alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony P. GARCIA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81CA1053.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Jan. 6, 1983.

*1384J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Joel W. Cantrick, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mul-larkey, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., John Dailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

J. Gregory Walta, State Public Defender, Martin J. Gerra, III, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

BERMAN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a sentence of six years imposed on defendant following his plea of guilty to second degree burglary. We affirm.

In a plea bargain, defendant pled guilty to second degree burglary, a class 3 felony, and had several cases dismissed as a result of that plea bargain. Although defendant was 24 years old at the time of the guilty plea here, he had been in trouble with the law since he was 18 years of age, and the present case was his fourth felony conviction. The presentence report also stated that the present offense had been committed while he was on probation from a previous felony conviction and that a previous offense had been committed while he was on probation from yet another conviction. The trial court made mention of the fact that in 1978 defendant was charged with seven counts of aggravated robbery and at that time the defendant received probation on a plea of guilty to two counts of simple robbery. The judge further stated that had defendant appeared before him on those charges, he would have sentenced defendant to the penitentiary, and the judge noted that, even after that leniency, defendant was later convicted of second degree burglary. The court stated that it considered defendant a menace to society because of the number of burglaries in which he had participated.

Defendant contends that the sentence imposed was outside the presumptive range. He argues that the trial court’s order requiring defendant to serve a six-year sentence consecutively to a sentence already imposed in another county brought the six-year sentence outside the presumptive maximum of eight years, but he cites no authority for this contention. We hold that a sentence properly imposed within the presumptive range, as was the case here, cannot be bootstrapped outside that range by arguing that it was to be served consecutively to a sentence imposed for a separate offense.

 A sentencing court has discretion to impose a sentence to be served concurrently with or consecutively to a sentence already imposed upon a defendant. *See People v.*Edwards, 198 Colo. 52, 598 P.2d 126 (1979). Under the circumstances here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Sentence affirmed.

SMITH and STERNBERG, JJ., concur.
391 A.2d 702

#### Commonwealth v. Valezquez, Appellant.

Submitted March 20, 1978.

Hugh C. Clark, for appellant; Michael R. Stiles, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Order affirmed.
1

Ogulei, David

From: Garnett, Kim

Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 1:46 PM

To: Ogulei, David

Subject: FW: another one

From: Bivins, Dan  

Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 1:57 PM

To: John Cooper

Cc: Garnett, Kim

Subject: another one

#48 Comment: OTM 16 and 20 are site-specific methods and are not applicable to Veolia’s operations. OTM 

16 and 20 were written specifically for Eli Lilly and Co.’s (Lilly) source and instrument. While they would 

provide a starting place for another facility to develop their own site-specific method, one cannot assume that 

either could be used at another facility without significant modification. For example, the sample transport 

system in OTM 16 provides for a protocol for including the sample transport system into the instrument 

validation using either dynamic spiking of known gases or comparison to another method (instrumental or 

reference, M29, filters/tubes and Ohio Luminex, etc.). This was written specifically for the Lilly system using a 

Sigrist sampling system. It is not at all clear that an appropriate sample transport system could be designed and 

developed for Veolia’s stack gas conditions. Lilly spent considerable time and resources in developing both the 

laboratory and stack data underlying these methods. It is also not clear whether this instrument would tie into 

Veolia’s daily operations, alarms, and QA/QC procedures. It is likely that these two OTMs would need 

extensive work before they would be usable for the conditions in Veolia’s stack. 

In addition, there is a good chance that the current QAG will not be able to produce quantitative mass of metals 

in the ranges required to calibrate/test the Xact. The QAG operates as a dynamic spiking into the probe/sample 

loop of the Xact system. Operation of this unit is dependent on the type of probe used, the flow in the sample 

loop, and gas conditions. Lilly spent a year developing this device to present the mass of metals specific to its 

sample loop (flow/moisture, etc.). 

Dan Bivins 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Measurement Technology Group 

919-541-5244
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1999-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-1999-DR), dated July 1, 2011, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         March 15, 2012.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 1, 2011.

## Erath, Wichita, and Midland Counties for Public Assistance

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2012-7925 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### Clovis R. WALKER v. CUMMINS ENGINE COMPANY, INC., et al.

No. 88-C-0183.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Linch International Trucks; Fon-dren Chevrolet Inc.; General Motors Corp.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. CA86 1501, CA87 0651; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 298005.

Denied. The result is correct.
#### STATE ex rel. Stanley SMITH v. L.J. HYMEL, Judge, Nineteenth Judicial District Court.

No. 87-KH-1701.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 4, 1987.

In re Smith, Stanley; applying for writ of certiorari, mandamus or remedial writ; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 10-81-0394.

Granted. The district court is ordered to furnish relator with a copy of the transcript of the evidentiary hearing held in September, 1986.
#### The COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and Alan N. Charnes, duly appointed Executive Director of the Department of Revenue, State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Edward Mortimer ANDERSON, Respondent.

