alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Raymond, Gabrielle [mailto:graymond@rti.org]  

Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:08 PM

To: Rosenthal, Steven <rosenthal.steven@epa.gov>; Mulrine, Phil <Mulrine.Phil@epa.gov>

Cc: Munoz, Breda <breda@rti.org>; Hakos, Matthew <mhakos@rti.org>; Parker, Barrett <Parker.Barrett@epa.gov>;

D'Agostino, Kathleen <dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov>; Liljegren, Jennifer <Liljegren.Jennifer@epa.gov>

Subject: RE: Taconite UPL section review and UPL questions

Hi,

For the data sets being collected, months’ worth of hourly CEMS with n in the thousands, the non‐parametric equation is

the best approach to use. As an example, we determined  that the Line 7 Solid Fuel data (n>18,000) was not normal

distributed using several tests (kurtosis, skewness, proUCL, Anderson Darling). For data sets that large in size the

likelihood of detecting non‐normality or non‐lognormality increases. In addition, since the calculation of any high

percentile is possible without the need of interpolation and as a result the non‐parametric equation is the most

appropriate for very large data sets.

For the March 3 email  

‐They should use the 720‐average values to set the non‐parametric limit if they are using 720‐average values to meet

compliance.

This is stated in the revised write‐up UPL Section ‐ Revised 3‐4_rev3.15.16.docx

‐The data format to set a limit should match the data format for compliance.

This is stated in the revised write‐up UPL Section ‐ Revised 3‐4_rev3.15.16.docx

‐We also do not agree with their statement about removing high values.

“By contrast, if the non‐parametric equation uses individual hourly data to set the standard, the highest 5% are the

peaks in the hourly data set.  The limit is established by excluding the highest 5% of those hourly peaks.”

They are truncating the distribution to remove the high values.

The revised write‐up UPL Section ‐ Revised 3‐4_rev3.15.16.docx instructs to use the 720‐hour averages not the hourly

data for the non‐parametric equation to match the format of the data used for compliance. If outlier testing can be

done, in addition to other lines of evidence (professional experience), to establish that certain hourly data points should

be removed from a data set, then that is more  reasonable then arbitrarily removing a top 5%.

Gabrielle Raymond

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone:  (919) 541‐7015
Exhibit
23.1







REPORT
OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM





Shareholders
and Board of Directors


Hawk
Corporation





We have
audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Hawk Corporation as of
December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2008.  Our audits also included the
financial statement schedule listed in the Index at Item 15(a).  These
financial statements and schedule are the responsibility of the Company’s
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and schedule based on our audits.





We
conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  Those standards require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An audit
includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.





In our
opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly,
in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Hawk
Corporation at December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated results of its
operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2008, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles.  Also, in our opinion, the related financial statement
schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as
a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth
therein.





As
explained in Notes 2, 10, 11, and 13 to the consolidated financial statements,
on January 1, 2006, the Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 123(R) Share Based Payment and at December 31, 2006, the Company
adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, Employers’
Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, and on
January 1, 2007, the Company adopted FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for
Uncertainty in Income Taxes.





We also
have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States), Hawk Corporation’s internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, based on criteria established in
Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated March 9, 2009
expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.














/s/Ernst
& Young LLP





Cleveland,
Ohio


March 9,
2009










































109
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOANNA DUNBAR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1366

[October 13, 2022]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Jeffrey Walton Hendriks, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562022CT000549.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, CIKLIN and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### AMERICAN FIRE AND INDEMNITY COMPANY v. CITIZEN’S NATIONAL BANK, First Guaranty Bank, and Jerry Morgan.

No. 87-C-0219.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re First Guaranty Bank; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 85 CA 1122; Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 68130.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 320.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1










CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Provision Holdings, Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curt Thornton, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





May 24, 2010
/s/ Curt ThorntonCurt ThorntonChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.1








RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) CERTIFICATION (SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)











I, Andrew J. McMonigle, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2021-3 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.








