alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------



                        CONSENT OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                        

The Board of Directors
Bradley Real Estate, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-42357, 333-28167, 33-62200 and 33-64811) on Form S-3 of Bradley Real Estate,
Inc., the registration statements (Nos. 333-30587, 33-34884 and 33-65180) on
Form S-8 of Bradley Real Estate, Inc. and the registration statement (No. 333-
36577) on Form S-3 of Bradley Operating Limited Partnership of our report dated
January 28, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Bradley Real
Estate, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of income, changes in share owners' equity and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997 and
the related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1997, annual
report on Form 10-K of Bradley Real Estate, Inc.


                              KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 19, 1998
Date: \'rv.u~ 1 ~ /t )( /21> 1) cd 3 . UC-prn 

Meeting: ftf I 

Rule(s) Discussed: o"JJyfvWritten Materials? Yes/No 

Name Organization 

1}0()/1 

OM 

Phone Number 

L/I~-421-4LDI 
QJ 

:::s 

g 

c 

~ 

"' QJ Q 

QJ 

c 

0 

N 

0 

110 

105 

100 

95 

90 

85 

80 

75 

70 

65 

60 

2000 2005 2010 

-+-Chicago-Naperville, IL-I N-WI 

-~ 

~~Cf\.e_ 

<>~~<

M \ '=-

Designations 

Made 

2015 2020 

-st. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL 

-Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins-Loveland, CO-+-Greate r Connecticut, CT 

- Washington, DC-M D-VA 

Upper Green River Basin, WY 

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 

- Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 

San Diego County, CA 

Baton Rouge, LA
# Waiver From Rescission of Unobligated Funds Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Consistent with the authority provided to me under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), as amended by section 1306 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203), I have determined that it is not in the best interest of the Nation to rescind after December 31, 2012, the unobligated amounts made available in Division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act with respect to the accounts with the following Treasury Account Fund Symbol codes and names, not to exceed the amounts stated:

Department of Defense: 97-0501—Military Construction, Defense-wide, $104 million;

Department of Energy: 89-0209—Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, $96 million;

Social Security Administration: 28X8704—Limitation on Administrative Expenses, $148 million; and

Small Business Administration: 73-4268—Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund, $15 million.

My determination is based on the following consideration:

The retention of these unobligated balances will allow the executive agencies to continue to execute projects vital to the national interest in a fiscally responsible manner.

Therefore, in accordance with section 1306 of Public Law 111-203, I am waiving the requirements for repayment for the stated amounts of unobligated funds made available in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act with respect to the accounts described above.

In accordance with section 1603(b) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as added by section 1306 of Public Law 111-203, all amounts that are rescinded pursuant to section 1603(b) shall be returned to the General Fund of the Treasury where such amounts shall be dedicated for the sole purpose of deficit reduction and prohibited from use as an offset for other spending increases or revenue reductions.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2013-00042

Billing code 3295-F3
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 CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report ), I, Jack A. Cuneo, President and 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ JACK A. CUNEOJack A. CuneoPresident and Chief Executive Officer


August 14, 2008
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 on Form 10-Q of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David DAddario, Chairman and Chief Executive 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: November 14, 2006



By:

/s/ David DAddarioDavid DAddarioChairman and Chief Executive 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.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OFTEXAS

- P,0:.BOX:l23p^^^C^TAJ4pNt^^TBJ;^XAS2«7II " ~ *" ""'' ' ~" aStSPOsj.

OFFICIAL BUSINESS - -- raWJHFJgw: <T >

STATS <n\!S Tr-EVA© .' °« SrSS^e1^^ Af /frf ^s==5sffi'-^^^^^^

3 ^T^* s„ „^r H'g P1TNEV BOWES

PENALTY FOR * : o-. ^ps^E^ 6 am <**6

2/24/2015 PRIVATE USE ' : gl-.'^^ffi 000S557458 MAR022015

FEIST, HERBERT HERMAN Tr:tC^Nd?Sil2^p67,8A,LEDFROM 2"WK)-S27375-24 On this day, the original application for writ of mandamus has been received arte " presented to the Court. . .' :

Abel Acosta, Clerk

HERBERT HERMAN FEIST

JEFFERSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY ;

18805

- P. O. BOX 26007 utf i .

