alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DOE Stakeholder Meeting Agenda

Building Energy Codes Program

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Building Energy Codes Program will hold a public meeting to

present and receive comments on overall program direction and in anticipation of its future residential

code development activities. Please n ote that space is limited and advanced registration is required.

Date : Thursday, April 24, 2014

Time : 8:00a

– 3:30p

Location : DoubleTree Hotel

– Crystal City

300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA

Additional information : http://www.energycodes.gov/becp

- stakeholder

- meeting

- april

- 24

- 2014

8:00a

- Noon Program Information and Stakeholder Input Time (minutes)

1. Welcome & Opening Remarks:

a. Legal Notifications from DOE General Counsel

b. Instructions for Submitting Stakeholder Comments 10

2. Introduction of DOE staff 10

3. Statutory basis for DOE Activities:

a. Regulatory

b. Technical Assistance 15

4. Overview of Current Program Activities:

a. Organizational chart

b. Program Vision & Framework Document 60

BREAK 15

5. Discussion of Selected Topics:

a. REScheck/COMcheck Compliance Software Policy:

i. Overview of policy

ii. Highlighted changes

iii. Participant Q & A

b. Compliance Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA):

iv. Overview of vision and basic components

v. Timing and logistics

vi. Participant Q & A

c. Federal Advisory Committee (FACA):

vii. Background

viii. Purpose

ix. Process

x. Timeline

xi. Participant Q & A

d. Building Energy Codes Summit:

xii. Current status 30

6. Participant Feedback:

a. Verbal feedback & future considerations

b. Official comments via public docket 60

7. Closing RemarksDOE Stakeholder Meeting Agenda (continued):

1:00p

- 3:30p 2018 IECC Residential Code Development

1. Energy Code Formats and Compliance Paths:

a. Does the code in its current form have the potential to continue to advance residential

energy efficiency?

b. Are there areas in current code formats that need improvement to unlock the intended

energy savings potential?

c. Are there concerns relative to equivalency among different compliance paths?

d. Will the development of new paths advance residential efficiency? If so, which paths?

e. What is the role for performance metrics relative to energy codes?

2. DOE Role in Residential Code Development :

a. What is the desired role for DOE in the residential code development process?

b. On which areas should DOE focus its resources in the 2018 IECC development cycle?

3. Energy Efficiency in the 2018 IECC:

a. What is a reasonable energy savings goal for the 2018 IEC C cycle?

b. What data is available or anticipated? What are the key data needs?
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE W. YEPEZ,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MELINDA HAAG, Asst. U.S. Attorney; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-55492

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-08550-SVWRNB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Jose W. Yepez appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that a police

FILED

JUL 15 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-55492

detective and a prosecutor engaged in misconduct that resulted in Yepez’s

conviction and sentence to life imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yepez’s complaint because a judgment

in favor of Yepez would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or

sentence, and Yepez has not shown that his conviction or sentence has been

previously invalidated. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996)

(order).

We construe the judgment to be without prejudice. See Trimble v. City of

Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 585 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).

Yepez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00014-CR

RUBEN HEREDIA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. C34853-CR

ABATEMENT ORDER

Ruben Heredia was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine,

and sentenced to 60 years in prison. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.115(d)

(West 2010). Heredia filed a motion to suppress his statements in which he contended

he did not voluntarily waive his statutory rights set out in article 38.22 of the Texas

Code of Criminal Procedure. After a hearing, the motion to suppress was denied.Heredia v. State Page 2 Although the trial court stated that findings of fact and conclusions of law would be

made if either party requested, none were requested and none were made.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has said, “Under article 38.22 of the Texas Code

of Criminal Procedure, ‘[i]n all cases where a question is raised as to the voluntariness

of a statement of an accused, the [trial] court

... must enter an order stating its

conclusion as to whether or not the statement was voluntarily made, along with the

specific finding of fact upon which the conclusion was based, which order shall be filed

among the papers of this cause.’” Vasquez v. State

, 411 S.W.3d 918, 920 (Tex. Crim. App.

2013) (quoting art. 38.22, sec. 6). In Vasquez

, the Court held that “written findings are

required in all cases concerning voluntariness. The statute has no exceptions.” Id

.

