alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OMB No. 0581-0189

Exp. 01/31/2027. Destroy previous versions

Handler ___________________________ Date _________ Page ____ of _____

HANDLER SUPPLIER REPORT

FOR MARKETING ORDER NO. 905

Please complete this form or attach a list containing the information requested below.

Grower’s Name Address Email Address

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is OMB 

0581-0189. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 20 minutes per response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection 

of information.
OMB No. 0581-0189

Exp. 01/31/2027. Destroy previous versions

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its 

Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on 

race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, 

family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in 

any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by 

program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American 

Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA 

through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of 

the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to 

USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, 

employer, and lender.
CLERK Abel Acosta:

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Supreme Court BLDG.

201 H.14th St.RM106

P.O.BOX 12308

Austin*Texas 78711-2306

APRIL 2*2015

(W, TkP-cg

COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

APR 06 2015

Ab§IAeostasG!@rk

Dear Clerk*

Please be advise*I offender ALLEN GLENN THOMAS*TDCJ-CID#633145*needs a copy of

your court decision in his case in order that he can filed an writ of certiorari

to the Supreme Court of the United States,in Tr.Ct.N0.W90-04906-K(D)from the

Criminal District Court NO.4 of Dallas county*Texas*that was forwarded to your

Court on or about November 17*2014/Pleaae send me the courts opinion immediately

Thank-you for your time and assistance in this legal matter.

sincerely*

ALLEN GLENN THOMAS#633145

French M.Robertson Unit

12071 FM 3522

Abilene*Texas 79601

CC:
LUCIUS B. SMITH,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, Secretary, 

Florida Department of Corrections,

Respondent.

____________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-3182

Opinion filed April 6, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Lucius B. Smith, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathleen C. Hagan, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee; Jennifer Parker, General Counsel, Department of Corrections, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED.

ROWE, MARSTILLER, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9506]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing; Notice 
of Meeting

AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

ACTION: Meeting notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 
1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine 
Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the 
Department of Defense announces that the following Federal advisory 
committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military 
Personnel Testing will take place.

DATES: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Wednesday, 
May 23, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Amalfi Hotel, 20 West Kinzie 
Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60654.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Committee's Designated Federal Officer 
or Point of Contact: Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession 
Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and 
Readiness), Room 3D1066, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, 
telephone (703) 697-9271.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to review 
planned changes and progress in developing computerized and paper-and-
pencil tests for military enlistment. Agenda: The agenda includes an 
overview of current enlistment test development timelines and planned 
research for the next 3 years.
    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b 
and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, 
this meeting is open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral 
presentations or submit written statements for consideration at the 
Committee meeting must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or 
telephone number in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than May 
14, 2012.

    Dated: April 16, 2012.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2012-9506 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

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

I, Kenneth Stastny, certify that: 

1. I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Wise Metals Group LLC; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement 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 report, fairly present in all material respectsthe 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 have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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 theeffectiveness 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 covered by this report (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter 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 functions): 

(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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 21, 2007
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-11275 Summary Calendar

MARVIN R. ANSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus HUBE JEAN-LOUIS ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:96-CV-68-BA

- - - - - - - - - - April 7, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marvin Ansley (#675445), a state prisoner, has moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this appeal from the partial dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. He has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The motion for leave to appeal IFP is GRANTED. Because the balance in Ansley’s prison trust account, at the time he filed his notice of appeal was $0.00, no initial partial filing fee is required. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). AnsleyNo. 96-11275 - 2 - shall make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s income credited to his account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The agency having custody of Ansley is directed to forward payments from his prisoner account to the clerk of the district court each time the amount in his account exceeds $10 until the filing fee of $105 is paid. See id. Ansley contends that the magistrate judge abused his discretion in dismissing his claims against Nurses Gray, Maxwell, and Doe as frivolous. We have reviewed the record, the magistrate judge’s order, and Ansley’s brief, and hold that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that Ansley’s allegations were insufficient to show deliberate indifference. See Mendoza v. Lynaugh , 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). There is no reason to believe that Ansley could cure the defects in his pleading through amendment. Ansley has failed to brief any issue with respect to the dismissal of defendants Dr. Jean-Louis in his official capacity and B. Prewitt. Those claims are abandoned. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Ansley states that he wishes to assert claims against Corrections Officers Ortega and McKinnon. Because Ansley has not yet moved for leave to amend his complaint to state claims against Ortega and McKinnon, the issue is premature and has not been considered. Ansley’s appeal is without arguable merit and, thus,No. 96-11275 - 3 - frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Ansley is cautioned that any future frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Ansley is cautioned further to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
IFP GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
391 A.2d 679

#### Commonwealth v. DelValle, Appellant.

Submitted September 12,1977.

