alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

May 11, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-14347

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 01-00105-CR-FTM-29DNF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PRIMATIVO AVILA,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(May 11, 2009)

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Primativo Avila appeals the denial of his motion for a reduced sentence. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Avila’s motion was based on Amendment 706 to the

Guidelines. We affirm.

“We review de novo a district court’s conclusions about the scope of its

legal authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).” United States v. James, 548 F.3d

983, 984 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). A district court may modify a term of

imprisonment in the case of a defendant who was sentenced to a term of

imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by

the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

The district court did not err. Amendment 706 did not have the effect of

lowering Avila’s sentencing range. Avila was held responsible for more than

eleven grams of cocaine base and was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See

United States v. Jones, 548 F.3d 1366, 1368–69 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

Avila argues that the district court had discretion to reduce his sentence below the

amended range under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), but Booker cannot be used as an independent basis to reduce a sentence.

See United States v. Melvin, 556 F.3d 1190, 1191–93 (11th Cir. 2009) (per

curiam). We affirm the denial of Avila’s motion.

AFFIRMED.

2
KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

S TEVEN L. B ESHEAR G OVERNOR L EONARD K. P ETERS

SECRETARY


### E NERGY AND 

### E NVIRONMENTAL 

### P ROTECTION 

### C ABINET
D EPARTMENT FOR E NVIRONMENTAL P ROTECTION

D IVISION OF W ATER 200 F AIR O AKS L ANE F RANKFORT
, K ENTUCKY 40601 www.kentucky.gov



### July 6, 2012

James Giattina, Director Water Protection Division United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta Federal Center Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

RE: Vessel General Permit Small Vessel General Permit Kentucky Section 401 Certification

Dear Mr. Giattina:

The Kentucky Division of Water has reviewed the dra ft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Vessel General Permit and Small Vess el General Permit for the purpose of providing Stat e certification in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These general permits authorize incidental vessel discharges into the wat ers of the Commonwealth of Kentucky during normal operation. Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, the Commonwealt h of Kentucky certifies it has reasonable assurances that applicable water quality standards under Kentucky Administrative Regulations Title 401

, Chapter 10, established pursuant to Sections 208(e) , 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the CWA, will not be violated by the above referenced general permits. T he Kentucky Division of Water hereby certifies as written the NPDES Vessel General Permit and Small Vessel G eneral Permit. Please contact me if you have any questions by calling (502) 564-3410.

Sincerely,

Sandra Gruzesky, Director Kentucky Division of Water

BJS: SG
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 of City Network, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Yun-Yi  Tseng,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies,  in  all  material  respects,  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.


                                              /s/ Yun-Yi Tseng
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Yun-Yi Tseng
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              November 21, 2005

THIS  CERTIFICATION  IS MADE  SOLELY FOR  PURPOSES  OF 18 U.S.C.  SECTION  1350,
SUBJECT  TO THE  KNOWLEDGE  STANDARD  CONTAINED  THEREIN,  AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE.

A SIGNED  ORIGINAL  OF THIS  WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED  BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT 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.  THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE "FILED" AS PART
OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB THAT IT ACCOMPANIES.
May 10, 2010 

NOTE TO THE DOCKET: 

On November 25, 2009, EPA staff participated on a conference call with the 

California Air Resources Board, which involved a general discussion and 

questions/answers about the tailoring rule proposal. 

Participant from EPA: 

Michael Ling, Associate Director, Air Quality Policy Division 

Participants from CARB: 

Brian Turner, Assistant Executive Officer, Federal Climate Policy 

Edie Chang, Chief, Program Planning & Management Branch, Office of Climate Change 

Barbara Fry, Chief, Measures Assessment Branch, Stationary Source Division 

Mike Tollstrup, Chief, Project Assessment Branch, Stationary Source Division 

Jon Costantino, Manager, Climate Change Planning Section, Program Planning & 

Management Branch, Office of Climate Change 

Aron Livingston, Counsel, Office of Legal Affairs 

Chris Gallenstein, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Stationary Source Division 

Jennifer Gray, Air Pollution Specialist, Office of Climate Change
**Exhibit 32.1**
**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Huntington Preferred Capital,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Donald R. Kimble, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:
          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
          (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.        /s/ Donald R. Kimble      Donald R. Kimble   (chief executive officer)   November 12, 2004
27
_____________ No. 96-1672MN

_____________ John Edward Palmer, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Minnesota. * Frank W. Wood, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: October 23, 1996 Filed: October 30, 1996