Accordingly, this appeal is abated to the trial court to make findings of fact and

conclusions of law regarding whether Heredia’s statements were voluntary and

specifically whether Heredia made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the

rights set out in Article 22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court’s

findings of fact and conclusions of law must be prepared, signed, and filed as a

supplemental clerk’s record with this Court within 28 days from the date of this Order.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal abated

Order issued and filed December 31, 2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-4304

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus CRAIG JOE CRAWFORD, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CR-95-194) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 17, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence J. Lewis, FLESHER & LEWIS, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Sharon M. Frazier, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Craig Joe Crawford appeals his conviction and sentence on a guilty plea on a charge of knowingly and intentionally distributing a quantity of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1988). Crawford's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), appealing the extent of the sentencing court's downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines, but concluding that there are no meritorious groundsfor appeal. Crawford was notified of his right to file an additional brief, but failed to do so. In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We find that Crawford's guideline range was properly calculated pursuant to the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual . As such, the district judge's imposition of a sentence within that range does not state an appealable question under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742 (West 1985 & Supp. 1996). See United States v. Porter , 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990). Nor is theextent of the district judge's downward departure from the guidelines appealable. See United States v. Hill , 70 F.3d 321, 323 (4th Cir. 1995). We deny without prejudice counsel's motion to withdraw at this stage of the proceedings. This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition3 would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
This form is officially authorized by the Department of Justice for claims collection uses. DFAS has adapted it 

for limited use to obtain information in support of a request for a reduced rate of severance or separation

pay recoupment due to financial hardship under 10 U.S.C. 1174(h) or 10 U.S.C.1175(e).

The form is at https://www.dfas.mil/RetiredMilitary/forms. Click on the Retired Military & Annuitants 

banner, scroll down to DEBTS and click on Financial Statement of Debtor. This link will take you to the 

Department of Justice website and you can fill in the form or print it and fill in out.

Please complete Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 of the form ONLY. 

At the end of sections 2, 3, 4 and 9, you will see instructions labeled "Attachments required." You are not 

required to provide the financial documents requested in these sections. However, we reserve the right to 

request them if further verification of the information you provide becomes necessary.

Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 must be filled out in their entirety, including valid contact information. Failure to do 

so will delay your request for consideration of a reduced rate of recoupment.

DO NOT INCLUDE YOUR MILITARY RETIREMENT PAYMENTS (FROM DFAS)!

We will include your military retired pay when processing the application. Please be sure to include all

other payments and deductions.

Completed applications can be mailed to: 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

U.S. Military Retired Pay 

8899 E. 56th Street

Indianapolis, IN 46249-1200

Or faxed to:

1-800-469-6559

Instructions for the Financial Statement of Debtor
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

DESIGNATION OF VICE-CHAIR OF 

THE PENNSYLVANIA LAWYERS 

FUND FOR CLIENT SECURITY 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES

:

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 79

CLIENT SECURITY APPOINTMENT 

DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4

th day of January, 2022, George P. Hartwick, III, is hereby 

designated as Vice-Chair of the Pennsylvania Lawyers Fund for Client Security Board of 

Trustees.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
Back to Contents

### Data 1: U.S. Exports of Fuel Ethanol (Thousand Barrels)

SourcekeyM_EPOOXE_EEX_NUSZ00_MBBL

DateU.S. Exports of Fuel

Ethanol (Thousand Barrels) Jan-2010 324 Feb-2010 519 Mar-2010 1153 Apr-2010 973 May-2010 414 Jun-2010 387 Jul-2010 603 Aug-2010 707 Sep-2010 929 Oct-2010 834 Nov-2010 930 Dec-2010 1717 Jan-2011 1364 Feb-2011 1425 Mar-2011 2003 Apr-2011 2865 May-2011 1743 Jun-2011 1604 Jul-2011 3036 Aug-2011 1246 Sep-2011 2525 Oct-2011 2895 Nov-2011 3634 Dec-2011 4117 Jan-2012 1819 Feb-2012 1785 Mar-2012 1992 Apr-2012 1775 May-2012 1397 Jun-2012 1410 Jul-2012 1519 Aug-2012 1206 Sep-2012 1191 Oct-2012 1284 Nov-2012 965 Dec-2012 1313 Jan-2013 1518 Feb-2013 1017 Mar-2013 1312 Apr-2013 967 May-2013 952 Jun-2013 796 Jul-2013 830 Aug-2013 1182 Sep-2013 1299 Oct-2013 1206Nov-20132134

Dec-2013 1525 Jan-2014 2054 Feb-2014 1605 Mar-20142139 Apr-2014 1585 May-2014 1263 Jun-2014 1431 Jul-2014 1600 Aug-2014 1292 Sep-2014 1354 Oct-2014 1888 Nov-20142166 Dec-2014 1798
J. 

