September 25, 2009, areas that have not observed PM2.5 concentrations above EPA's intended significant harm level can opt to address emergency episode requirements by attesting that concentrations have always been below 140 ug/m3. Via this communication, I wish to attest that this is the case for Indiana, and our intent is for this note to satisfy the requirements for emergency episode planning even without contingency plan requirements specifically tailored to PM2.5.

Scott Deloney Chief, Air Programs Branch Office of Air Quality sdeloney @ idem

. in

. gov (317) 233-5694
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            16,941
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      7,347
<ALLOWANCES>                                         666
<INVENTORY>                                           92
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  24,962
<PP&E>                                             5,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                     3,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    26,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              9,818
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                138
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                        16,832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      26,788
<SALES>                                           23,427
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  30,877
<CGS>                                              5,431
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     27,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (216)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (1,999)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (1,999)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,999)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.16)



</TABLE>
Andrew S. /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 5, 2015

No. 04-15-00175-CV

TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

Andrew S. MCGAHEY

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-12185

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellee Andrew S. McGahey’s brief was due October 28, 2015. Neither the brief nor a 

motion for extension of time has been filed.

We order appellee’s brief due November 16, 2015. If the brief or a motion for extension 

of time that complies with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure is not filed by 

the date ordered, we may order the case submitted without an appellee’s brief.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 5th day of November, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

            I,Jeffrey I. Badgley, President and Chief Executive  Officer of Miller Industries, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

> 
(1)       theAnnual  Report on Form 10-K of the Companyfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002  (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 fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 22, 2003

|  |  

   /s/ Jeffrey I. Badgley                                    Jeffrey I. BadgleyPresident and Chief Executive Officer |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Favor, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant argues that the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to refer to unreliable chemical test results in his opening statement. We disagree. The court instructed the jury that the opening statements did not constitute evidence. The court also told the jury to disregard the chemist’s testimony about the testing procedures.

Defendant failed to preserve for review his contention that the court erred in conducting a *Sandoval*hearing *(see, People v Sandoval,*34 NY2d 371) in his absence and, since defendant did not establish prejudice, we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice *(see, People v Dunbar,*172 AD2d 1006 [decided herewith]). Defendant’s remaining contention lacks merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4157 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4157

To transfer the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management to 
               the State in which the lands are located.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 1994

Mr. Thomas of Wyoming (for himself, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Allard, 
Mr. Boehner, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
Duncan, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Lewis of 
California, Mr. Livingston, Mr. McCandless, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Pombo, Mr. 
 Roberts, Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Stump, Mr. Taylor of 
 North Carolina, Mrs. Vucanovich, and Mr. Young of Alaska) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To transfer the lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management to 
               the State in which the lands are located.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS.

    (a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights and except as 
otherwise provided in this section, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
offer to transfer in accordance with this section all right, title, and 
interest (including the surface and subsurface estates), as well as 
related water rights, of the United States in and to all lands 
administered by the Bureau of Land Management to the State in which 
such lands are located. A State may only accept the total offer of all 
such lands or reject such offer. Any transfer under this section shall 
be effective on September 30, 1998.
    (b) Valid Leases and Mining Claims.--Each State receiving lands 
under subsection (a) shall honor valid existing leases, permits, and 
mining claims on such lands for the term of such lease or permit, or 
until such mining claims are patented or otherwise extinguished.
    (c) Restrictive Covenant.--Lands transferred under this section 
that are not encumbered by a lease or permit may only be used for 
public purposes. Such lands shall revert to the United States if a 
State does not use them for public purposes.
    (d) Exempted Lands.--Lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management are exempt from transfer under this Act if such lands are--
            (1) wilderness;
            (2) wilderness study areas;
            (3) areas of critical environmental concern; or
            (4) determined by the Secretary to be too costly for the 
        United States to decontaminate.

                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 28, 2013

t0520

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2013

146348 & (20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146348

COA: 310364

Wayne CC: 90-001233-FC

THEODORA ALFONZA MOSS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 8, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT**

**REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

American Technology Corporation 

San Diego, California 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-144698, File No. 333-09265, FileNo. 333-09269, File No. 333-23845, File No. 333-59929, File No 333-54034, File No. 333-101279, File No. 333-125454 and File No. 333-128263) and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-137289, File No. 333-99675, FileNo. 333-105740, File No. 333-107635, File No. 333-127534 and File No. 333-137289) of American Technology Corporation of our reports dated January 4, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financialstatement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of American Technology Corporation appearing in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2007. 