_____________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM.
Jo hnEdward Palmer was convicted of selling more than 200 dosag e units of LSD to a cooperating witness. See Minn. Stat. § 152.021, subd. 1(3) (1992). After the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed Palmer' s conviction, State v. Palmer , 507 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993), Palmer filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas relief. The district cour t denied Palmer's petition, and we affirm.
Pa lmer contends the Minnesota drug statute is unconstitutionall y vag ue because the statute does not contain a comprehensible standard o f criminal conduct. Al though "dosage units" is not defined in the statute, the term is commonly understood as the amount of an ingredient taken at on e time. We thus reject Palmer's effort "to inject doubt [about] the meaning of words where no doubt would be felt by the normal reader." United State s v. Powell , 423 U.S. 87, 93 (1975). In our view, "a

### -2-

reason ablyascertainable standard of conduct is mandated; it is fo r [Palmer] to insure that his actions do not fall outside the legal limits." Id. at 92; see United States v. McKinney , 79 F.3d 105, 108 (8th Cir. 1996) . The Minnesota Court of Appeals aptly observed that the number of dosag e units may be establis hed through witness testimony, and in Palmer's case, the testimony from the cooperating witness and astate chemist showed that Palmer s old more than 900 doses of LSD. Palmer , 507 N.W.2d at 868-69 . "[T]he law is full of instances [like Palmer's] where a man's fate depends on his estimating rightly, that is, as the jury [later] estimates it, some matter of degree." Nash v. United States , 229 U.S. 373, 377 (1913).
Tu rning to Palmer's other contentions, Palmer's sufficiency of th e evidence arguments ar e simply without merit. Gibson v. Bowersox , 78 F.3d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review). Likewise, we rejec t Palmer's contention t he trial court improperly admitted his tape recorded conver sations with the cooperating witness because the admission of th e tape reco rdings did not deny Palmer a fair trial. Rainer v. Dep't o f Corrections , 914 F.2d 1067, 1072 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 1099 (1991). We affirm the district court. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of APP Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard J. Tajak, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: August 4, 2008 |  | /S/ RICHARD J. TAJAK   
|                     |  | Richard J. Tajak       
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification
will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
4th Amendment to Employment Agreement, June 29, 2004 for Dennis R. Hernreich



 Exhibit 10.22 
  
 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 WHEREAS, Casual
Male Retail Group, Inc., (formerly Designs, Inc., “CMRG”) and Dennis R. Hernreich (“Executive”) entered into a certain Employment Agreement dated as of August 14, 2000, as amended by Letter Agreement dated April 25, 2001, Second
Amendment to Employment Agreement dated January 30, 2003 and Third Amendment to Employment Agreement dated July 9, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Company and Executive wish to amend, modify and/or restate certain terms, provisions, conditions, and covenants of the Agreement.

  
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and of the promises,
covenants, conditions and agreements contained herein, and for One Dollar ($1.00) and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby expressly acknowledged, the Company and Executive hereby agree to amend
the Agreement as follows: 
  

	1.	Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is hereby substituted in lieu thereof: 

  
 “3. COMPENSATION 
  
 (a) As compensation for the employment services to be rendered by the
Executive hereunder, the Company agrees to pay to Executive, and Executive agrees to accept, payable in equal installments in accordance with Company practice, an annual base salary of $440,000, effective as of May 1, 2004.” 
  

	2.	Except as herein specifically modified and amended, all of the terms, provisions, conditions, and covenants of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and shall be
deemed unchanged except to the extend modified and amended herein. 

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement as a sealed instrument, in any number of counterpart copies, each of which shall be deemed an original for all
purposes, as of May 1, 2004. 
  
 CASUAL MALE RETAIL GROUP, INC. (Company)

  

							
				
	By:	 	 /s/    DAVID A. LEVIN

	 	 	 	 June 29, 2004


	 	 	 David A. Levin
 President and
 Chief Executive Officer
	 	 	 	Date
				
	 	 	  
 EXECUTIVE
  
 /s/    DENNIS R. HERNREICH

	 	 	 	 June 29, 2004


	 	 	Dennis R. Hernreich	 	 	 	Date
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 2626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00665]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel; Brain Cell Atlas of AD/ADRD.
    Date: February 12, 2024.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Sandhya Sanghi, Ph.D., Scientific Research 
Officer, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue (2N230), NIA/SRB, Bethesda, MD 20814, 
(301) 496-2879, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f88b99969c908199d68b99969f9091b8969190d69f978e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4437252a202c3d256a37252a232c2d042a2d2c6a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 10, 2024.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-00665 Filed 1-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
The Effects of Gasoline Sulfur Level 


on Emissions from Tier 2 Vehicles 


in the In-Use Fleet
 

Appendix D
 

Discussion of Univariate and Multivariate 


Analysis of Variance
 

Assessment and Standards Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

NOTICE 

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or 

positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data 

that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to 

facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of 

technical developments. 