J. 

A.71449WaNtr4-1431.7.or MEM 

Schrader's heir and the personal representative of her estate and 

requesting to substitute into the underlying matter as a party. Appellant 

then filed a notice of appeal before the district court could rule on 

appellant's motion to substitute, and therefore, appellant was not a party 

of record in the matter below. As a result, appellant lacks standing to 

appeal from the district court's order, and thus, this court lacks 

jurisdiction to entertain his appeal. See NRAP 3A(a); Valley Bank, 110 

Nev. at 448, 874 P.2d at 735. Accordingly, we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 1 

Douglas 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge 

Edward Oryem 

Beckett, Yott, McCarty & Spann/Reno 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City Clerk 

'In light of this order, we deny as moot all requests for relief 

currently pending in this matter. 

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 29, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                         119,840
<SECURITIES>                                    42,274
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               130,067
<PP&E>                                          51,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,747
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       199,542
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   222,701
<SALES>                                         47,956
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,706
<CGS>                                           14,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (351)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,240
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,316
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,924
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,924
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .41


</TABLE>
----

Legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

(2005/C 86/05)

These texts are available on EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2527

___________________________

Ruby J. Watts

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Administrative Office of the Courts

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

John Stewart, Director of Finance and Administration, Individually and Official

Capacity; Andrea Lea, Auditor of State, Individually and in her Official Capacity

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

Does, Legislative Bureau Member of the Administrative Office of the Courts,

Individually and Official Capacity; Marty Garrity

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central

 ____________

 Submitted: April 20, 2022

Filed: April 25, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________
PER CURIAM.

Ruby Watts appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of judgment

as a matter of law in her employment discrimination action. Watts argues the district

court erred in failing to grant her leave to amend her complaint, and in denying her

request to reopen discovery. She also argues the district court erred in granting

judgment as a matter of law.

After careful consideration, we conclude that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in failing to grant Watts leave to amend her complaint or in declining

to reopen discovery. See FGS Constructors, Inc. v. Carlow, 64 F.3d 1230, 1235 (8th

Cir. 1995) (standard of review). We also conclude that the grant of judgment as a

matter of law was warranted for the reasons stated on the record by the district court. 

See Sisk v. Picture People, Inc., 669 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2012) (reviewing de novo

grant of judgment as a matter of law). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice Lesesne, Appellant.

Appeal unanimously dismissed. Memorandum: The record demonstrates that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal *(see, People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J.—Assault, 2nd Degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
[Cite as Ferrell v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr. , 2023

- Ohio

- 4890.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶1} On December 28, 2023, in M.F. v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr. , 10th Dist.

Franklin No. 23AP

- 297, 2023

- Ohio

- 4799, ¶ 23, the Tenth District Court of Appeals

reverse d th is Court ’ s judgment and remand ed this matter for further proceedings in

accordance with law and consistent with the court of appeals ’ decision. In M.F. a t ¶ 19,

the court of appeals instructed : “ [W] e are not remanding the case for a new trial; rather,

we are remanding the case for the Court of Claims to review Dr. Duboe ’ s videorecorded

tria l dep osition testimony and determine whether that testimony alters its previous

disposition on M.F. ’ s claims. ”

{¶2} The Court has reviewed the two

- plus hou r videorecorded trial testimony of

Fred J. Duboe, M.D. , as directed by the Tenth District Court of Appeals. 1 After reviewing

Dr. Duboe ’ s vid eorecorded trial testi mony, the Court finds that Dr. Dub oe ’ s videorecorded

trial testimony does not alte r the Court ’ s previ ous d is position of the claims (including

M.F. ’ s claims) in this case

. The Court is una ble to determine the proximate cause of

Cameroun Ferrell's injuries . Based upon the testimony of all witnesses

, as well a s Dr.

