alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105



## MEMO RANDUM

DATE: September 4 , 2015

TO: EPA Region 9 Rulemaking File for the BAAQMD NSR SIP Submittal

FROM: Shaheerah Kelly , EPA Region 9 , Air Division , Permits Office

SUBJECT: September 4, 2015 Conference Phone Call regarding the EPA Proposed Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of Regulation 2, Ru les 1 & 2

ATTENDEES

• Kerry Drake, EPA Region 9, Air Division

• Laura Yannayon, EPA Region 9, Air Division

• Ann Lyons, EPA Region 9, Air Division

• Shaheerah Kelly, EPA Region 9, Air Division

• Sandy Crockett, BAAQMD Counsel’s Office

SUMMARY

1. 40 CFR 51.160(a) and (b)

– District’s rul e must include provisions that ensure new and modified sources “will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the” NAAQS. What are guidelines or targets for analysis to answer question about whether a source will interfere with the NAAQS? Modeling f or all sources? If so, what is the appropriate cutoff for modeling?

2. 40 CFR 51.307

– The current rule only requires a 100

- km distance threshold, which EPA has cited as a deficiency. BAAQMD is seeking definitive rule guidelines. Since the

determination for when a project “ may have an impact ” on a Class I area and a visibility analysis is required is based on consultation with the Federal Land Manager (FLM), EPA suggested using the guidelines in the FLM’s FLAG guidance or referencing this guidance in

the rule . EPA also suggested that BAAQMD may consider using looking at South Coast Rule

1303.

ATTACHMENTS

• N one
EXHIBIT
13.1













Certification
of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to






Title
18, United States Code, Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to






Section
906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






I, John
G. Robertson, President (principal executive officer) of Reg Technologies Inc.,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that, to the best of my knowledge:






1. The
Annual Report on Form 20-F/A of Reg Technologies Inc. for the year ended April
30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));
and






2. The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Reg Technologies
Inc.






Richmond,
      BC, Canada
                  
                  March
      24, 2009
                by:  /s/ John G. Robertson
                  John
      G. Robertson
                  President
      (Principal Executive Officer)









A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Reg Technologies Inc. and will be retained by Reg Technologies Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Kip Lowell THORSON, Appellant, v. The COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Walter Kautzky, Executive Director, Edward Buckingham, Administrative Services, William Zalman, Classification Management, Carlos Baca, Adult Services, Div. II, Walter Diesslin, Superintendent, BVCF, the Colorado State Board of Parole, John Ray Enright, Chairman, Appellees.

No. 89SA475.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Nov. 19, 1990.

*541Kip Lowell Thorson, pro se.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Robert C. Ripple, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for appellees.

Justice ERICKSON

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal by the petitioner, Kip Thorson, from the denial of habeas corpus relief. We affirm.

I

On March 6, 1987, Kip Thorson was sentenced to eight years and one day for a conviction of first degree assault committed on December 15, 1984.1 On July 3, 1989, Thorson petitioned for habeas corpus asserting that he should be unconditionally discharged by the Department of Corrections on June 24, 1990, his mandatory parole date. Thorson claimed that his good time and earned time credits under sections 17-22.5-301(2) & -302(3), 8A C.R.S. (1986), constitute service of his sentence, and that by June 24, 1990, these credits combined with his actual time served would equal the sentence imposed.

II

Good time and earned time credits do not constitute service of sentence, but only serve the purpose of determining an inmate’s parole eligibility date. *Jones v. Martinez,*799 P.2d 385 (Colo.1990); *Williamson v. Jordon,*797 P.2d 744 (Colo.1990); *Wiedemer v. People,*784 P.2d 739, 740 (Colo.1989); *Bynum v. Kautzky,*784 P.2d 735, 738 (Colo.1989). Until Thorson has served his entire sentence, he is not entitled to release.