EPA-420-D-13-003 

April 2013 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D. Discussion of univariate and multivariate analysis of 

variance 

The univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) uses the ordinary least squares to test the 

fixed effects. It requires equal time spacing of measurements, and assumes compound symmetry 

of covariance structure of equal variance and covariance across mileage. The assumptions made 

for ANOVA are not true for emission measurements in the current dataset and thus, it may use 

incorrect standard errors for the comparison of means at different mileages resulting in Type I 

error of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true.

i,ii 

The multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) also uses ordinary least squares to test 

the fixed effects. It assumes an unstructured covariance structure, and may result in less 

powerful test by wasting information inherent in repeated measures data.iii Furthermore, it 

requires regularly spaced time intervals for all vehicles which were not the case in the “sulfur 

level” data where emissions were measured at different accumulated mileages. The actual 

mileage accumulated varied from vehicle to vehicle for several reasons. The most obvious is the 

modification to the L procedure during the test program, where evenly spaced mileage intervals 

occurring in emission tests were replaced with an alternating mix of on-road and test cell driving. 

Besides this, major adjustment differences also exist due to voided tests, long weekends or 

holidays necessitating additional re-preps prior to testing, and occasional errors in recording of 

odometer readings. 

Littell, R.C., Henry, R.C., & Ammerman, C.B. (1998). Statistical analysis of repeated measures data using SAS 

procedures. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1216–1231. ii Templeman, R.J., Douglass, L.W. & Craig, B.A. (2002). NCR-170 FASS Mixed Model Workshop 2002 ADSAASASCSAS National meetings, Quebec City, QC. 24–25. iii SAS Institute, Inc. (2002). SAS course notes on Mixed Model Analysis Using SAS System. SAS Institute, Inc., 

Cary, NC. 

68 

i
#### AMERICAN WOOD PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CRANE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 7901.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 13, 1939.

Oberlin, Limbach & Day and Snyder, Seagrave, Roudebush & Adrion, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Offield, Mehlhope, Scott & Poole, of Chicago, Ill., and Hull, Brock & West, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Allen & Allen, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.

Before ALLEN, HAMILTON, and ARANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The decree of the District Court, 29 F. Supp. 807, is affirmed for the reason that the patent in suit is invalid for want of invention.
<PAGE>   1




                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


Our report on the consolidated financial statements of Philadelphia Consolidated
Holding Corp. and Subsidiaries is included on page 26 of this Form 10-K. In
connection with our audits of such financial statements, we have also audited
the related financial statement schedules listed in the index on page 25 of this
Form 10-K.

In our opinion, the financial statement schedules referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a
whole, present fairly, in all material respects, the information required to be
included therein.


/s/ PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------

2400 Eleven Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 5, 1999
**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 amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of Blast Energy
        Services, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
        David M. Adams, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and
        Principal 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, as amended; 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:
      March 29, 2006





By:
            /s/
                David M. AdamsDavid
                M. AdamsCo-Chief
                Executive OfficerChief
                Operating OfficerPrincipal
                Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.24
 SUMMARY OF BOARD COMPENSATION
  Amount
    
    Description$
    50,000
    
    
    Lead director annual retainer, disbursed in five equal payments for each
regularly scheduled Board meeting.30,000
    
    
    Annual retainer for all other non-employee directors, disbursed in five equal
payments for each regularly scheduled Board meeting.10,000
    
    
    Audit committee chairman annual retainer, disbursed in same manner as Board
member annual retainer (excludes lead director).5,000
    
    
    Non-audit committee chairman annual retainer, disbursed in same manner as Board
member annual retainer (excludes lead director).3,000
    
    
    Attendance fee for each in-person Board meeting.1,250
    
    
    Attendance fee for each telephonic Board meeting or committee meeting of any kind.
 1
 
 1
    
    To the extent any expense reimbursements provided for
in this Summary of Board Compensation are taxable to a director and provide for
a deferral of compensation within the meaning of Section 409A of the Internal
Revenue Code, the director shall complete all steps required for reimbursement
so as to facilitate payment, and any such reimbursements shall be paid to the
Director on or before December 31 of the calendar year following the calendar
year in which the expense was incurred. Such reimbursements shall not be
subject to liquidation or exchange for other benefits, and the expenses
eligible for reimbursement in one calendar year shall not affect the expenses
eligible for reimbursement in any other calendar year.