Duboe ’ s videorecorded trial testimony, the Court determines that the weight of the

evidence is equally balanced and

, consequently, Plaintiffs have failed to prove their

1 A written copy of the deposition was not filed with the court

. MEGAN FERRELL, et al.

Plaintiffs

v.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

MEDICAL CENTER, et al.

Defendants Case No. 2018

- 00002JD

Judge Dale A. Crawford

DECISIONCase No. 2018

- 00002JD

- 2

- DECISION

cl aim s by a pre pond er ance of the evi dence in th is matter

. Judgment will again be entered

in favor of D efendants.

DALE A. CRAWFORD
Judge[Cite as Ferrell v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr. , 2023

- Ohio

- 4890.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

{¶3} For re asons stated i n the Decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is

entered in favor of Defendants. C ourt costs a r e assessed equally against Plaintiffs

. The

C ler k s ha ll se rve upon all p ar ties notice of this judgment and its date o f e ntry upon the

journal

.

DALE A . CRAWFORD
Judge

Filed December 29, 2023

Sent to S.C. Reporter 1 / 30 /24 MEGAN FERRELL, et al.

Plaintiffs

v.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

MEDICAL CENTER, et al.

Defendants Case No. 2018

- 00002JD

Judge Dale A. Crawford

JUDGMENT ENTRY
yearID sourceTypeID roadTypeID roadTypeVMTFraction

2013 11 1 0

2013 11 2 0.028189116

2013 11 3 0.079049692

2013 11 4 0.281950858

2013 11 5 0.610810333

2013 21 1 0

2013 21 2 0.028189116

2013 21 3 0.079049692

2013 21 4 0.281950858

2013 21 5 0.610810333

2013 31 1 0

2013 31 2 0.028189116

2013 31 3 0.079049692

2013 31 4 0.281950858

2013 31 5 0.610810333

2013 32 1 0

2013 32 2 0.028189116

2013 32 3 0.079049692

2013 32 4 0.281950858

2013 32 5 0.610810333

2013 41 1 0

2013 41 2 0.053417321

2013 41 3 0.075256539

2013 41 4 0.415816272

2013 41 5 0.455509867

2013 42 1 0

2013 42 2 0.053417321

2013 42 3 0.075256539

2013 42 4 0.415816272

2013 42 5 0.455509867

2013 43 1 0

2013 43 2 0.053417321

2013 43 3 0.075256539

2013 43 4 0.415816272

2013 43 5 0.455509867

2013 51 1 0

2013 51 2 0.053417321

2013 51 3 0.075256539

2013 51 4 0.415816272

2013 51 5 0.455509867

2013 52 1 0

2013 52 2 0.053417321

2013 52 3 0.075256539

2013 52 4 0.415816272

2013 52 5 0.455509867

2013 53 1 0
2013 53

2 0.053417321

2013 533 0.075256539

2013 534 0.415816272

2013 535 0.455509867

2013 5410

2013 542 0.053417321

2013 543 0.075256539

2013 544 0.415816272

2013 545 0.455509867

2013 6110

2013 612 0.085182429

2013 613 0.053587302

2013 614 0.682390894

2013 615 0.178839375

2013 6210

2013 622 0.085182429

2013 623 0.053587302

2013 624 0.682390894

2013 625 0.178839375
ctle_ex109.htm


EXHIBIT 10.9


 





 




  





Page 1 of 3  











  






 





 




  





Page 2 of 3  











  






 





 


Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 21.1

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERILINK CORPORATION

       The following are the only subsidiaries of AmeriLink Corporation:

     Name of Subsidiary                          Jurisdiction of Incorporation
     ------------------                          -----------------------------

AmeriLink Corp.                                             Ohio
Nacom Corporation                                           Ohio
AmeriLink Holdings Corporation                              Ohio
AmeriLink of Indiana, L.L.C.                                Delaware
AmeriLink of Kentucky, L.L.C.                               Delaware
AmeriLink of Texas , Limited Partnership                    Delaware
Nacom Cable Corp.                                           Delaware
AmeriLink Management Corporation                            Ohio
Midwest Computer Cable, Inc.                                Ohio



                                      -85-