No. 80SC125.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Sept. 14, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1981.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., James R. Willis, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for petitioner.

Harry E. Carleno, Littleton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari to review *Anderson v. Colorado Department of Revenue,*Colo.App., 615 P.2d 51 (1980). We reverse and remand to the court of appeals with directions to affirm the district court.

The issues in this case were fully addressed in *State of Colorado v. Laughlin,*Colo., 634 P.2d 49 (1981). The resolution of the same issues by the court of appeals in both the *Anderson*and *Laughlin*cases requires reversal. *Anderson*did not have the right to attack the constitutional validity of his convictions for violating the motor vehicle laws at a revocation hearing before the Department of Revenue.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to affirm the district court.
#### James H. GRAVOIS v. SUCCESSION OF Michael Joseph TRAUTH, United Services Automobile Association and Armed Forces Cooperative Insuring Association.

No. 86-C-2437.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Gravois, James H.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the *423Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-CA-294; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 283-463.

Prior report: La.App., 498 So.2d 140.

Denied.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 174

Authorizing the Rotunda of the Capitol to be used on July 26, 2001, for

a ceremony to present Congressional Gold Medals to the original 29

Navajo Code Talkers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 26, 2001

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SKEEN, Mr.

HAYWORTH, Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA, Mr. GEPHARDT, Mr. ROHRABACHER,

Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. CANNON,

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. RAHALL, Mr.

WATTS of Oklahoma, Mr. BONIOR, and Mr. KILDEE), submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

House Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the Rotunda of the Capitol to be used on July

26, 2001, for a ceremony to present Congressional Gold

Medals to the original 29 Navajo Code Talkers.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized

3 to be used on July 26, 2001, for a ceremony to present

4 Congressional Gold Medals to the original 29 Navajo Code

5 Talkers. Physical preparations for the ceremony shall be
2

•HCON 174 IH

1 carried out in accordance with such conditions as the Ar2 chitect of the Capitol may prescribe.

Æ
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Amerisa Kornblum, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Odimo Incorporated;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 14, 2007 /s/ Amerisa Kornblum   Amerisa Kornblum   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, David J. Keefe, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our 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 change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: August 3, 2006



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ David J. Keefe                  
|    |  | David J. Keefe                      
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**








**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
      S-8 No. 333-60865) pertaining to the Hawk Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan,
      in
      the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-68583) pertaining to the Friction
      Products Co. Profit Sharing Plan; S.K. Wellman Retirement Savings and Profit
      Sharing Plan; Helsel, Inc. Employee’s Retirement Plan; Helsel, Inc. Employee’s
      Savings and Investment Plan; Sinterloy Corporation 401(k) Plan; Hawk Motors,
      Inc. Employees’ 401(k) Plan; Hawk Corporation 401(k) Savings and Retirement
      Plan; and Quarter Master Industries, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust and
      in
      the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-47220) pertaining to the Hawk
      Corporation 2000 Long Term Incentive Plan of our report dated March 17, 2006,
      with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Hawk
      Corporation and subsidiaries included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
      the
      year ended December 31, 2005.





/s/
      ERNST
& YOUNG LLP





Cleveland,
      Ohio


March
      27,
      2006




































































84
June 2, 2015 

 

Richard McFall 

3808 48 St NW 

Mandan, ND 58554 

Dear Mr. McFall: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your March 25, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-0745), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
**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 AmericanPatriot Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William J. Smead, InterimChief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/William J. Smead             |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | William J. Smead                |
|   | Interim Chief Executive Officer |
|   | May 15, 2009               |

 

1

----
November 28, 2014

Sandra K. Long

Transportation Industry Analyst

Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Federal Aviation Administration

Re: Docket ID

– FAA

‐ 2014

‐ 0590

Dear Transportation Industry Analyst:

As of November 21, 2014 Hillsboro Aviation’s flight school has changed ownership and name. The new

name for the school is Hillsboro Aero Academy. The local FSDO has been notified of the change and is in

process of amending our pilot school certificate, LJES093G, to reflect the new name.

Please issue any correspondence regarding our petition for exemption in the name of Hillsboro Aero

Academy. I can be reached via either of the emails listed below with questions related to this notice.

Best regards,

Chris Berg

School Director

Hillsboro Aero Academy

cberg@flyhaa.com

cberg@hillsboroaviation.com
#### Walter P. REED as District Attorney of the 22nd Judicial District, Parish of Washington v. WASHINGTON PARISH POLICE JURY et al.

No. 87-CD-0127.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Walter P. Reed; applying for supervisory writ or remedial writs; to the 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Washington, No. 57996, Section “C”.

Granted in part. The trial court is to conduct a trial on the merits within thirty (30) days and decide same expeditiously. The writ is otherwise denied.