Thorson’s petition for habeas corpus was also untimely. Under the Habeas Corpus Act, sections 13-45-101 to -119, 6A C.R.S. (1987), an inmate must establish that he is entitled to release in order to obtain habeas corpus relief. *Deason v. Kautzky,*786 P.2d 420, 423 (Colo.1990). Habeas corpus, if granted, must have an immediate practical effect on the restraint of the prisoner. *Kodama v. Johnson,*786 P.2d 417, *542419 (Colo.1990). Since Thorson filed his petition prior to the date he claimed he was entitled to release, his petition for habeas corpus relief was premature and the petition was properly denied.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. § 18-3-202, 8B C.R.S. (1986 *&*1990 Supp.).
| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Biologix Hair Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2013 (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 Biologix Hair Inc. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           |   | /s/ Michael Stocker                                  |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated:  May 20, 2013 |   | Michael Stocker                                      |
|                           |   | Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer) |
|                           |   | Biologix Hair Inc.                                   |
"Natural gas produces less pollution than coal, par ticularly when it's burned to generate electricity, said Michelle

Bloodworth, vice president of the trade group Ameri ca's Natural Gas Alliance. About 2.8 million people work in the natural gas industry nationwide, she said. 'We can develop this resource, and we can do it in a safe and responsible way,' she said." Read more: http://www.star - telegram.com/2010/08/02/2378053/speakers - at - epa - hearing - spar - over.html#my headlines - default#ixzz0vU2u3Thz They CAN, but they DON'T. Give them some greater " incentive" to do so and clean up our air!! Neither of the Texas organizations charged with the responsibiity to do so (TCEQ and RRC) has or will. We need your help. Michael Appleman Fort Worth 

### DFW Air

Michael Appleman to: Nick Parsons 08/02/2010 04:50 PM Show Details Page 1 of 1

8/9/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Set tings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web4775.h

...
#### Francine Kaye, Appellant, v Prisma Corporation, Defendant, and Dianna de Martino, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered August 2, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted *288defendant de Martino’s motion for summary judgment dismissal of the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint in this slander action alleged that, after terminating plaintiff, a sales representative, defendant de Martino, corporate vice president and sales manager, in the presence of other employees, stated, "I want to watch you pack your personal belongings to make sure you do not steal any company property”. This statement was allegedly repeated in an incident the next day, with defendant also adding plaintiff’s conduct was unprofessional. No specials damages were pleaded. Supreme Court’s dismissal of the complaint was proper as these statements do not constitute slander per se *(Matherson v Marchello,*100 AD2d 233). The construction of the first statement urged by plaintiff, that plaintiff had the intent to commit a crime, which statement also injured her in the trade or business, is strained and artificial *(Weiner v Doubleday & Co.,*74 NY2d 586, 592, *cert denied*— US —, 109 L Ed 2d 498). In any event, the statement clearly does not amount to the requisite element of an accusation of having actually committed a crime; mere intent or capability to commit a criminal act is insufficient to constitute slander per se (Restatement [Second] of Torts § 571). We also note this statement does not concern any action undertaken or contemplated by plaintiff as an employee or in her trade or business, but rather related solely to post-termination circumstances. The second alleged statement cannot be regarded as incompatible with the proper conduct of plaintiff’s trade or business *(Aronson v Wiersma, 65*NY2d 592, 594). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.31 MB)

Tags:fort belvoir, McNamara Headquarters Complex, dla, mwr, Family Day , People and Culture, Defense Logistics Agency, Children

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-0849

Filed January 9, 2020

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MAJOR CALVIN MOORE JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas G. Reidel, 

Judge.

Major Moore Jr. appeals his sentence for criminal mischief in the third 

degree. AFFIRMED.

Thomas Hurd of Greenberg & Hurd, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., Mullins, J., and Vogel, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2020).
2

VOGEL, Senior Judge.

Major Moore Jr. appeals his sentence for criminal mischief in the third 

degree. See Iowa Code § 716.5 (2017). On April 26, 2018, the district court 

entered its order sentencing him to a term of incarceration not to exceed two years 

and imposed a fine, costs, and restitution. The court also revoked his probation in 

two other cases, imposed the terms of incarceration previously suspended, and 

ordered the term of incarceration here to run concurrently. 

When a sentence is within the statutory limits, we review the sentence for 

an abuse of discretion. State v. Gordon, 921 N.W.2d 19, 24 (Iowa 2018). “We will 

find an abuse of discretion when ‘the district court exercises its discretion on 

grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting 

State v. Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915, 918 (Iowa 2014)).

Moore concedes his sentence is within the statutory limits. However, he 

argues the two-year term of incarceration is an “untenable” sentence for “a 

misdemeanor property crime for breaking a phone.” 

During the sentencing hearing, the State recommended a two-year 

sentence be imposed and that it run consecutively to the sentences to be imposed 

on the prior felony convictions. The court rejected the State’s recommendation,

explaining its reasoning for the sentence chosen:

[M]y duty under the law is to review what’s available to me in terms 

of community resources, to determine what the appropriate 

rehabilitative plan for you would be, but to also consider the public 

must be protected.