Date: May 27, 2022








/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Name: Andrew J. McMonigle


Title: Vice President and Treasurer


(Senior officer in charge of securitization)


Company: CarMax Auto Funding LLC


as Depositor on behalf of CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2021-3
----

**EXHIBIT 99.6**

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

I, Tamir Poleg, Chief Executive Officer of The Real Brokerage Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

| a.     | the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the "Annual Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
| b.     | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                              |

Date: March 18, 2022

|   | By:                            |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   |                           |   |
|   | /s/Tamir Poleg                 |
|   | Name: Tamir Poleg              |
|   | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 331 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 331

 To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation 
                  in United States v. Ellen Rose Hart.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2000

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize testimony, document production, and legal representation 
                  in United States v. Ellen Rose Hart.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Ellen Rose Hart, CR-F 99-5275 AWI, 
        pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
        California, testimony has been requested from Eric Vizcaino, an employee 
        in the office of Senator Boxer, and Monica Borvice, an employee in the 
        office of Senator Feinstein;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official 
        responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate, and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistently with 
        the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Eric Vizcaino, Monica Borvice, and any other 
employee of the Senate from whom testimony or document production may 
be required are authorized to testify and produce documents in the case 
of United States v. Ellen Rose Hart, except concerning matters for 
which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Eric 
Vizcaino, Monica Borvice, and any Member or employee of the Senate in 
connection with the testimony and document production authorized in 
section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.1

BG FINANCIALGROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION —PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, J. Robert Grubbs,certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BGFinancial Group, Inc.

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

a)             Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

c)             Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting;

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors:

a)             All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: August 18, 2006 | Signature: | /s/ J. Robert Grubbs                  |
|-----------------------|------------|---------------------------------------|
|                  |       | J. Robert Grubbs                      |
|                  |       | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

22

----
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Freeman J. Daniels et al., as Trustees under a Trust Made by Florence R. White.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

September 19, 1958.

*Perkins, Daniels, McCormack & Collins (William T. Collins, II,*of counsel), for petitioners.

*John T. Sullivan*and *Arthur J. diento*for Dorothy M. Stehlin.

*Irving D. Springer*for Stamford White.

*Hugo E. Rogers,*as special guardian for infants.

Irving H. Saypol, J.

The submission is imperfect in this proceeding to settle the account of trustees of an *inter vivos*trust and for construction (Civ. Prac. Act, art. 79).

According to the indenture as last amended, upon the death of the settlor, Florence E. White, the corpus of the trust is divided, one half outright to her daughter, Dorothy, and the other half continuing in trust for the life of her son, Stamford, with remainder to his issue. In 1948 Stamford borrowed $30,000 from his mother on his promissory note which she then assigned to this trust. The note was secured by a collateral agreement and assignment, as security for the loan, of the son’s interest in another trust created by mother, daughter and son for their respective benefits. Although it was agreed that the security should follow the note, it was never reassigned. After the settlor’s death, in her will she forgave the substantial debts owing her by her children. The main question posed is whether or not this affected the debt which had been assigned to this trust.

The trustees take no position on the question. The daughter and son have filed memoranda contesting the proposition. It is argued for the daughter that the debt was not forgiven; for the son that his debt is absolved. Although it is said that appearances have been interposed for daughter and son, none such are on file. The attorney for the son arguing in his memorandum for absolution of the debt injects considerable factual narrative. But there are no answers interposed nor are the facts in affidavits. There is no proof of service of the son’s memorandum *652on the daughter’s lawyer. Questions on the merits, too, are raised on behalf of the daughter but these are mingled in her attorney’s affidavit for his compensation in this proceeding. He objects for his client to the fee sought by the attorneys for the trustees and the commissions of the trustees are attacked. These matters, although incompetently raised are not answered.

The parties are directed within 20 days to put their pleadings in order by respondents’ answers and affidavits so that the issues will be delineated and properly raised and they may, particularly the trustees, supplement the present submission with memoranda.
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

ANA CECILIA RODRIGUEZ-FLORES,

et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70739

Agency Nos. A099-677-111

 A099-677-112

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 5, 2011** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Ana Cecilia Rodriguez-Flores and her daughter, natives and citizens of

Honduras, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

FILED

APR 21 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-70739

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th

Cir. 2008), except to the extent deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the

governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th

Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for

review.

Rodriguez-Flores contends she suffered past persecution and has a wellfounded fear of future persecution by gangs in Honduras on account of her political

opinion and her membership in a particular social group. Substantial evidence

supports the agency’s finding that Rodriguez-Flores failed to show past

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected

ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 & n.1 (1992); Parussimova

v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that

a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s

persecution”). Accordingly, petitioners’ asylum claim fails.

Because petitioners failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,

their claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at

1190. 
3 09-70739

In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that RodriguezFlores failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not she would be tortured by, or

at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official if

returned to Honduras. Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Rodriguez-Flores’

CAT claim. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747-48 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that the IJ’s credibility-related

findings deprived them of a fair hearing, because the BIA evaluated their claim

assuming it to be credible. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.