BEAUMONT, TX 77720 -1.

ft'nEBHSB =' y~2G iMii'HHil'1'liiH]'l,iii'liii,i'lil'i''i,'!rlili,1i'll1u A
USDA, AMS, S&T, Monitoring Programs Division (MPD) – Pesticide Data Program (PDP) December 2023

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PESTICIDE DATA PROGRAM (PDP) DATA DOWNLOAD

Microsoft Access Database included for easy Import of PDP Data:

A template database in MS-Access (.mdb) format has been included in the data ZIP file for 

each calendar-year PDP data set. This database has tables already created in the correct

format, has a macro to automatically import the PDP data, and has reference tables for the 

standardized codes already populated.

The characters "####" shown in the filenames and data descriptions below refer to the

calendar-year for the database (1992 – 2022).

 

Instructions:

1) Click on the Data ZIP File link for the desired calendar-year and save the ####PDP.zip file 

to your hard drive.

2) In Windows, use an UNZIP utility on the ####PDP.zip file to extract 7 files. There will be 2

text (.txt) files holding the PDP data, 1 MS-Access (.mdb) database file, 1 MS-Excel (.xls) 

workbook file, and 3 Adobe PDF files. Note: A fourth PDF file will be extracted showing the 

revision history if the data in the ZIP file has been revised.

 

3) Open and print the INSTRUCTIONS ####.pdf file (2 pages). Follow the instructions to 

populate the PDP data in the provided MS-Access database file or in your own database 

system if you don’t have MS-Access 2000 or higher.
Exhibit 23

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Marketing Services Group, Inc.

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (No.  333-33174,  No.  333-34822 and No.  333-89973) and
Forms S-8 (No.  333-94603 and No.  333-82541) of Marketing  Services Group, Inc.
and  Subsidiaries,  of our  report  dated  October  12,  2000,  relating  to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule which appears
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

                         /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
October 12, 2000
No. 01-14-00582-CR

In the 

Court of Appeals 

For the 

First District of Texas 

At Houston 



No. 1408007

In the 179

th District Court 

Of Harris County, Texas 



RODNEY ROBINS

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee



STATE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

WITHIN WHICH TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF 



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

 THE STATE OF TEXAS, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1, 10.5(b) and 

38.6(d), moves for an extension of time within which to file its appellate brief. In 

support of its motion, the State submits the following: 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00582-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/15/2015 3:44:26 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/15/2015 3:44:26 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

1. Appellant was convicted for the offense of possessing cocaine and 

sentenced to six-years confinement.

2. Appellant filed written notice of appeal on July 1, 2014.

3. Appellant filed his brief on March 2, 2015. 

4. The State’s reply brief is due on April 1, 2015.

5. The State seeks an extension until May 18, 2015, to file its brief.

6. This is the State’s first request for an extension in this case. 

7. The following facts are relied upon to show good cause for the 

requested extension:

My completion of this brief has been delayed by my 

completion of two other briefs during the past month. I 

also have five other briefs due during the next 30 days.
3

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant the requested 

extension.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dan McCrory

DAN MCCRORY

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002-1901

(713) 755-5826

TBC No. 13489950

mccrory_daniel@dao.hctx.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I requested that a copy of this document be served on 

appellant’s lawyer via TexFile at the following email address:

Sarah V. Wood

Attorney at Law

Sarah.wood@pdo.hctx.net

/s/ Dan McCrory

DAN MCCRORY

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002-1901

(713) 755-5826

TBC No. 13489950

Date: April 15, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  COMPANY'S
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998

<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998

<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1998

<CASH>                               4,918,118

<SECURITIES>                                 0

<RECEIVABLES>                            8,079

<ALLOWANCES>                                 0

<INVENTORY>                                  0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     7,375,064