/s/    Squar, Milner, Peterson, Miranda and Williamson, LLP 

San Diego, CA 

January 7, 2008
----

----

I Comunicações

Comissão

----

Taxa de juro aplicada pelo Banco Central Europeu às suas principais operações de refinanciamento a partir de 1 de Janeiro de 2005: 2,09 % (1)

Taxas de câmbio do euro (2)

4 de Janeiro de 2005

(2005/C 2/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)  Taxa aplicada a operação mais recente realizada antes da data indicada. No caso de leilão de taxa variável, a taxa de juro é a taxa marginal.

(2)

Fonte: Taxas de câmbio de referência publicadas pelo Banco Central Europeu.

----

III Informações

Comissão

----

Convite à apresentação de propostas no domínio da energia no âmbito do Programa «Energia Inteligente — Europa» (Decisão 1230/2003/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho de 26 Junho de 2003, JO L 176 de 15.7.2003)

(2005/C 2/02)

A Comissão Europeia vem por este meio lançar o convite à apresentação de propostas ao Programa Energia Inteligente — Europa de acordo com o definido no programa de trabalhos para 2004. A data limite para a apresentação de propostas para Acções dos tipos 1 e 2 é o dia 23 de Março de 2005 e para Acções do tipo 3 são os dias 31 de Janeiro de 2005 e 31 de Maio de 2005.

Para informação sobre as modalidades do convite e orientação dos proponentes no que respeita à apresentação de propostas, consultar o seguinte sítio web:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/intelligent/index_en.html.

O acesso ao serviço de apoio (helpdesk) do Programa «Energia Inteligente - Europa» pode ser feito através do endereço electrónico: TREN-Intelligentenergy@cec.eu.int

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 28, 2009 

d0420 

Order 

 

April 28, 2009 

138205 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138205 

 COA: 284526 

Wayne CC: 07-023459-FH 

ANTHONY LOMAX, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 12, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Strong, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to object when the 10-year-old witness was sworn, defendant failed to preserve for review the issue of the witness’s competency to testify *(see, People v Johnson,*185 NY 219, 228). In view of the strength of the People’s case, we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice *(cf., People v Ranum,*122 AD2d 959, 961). We reject defendant’s contention that the sentence for these multiple acts of forcible rape upon four young girls was harsh and excessive. Defendant’s consecutive sentences are deemed by law to be limited to a term of imprisonment for a minimum of 25 years and a maximum of 50 years; thus, there is no need to modify the judgment *(see, People v Moore,*61 NY2d 575; Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [c] [iii]).

We reject defendant’s contention in his *pro se*supplemental brief that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. The other issues raised therein were not preserved for our review and, in any event, they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Easier, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. John POLAND.

No. 54190.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1973.

In re: John Poland applying for supervisory writs and writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writ denied. Insufficient showing to warrant the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
activecareexh107.htm


Exhibit 10.7















 


February 10, 2014


 







Mr. David Derrick


Chief Executive Officer Chairman of the Board ActiveCare,   Inc.


1365 West Business Park Drive


Orem, UT 84058














Dear David,







After numerous discussions and serious reflection on my part it is with regret that I submit my resignation as a member of the Board of Directors ActiveCare, Inc.


 


I have had no disagreements with you, management or the Company, but want to spend my time at working on my own businesses.


 


I appreciate the time I have spent with you and the Company and wish you the best of luck going forward. My resignation will be effective as soon as possible but no later than February 14, 2014 or the date of the next board meeting. In the interim, please call me with any help that you may need to effect an orderly transition.


 












Sincerely,












/s/ Jack Johnson


Jack Johnson
exh10.2CarusoAdvanceDistribution




February 15, 2014




Daniel P. Caruso
6346 Snowberry Lane
Niwot, Colorado 80503 

		
	Re:
	Advance Distribution from Communications Infrastructure Investments, LLC (the “Company”) under the Fourth Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of the Company, dated as of December 13, 2012, as amended (the “Operating Agreement”)




Dear Dan,
In September 2013 we announced to certain holders of Common Units an advance distribution of cash from the Company in the amount of up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000).  In order to ensure that more of that distribution was available to other holders of Common Units, you elected not to participate in the advance distribution.  I am pleased to inform you that our Board of Managers and our investors have now approved providing you with an advance distribution of cash from the Company in the amount of $3,000,000 in respect of your Common Units.  
This distribution will be treated the same as the advance distribution provided to the other Common Unit holders, except that the percentage applied to withholding of future distributions in respect of your Common Units will be 100% (not 111.111%) - i.e., there is no interest factor or similar cost for you to accept this advance distribution.  Upon making the advance distribution, the Operating Agreement will be deemed to be amended by this letter to reflect this treatment.   No further action is required of you. 
As a result of receiving this advance distribution, you will forfeit the first $3,000,000 in future distributions made in respect of your Common Units under the Operating Agreement.  In the event less than $3,000,000 is ultimately distributable with respect to such Common Units, you are not under any obligation to return any of this advance distribution to the Company.  The terms of any Vesting Agreement or similar agreement evidencing your ownership of Common Units are also deemed amended as necessary to reflect the foregoing if you make this election, but will not otherwise be changed by this arrangement.
Of course, none of the Company, its employees or its advisors are providing you with any tax or other advice with respect to this distribution, and we urge you to consult your own advisors in this respect.   However, do please let me know if you have any other questions.

1






If you agree to the terms of this letter and wish to elect to receive this advance distribution, please indicate by signing in the space provided below.


Very truly yours,


_____________________________
Ken desGarennes 
Chief Financial Officer 
Communications Infrastructure Investments, LLC and Zayo Group, LLC


I have read the information provided, and elect to receive the advance distribution on the terms described.  I understand that my rights as a holder of Common Units will be changed by making this election.


____________________________________ 
Daniel P. Caruso
Date:  February 15, 2014








Cc:  Scott E Beer, General Counsel
       Michael Choe, Chairman of Compensation Committee



2
Submitted Pursuant to PL 116-6, Division F, Section 7070

Anticipated FY 2019 Obligations - Funded from all sources - Current year appropriations, Recoveries of prior year resources, and Carryforward

Insurance Claims and Provisions are not included

Projection as of 3/31/2019

Department WC AE

Office of the President (FO) 792,400 96,512

Board of Directors - 20,000 FY'19 Administrative Expenses (AE) Appropriation: 79,200,000

Board of Directors Audit Committee - 1,000,000 FY'19 Administrative Expenses Actual (Feb YTD): 25,630,020

Structured Finance and Insurance (SFI) 1,813,843 386,736

Small and Medium Enterprise Finance (SMEF) 2,713,100 56,473 FY'19 Working Capital (WC) Fees Collected (Feb YTD): 28,139,119

Investment Funds Department (IFD) 2,622,160 29,805 FY'19 Working Capital Expenses Actual (Feb YTD): 9,891,263

Office of Investment Policy (OIP) 1,857,233 40,786

Legal Affairs Department (LA) 4,906,800 738,212

Human Resources Management (HRM) - 1,921,330

Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) 5,738,335 14,118,952

Chief Information Security Officer - 1,284,732

Dept for Management and Administration (DMA) - 10,173,600 Budget Object Class WC AE

Building Lease - 7,370,856 Personnel Compensation - 50,410,194

Office of Facilities and Administrative Services - 1,545,694 Travel and Transportation of Persons 7,530,615 196,000

Office of Security, Continuity, and Emergency Preparedness - 607,175 Rental Payments to Others - 7,440,856

Planning, Risk and Controls - 610,656 Communications - 1,092,505

Department of Financial & Portfolio Management (DFPM) 3,501,351 3,280,271 Printing and Reproduction - 106,917

Chief Financial Officer 149,785 241,729 Other Contractual Services 12,663,263 13,122,607

Financial Management 194,098 2,153,542 Advisory and Assistance Services 2,921,550 5,236,898

Portfolio Management 1,796,100 - Other Services from Non-Federal Sources 104,710 31,500

Financial Institutions & Capital Mobilization 1,181,368 - Representation Expense - 35,000

Risk Management 70,000 385,000 Training - 905,819

Credit Policy 110,000 - Other Goods and Services from Federal Sources - 510,657

Budget & Resource Planning - 500,000 Operation and Maintenance of Facilities - 1,148,132

Office of External Affairs (OEA) 978,924 2,179,910 Operation and Maintenance of Equipment 599,000 2,063,405

Information Center 388,924 1,222,311 Professional Accreditation Fees - 9,193

Organization Wide Expenses - 50,560,194 Supplies and Materials 825,008 1,541,097

Human Resources Management - Payroll - 50,410,194 Equipment 280,000 737,000

Admin Cost - Only used for Travel Expenses - 150,000 Interest and Dividends - 15,000

Total 24,924,146 84,602,781 Total 24,924,146 84,602,781

Amounts shown in Dollars.

Total Funds

OPIC Noncredit Account: FY 2019 Operating Plan - Administrative and Working Capital Expenses
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Howard Hughes Corporation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Weinreb, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, 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.

 

 
| /s/   David R. Weinreb    |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| David   R. Weinreb        |   |
| Chief   Executive Officer |   |
| May 10,   2011       |   |

 

----