In doing so, I look at the seriousness of the crime, the effect 

that this crime has upon members of the community, your willingness 

to accept change and treatment, and what we have available within 

the community to assist you in this process. 
3

The court emphasized it “always look[s] first at the least restrictive 

alternatives before moving on to the more restrictive.” It reviewed Moore’s criminal 

history, including “some very serious offenses.” It noted Moore failed to take full 

advantage of prior opportunities for rehabilitation. It concluded by finding “that to 

protect the community, to maximize your rehabilitation, and to deter this type of 

conduct, that incarceration is appropriate.” On our review of the record, we agree. 

We find no abuse of discretion and affirm his sentence.

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00490-CR

NO. 03-12-00491-CR

Darius Shundale Dohnalik, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 35481 & 38047, HONORABLE GUILFORD L. JONES III, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Darius Shundale Dohnalik pled guilty to the offense of attempted burglary

of a habitation with intent to commit assault, and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication

community supervision for eight years. In a separate cause, Dohnalik pled guilty to the offense of

aggravated sexual assault of a child, and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication

community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging

Dohnalik’s multiple violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision, including

failing to register as a sex offender and committing the new offense of driving without a valid

driver’s license. After a hearing—at which Dohnalik pled true to the State’s allegations in both

causes—the trial court found the State’s allegations to be true, adjudicated Dohnalik’s guilt for both

offenses, and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment for the attempted burglary and twenty-five

years’ imprisonment for the aggravated sexual assault. Dohnalik appealed both convictions.
Dohnalik’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief in each cause concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional

evaluation of the records demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.

See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1969). Dohnalik was sent copies of counsel’s briefs and advised of his right to examine the

appellate records and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No pro se brief has been

filed and no extension of time was requested.

We have reviewed the records in both causes and find no reversible error. See Garner

v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeals are frivolous. Counsel’s motion

to withdraw from both causes is granted. The judgments of conviction are affirmed.

 

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Affirmed

Filed: January 30, 2013

Do Not Publish

2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Cisco, Appellant.

Motion by the appellant *pro se*for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate a decision and order of this court dated April 27, 1987, which determined an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered January 12, 1981 *(see, People v Cisco,*129 AD2d 805).

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied.

The defendant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. The defendant points to no argument which counsel could have raised upon direct appeal but unreasonably failed to do so *(see, Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

(Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Carroll Bancorp, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Russell J. Grimes, as President and Chief Executive Officer of Carroll Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) | Such Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 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 such Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Carroll Bancorp, Inc.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: September 26, 2011             
|                                     
|/s/ Russell J. Grimes                
|                                     
|Russell J. Grimes                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed as part of the
Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason other than as specifically required by law.
#### Sidney Edwards et al., Plaintiffs, v Getty Petroleum Corp. et al., Appellants, and Rigaglia Bros. et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Getty Petroleum Corp. and Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc., appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered February 15, 1990, as denied the motion of Getty Petroleum Corp. for summary judgment in its favor on its cross claim for indemnification.

Ordered that the appeal by Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc., is *716dismissed, as it is not aggrieved by the order appealed from *(see,*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by Getty Petroleum Corp.; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants-respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Sidney Edwards was injured when he tripped and fell over a crack in the pavement while filling the gas tank of his car at a service station owned by the appellant Getty Petroleum Corp. (hereinafter Getty) and leased to the respondent Rigaglia Bros. In this ensuing negligence action, Getty claims that it is entitled to summary judgment based upon an indemnification and hold harmless clause of the parties’ lease. We disagree.

In the lease, Getty reserved the right to re-enter the premises to inspect and repair it, presumably to fulfill its obligations under the lease to make all structural repairs and to keep the building in operating condition. Such a reservation may be deemed to be a sufficient retention of control which, with constructive notice of the complained of condition, could subject the lessor to liability *(see, Worth Distribs. v Latham,*59 NY2d 231; *Sharaby v Gamel,*140 AD2d 319; *Pellegrino v Walker Theatre,*127 AD2d 574).

It is not clear from this record whether Getty or Rigaglia Bros, or both parties, were responsible for repairing the crack in the pavement which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. If it was Getty’s responsibility, General Obligations Law § 5-321, which prohibits a lessor from exempting itself from liability for its own acts of negligence, would prohibit Getty from invoking the clause to escape liability for any negligence in failing to make the necessary repairs. In light of this triable issue of fact, Getty was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.