<PP&E>                                  26,011

<DEPRECIATION>                           1,408

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       7,533,190

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1,789,584

<BONDS>                                      0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0

<PREFERRED>                                  0

<COMMON>                               533,391

<OTHER-SE>                           2,378,178

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         7,533,190

<SALES>                                 26,857

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       262,024

<CGS>                                        0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                                0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      10,906

<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (31,385)

<INCOME-TAX>                                 0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (31,385)

<DISCONTINUED>                       3,271,884

<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0

<CHANGES>                                    0

<NET-INCOME>                         3,240,499

<EPS-PRIMARY>                             1.11

<EPS-DILUTED>                             1.07

        


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8001** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MICHAEL THOMPSON , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. ( 4:08

- cr - 00057

- D

- 1 ; 4:11

- cv - 00175

- D )

Submitted : April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by un published per curiam opinion
. Michael Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina; Shailika K. Shah , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: In a single order, the district court denied Michael Thompson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U. S.C. § 3582(c) (2) (2012). For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part. Turning first to the portion of the order denying
§ 2255 relief, t he order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealab ility. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisone r satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,3 we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Thompson’s appeal from the denial of his § 22 55 motion
. Turning to the portion of the order denying Thompson’s motion for reduction of sentence, we have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. United
States v. Munn , 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly,

we affirm the denial of § 3582(c) (2) relief
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED IN PART ; AFFIRMED IN PART
### From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:05 PM

To: Wayland, Robertj

Subject: BB 1 & 2 memo

The reductions are relative to the base case (baseline), right, not 2005?



### Table 2. Projected CO 2 

### Emission Impacts

CO 2 Emissions

(MM Tonnes) CO 2 Emissions Reductions

from Reference Case

(MM Tonnes) CO 2 Emissions Reductions:

Percent Change from

Reference

2020 2025 2030 2020 2025 2030 2020 2025 2030

Reference 2,161 2,231 2,256

Two-Block Regional 1,949 1,992 2,016 212 239 240 10% 11% 11%

Two-Block State 1,927 1,965 1,982 234 266 274 11% 12% 12%

Source: Integrated Planning Model run by EPA, 2014



### ________________________________________________ Cortney Higgins, PhD

Policy Analyst

OMB/OIRA/NRE

202.395.7856

chiggins@omb.eop.gov
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6296

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PAUL ZIMMERMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (3:07-cv-00295-MR; 3:02-cr-00156-MR-3)

Submitted: August 9, 2011 Decided: August 26, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Zimmerman, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Paul Zimmerman, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Zimmerman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* The Honorable Anthony A. Alaimo, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation. Margaret T. ALLEN, Yolanda F. Lamar, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. The ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Fob James, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 97-6808. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 30, 2000. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (No. 81-00697-CV-T-N); Myron H. Thompson, Judge. Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and ALAIMO, Senior District Judge. * BY THE COURT: The parties' "Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition ...," construed as a joint motion to withdraw the rehearing petition, to vacate this Court's published opini on, and to remand this matter to District Court to resolve all issues relating to attorneys' fees, is GRANTED.
ULYSSES BERNARD 

WOODFAULK,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

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. 1D14-2817

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 7, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County.

Gregory S. Parker, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Zachary F. Lawton, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren Brudnicki, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, C.J., MARSTILLER and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

C.B., the mother,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

and GUARDIAN AD LITEM,

Appellees.

Nos. 4D19-3292 and 4D19-3293

[May 7, 2020]

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial 

Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert B. Meadows, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 56-

2018-DP-000144 and 56-2018-DP-000215.

Valarie Linnen, Special Assistant Regional Counsel, Jacksonville, for 

appellant.

Andrew Feigenbaum, Children’s Legal Services, West Palm Beach, for 

appellee, Department of Children and Families.

Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Laura J. Lee, 

Senior Attorney, Appellate Division, Florida Statewide Guardian Ad Litem 

Office, Tallahassee, for appellee, Guardian Ad Litem.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE03955

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.