Harry S. Tischler, Assistant Defender, and Benjamin Lemer, Defender, for appellant; Michael R. Stiles, Assistant District Attorney, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MARY J.B. EIDELMAN, ESQUIRE,

Appellant

v.

TIMONEY KNOX, LLP, RICHARD L. CAPLAN, ESQ., THE LAW OFFICES OF TODD MOSSER, PLLC, TODD MOSSER, ESQ. III, AND PAUL ABELN,

Appellees :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 68 MAP 2016

Appeal from the Order of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, Civil
Division, at No. 2016

- C

- 132 dated May
31, 2016.

O RDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: May 22, 2017

AND NOW, this 22 nd day of May , 2017

, the order of the Lehigh County Court of

Common Pleas dated May 31, 2016 is REVERSED based on our decision in Villani v.

S eibert , 66 MAP 2016 (Pa. April 26, 2017), and the matter is REMANDED for further

proceedings.

The Motion to Quash is DENIED

.
Exhibit 32.2

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 on Form 10-Q of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kenneth Stastny, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: May 15, 2007



By:

/s/ Kenneth StastnyKenneth StastnyChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ADRIAN TOLEDO-MARTINEZ,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-50230

D.C. No. 3:13-cr-02616-BEN-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 8, 2015** 

Pasadena California

Before: SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges and DONATO,*** District Judge. 

FILED

APR 10 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).

 *** The Honorable James Donato, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Defendant Adrian Toledo-Martinez appeals his conviction and sentence for

being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and affirm.

The defendant argues that his Washington Revised Code § 69.50.401

convictions for delivery of cocaine and heroin are not categorical drug trafficking

offenses. However, we recently rejected the same argument advanced by the

defendant, that § 69.50.401(a) is categorically overbroad because it fails to exempt

acts of “administering” drugs. See United States v. Burgos-Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 

1052-55 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court did not err when it denied the motion to

dismiss the indictment and applied a 12-level increase to the base offense level

pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A).1

 

AFFIRMED. 

1

United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, §

2L1.2(b)(1)(A) (Nov. 2013).

2
**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 Amendment No.1 to the Quarterly Report of Ignis Petroleum Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Geoff Evett, President (Chief 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 the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

                         |
|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  

(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

 

| Date:  | April 17, 2008 | /s/ Geoff Evett                       |   |
|--------|----------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |           | Geoff Evett                           |   |
|   |           | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
1 Attachment 

Omer:

The NG-fired engine used to run the emergency boiler recirculation pump will be a Cummins GTA855E (or 

equivalent) with a maximum power output of 256 hp @ 1,800 rpm. 

Using emission factors provided by the manufacturer (except for SO2, which was taken from AP-42 Section 3.2), 

and 100 hours of planned non-emergency operation annually (for maintenance and testing), short-term and 

annual emission rates are expected to be:

Thanks, and please let me know if you need anything else.

Eric

From: Omer Shalev [mailto:Shalev.Omer@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 11:16 AM 

RE: Conference Call for March 28 at 10AM 

Eric Albright 

to: 

Omer Shalev 

04/26/2012 11:37 AM 

Cc: 

Dave Brown, Shane Young 

Hide Details 

From: Eric Albright <ealbright@environcorp.com>

To: Omer Shalev/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Dave Brown <DBrown@spi-ind.com>, Shane Young <SYoung@spi-ind.com>

image001.gif

Units NOX CO SO2

PM10 PM2.5 VOC

lb/hr 0.782 6.11 0.00127 0.0216 0.0216 1.23

tons/yr 0.0391 0.306 0.0000635 0.00108 0.00108 0.0614

Page 1 of 16

file://C:\Documents and Settings\oshalev\Local Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\~web7620.htm 8/2/2012
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00304-CR

MICHAEL A. SMITH APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 0788049R

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Michael A. Smith appeals from the trial court’s order denying his 

motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. In August 2014, we informed Appellant by 

letter of our concern that we do not have jurisdiction over his appeal because the 

order denying his motion does not appear to be an appealable order, and we 

stated that his appeal could be dismissed unless he or any party filed a response 

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

showing grounds for continuing the appeal. While Appellant sent us another

motion for judgment nunc pro tunc apparently intended for the trial court, he did 

not file anything responsive to our letter.

Because an order denying a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not 

appealable,2 we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.3

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 2, 2014

 2

See Ex parte Ybarra, 149 S.W.3d 147, 148–49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) 

(providing that appropriate remedy for denial of motion for judgment nunc pro 

tunc is to file petition for writ of mandamus in court of appeals); Everett v. State, 

82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. dism’d) (mem. op.).

3

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1071 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

deduction for qualified tuition and related expenses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2019 

Mr. CICILLINE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the deduction for qualified tuition and related 

expenses. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student and Families 

5 Tax Reduction Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION FOR 

7 QUALIFIED TUITION AND RELATED EX8 PENSES. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 222 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (e). 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1071 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

3 December 31, 2017. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS