alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Record of Meeting 

DATE: January 11, 2016 

EPA ATTENDEES: Janet McCabe, Deborah Jordan, Michael Koerber, Anna Wood, Phil 

Lorang, Rhea Jones 

VISITORS: Abigail Dillon (Earthjustice), Gloria Smith (Sierra Club), Stephanie Kodish 

(National Parks Conservation Association, by phone) 

This meeting was in response to a request from the visitors for an opportunity to meet with Janet 

McCabe, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, regarding the implementation of 

the Regional Haze Rule. 

The topics discussed included the following: 

 The upcoming final action by EPA on the Arkansas state implementation plan (SIP) and 

federal implementation plan (FIP) for regional haze. 

 The EPA response to the remand of a portion of EPA’s final action on the Nebraska 

regional haze SIP, regarding whether additional control of emissions from the Gerald 

Gentleman power plant are needed to provide for reasonable progress. 

 The (not yet published) proposed EPA action on the Utah regional haze SIP, regarding 

BART determinations for the Hunter and Huntington power plants. 

 The EPA response to the remand of a portion of EPA’s SIP for regional haze in Montana, 

regarding the BART determination for the Colstrip power plant. 

 The EPA response to the remand of EPA’s final action to approve the Pennsylvania 

regional haze SIP. 

Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor 

Air Quality Policy Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2016-4231 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2015-CE-042-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**STATEMENT
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**BY
      PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
      OFFICER**








I,
      O'Donnell Iselin II, herby certify, to my knowledge, that:





1.
      the
      accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cadiz Inc. for the year ended
      December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and 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 Cadiz Inc.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement as of the date
      first written above.





Dated:
      March 16, 2007








/s/
      O'Donnell Iselin II


O'Donnell
      Iselin II


Chief
      Financial Officer and Secretary
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE  SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Greenfield Online, Inc. (the
registrant);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 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(s) 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 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(s) 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 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 other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 /s/ Robert E. Bies
#### James Daniel HOOKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 38159.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 14, 1965.

No attorney of record on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Sam Pater-nostro, Neal English and W. John Allison, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the subsequent offense of driving while intoxicated; the punishment, four years in the penitentiary.

Officer Corum testified that he observed the appellant as he drove an automobile in an erratic manner for several blocks along a public street and that the automobile was weaving and travelled from the right shoulder to the left side of the street before coming to a stop. He further testified that appellant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and stated to him that he had drunk two bottles of beer; that his eyes were bloodshot, his speech incoherent, and he staggered while walking. Corum expressed the opinion that appellant was intoxicated. The testimony of Officer Holt, who was with Corum, corroborates the latter’s testimony.

Testifying in his own behalf, the appellant stated that he had had nothing to drink and was not drunk. Any unusual appearance, he explained, was attributable to a bridge in his mouth, a broken foot, swimming which may have affected his eyes, and heart trouble.

*952The prior conviction, as alleged, was stipulated. Also, said conviction was admitted by the appellant, while testifying.

There are no bills of exception and no objections to the court’s charge.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction and, no error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Eddie Chou, certify that:

1.            I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Eatware Corporation;

2.            Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.             I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and I have:

a)             designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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 quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c)             disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

5.             I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: November 20, 2006

 

 /s/ Eddie Chou

Eddie Chou, Secretary and Treasurer

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### J. F. BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28211.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 28, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $100.

In the absence of a bond or recognizance on appeal, or a showing that appellant is in jail, we are without jurisdiction of this misdemeanor appeal.

.The appeal is dismissed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25309-25310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10961]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Agricultural Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'').

[[Page 25310]]

ACTION: Notice of Meeting of Agricultural Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The CFTC's Agricultural Advisory Committee will hold a public 
meeting on May 19, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., at the Commission's 
Washington, DC, headquarters. At the meeting the committee will discuss 
issues related to the Dodd-Frank Act. Members of the public may file 
written statements with the committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 19, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place in the first floor Conference 
Center at the Commission's headquarters, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 
21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581. Written statements should be 
sent to the attention of Agricultural Advisory Committee, c/o Chairman 
Michael V. Dunn, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 
Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole McNair at (202) 418-5070.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site, http://www.cftc.gov. Members of the public also can listen to the meeting by 
telephone. The public access call-in numbers will be announced at a 
later date.

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec.  10(a)(2).

    Dated: April 29, 2011.

    By the Commission.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-10961 Filed 5-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
                     906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This Certification is to accompany the Annual Report of Telebyte, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report").

I, Dr. Kenneth S. Schneider, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


/s/ Kenneth S. Schneider
------------------------
Kenneth S. Schneider
Chief Executive Officer
March 31, 2003
#### JWK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-5118.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Feb. 12, 2003.

Before NEWMAN, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit Judges.

*475JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: *AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 36
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 9, 2007
    /s/ Sung Won Sohn, Ph.D.Sung Won Sohn, Ph.D.Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

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, furnished herewith.

Armstrong Holdings, Inc.

(the Company)

Written Statement by Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that
the Companys Form 10-Q periodic report containing its financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information
contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of that date.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael D. Lockhart                        
|Michael D. Lockhart                            
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|Armstrong Holdings, Inc.                       

Dated: October 30, 2006

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.
RECEIVED 

JUN- 6 2012 

HEARING DOCKEt 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of Fleet Aviation, LLC 

DOCKET No. FAA-2011-1117 

Case No. 2010EA110021 

MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF THIRD LITIGATION SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, and hereby moves for a 30-

day continuance of the Third Litigating Scheduling Conference, which is scheduled for 

June 6, 2012. 

The basis for this Motion is that counsel for the Agency, the undersigned, will be 

taking depositions on June 7, 2012 in connection with a potential emergency 

enforcement case, and needs to travel and confer with FAA inspectors on June 6, 2012 

in preparation for these depositions. Due to a variety of timing restraints and 

scheduling conflicts, Agency counsel had no choice but to schedule the depositions for 

that timeframe. 0 
In addition, Fleet Aviation is still in the process of trying to settle a case with the 

United States Attorney's Office, and that settlement would include this case. 

According to counsel for Fleet Aviation, there has been a substantial change in the 

management structure of Fleet Aviation since settlement discussions began and he is 

still awaiting final settlement approval of the company. 

Counsel for Fleet Aviation has indicated that he has no objection to a 30-day 

postponement. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alfred R. Johnson, Jr. 

Regional Counsel 

By: Zachary~~ (( )( ( () 

Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

I Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

718 553-3258 

718 995-5699 

2 
.. ,.,.) ' 

' 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Agency's Motion for Postponement of Third 

Litigation Scheduling Conference has been sent via first class mail and e-mail to the 

following: 

Gregory S. Winton 

Aviation Law Experts , LLC 

One Research Court, Suite 450 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Email: Greg@AviationLawExperts.Com 

The Honorable J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

Email: Diane.Mays@DOT.GOV 

I hereby certify that the foregoing Agency's Motion for Postponement of Third 

Litigation Scheduling Conference has been sent via first class mail to the following: 

Attention: Hearing Do.~~e.t Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright :Bl,lil~g, .Suite 2W1000 

Federal Aviation Adriillllstration 

800 Independence A~ti_tie, S:W. 

Room924A 

Wasltingtorl; b.t: 2tls91 

Date: 

JUN -1 2012 

----.,--- ~oks~· Paralegal Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

3
The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Arkansas.

___________

No. 96-3357

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Willie James Jones, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 20, 1996

 Filed: January 6, 1997

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Willie James Jones appeals the 108-month sentence imposed by the

district court after he pleaded guilty to one count of distributing

1

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues that his

base offense level should have been determined using, at most, the weight

of cocaine base involved in the five counts of the indictment, rather than

including seven unindicted transactions as relevant conduct. We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err in finding that the eleven

other transactions were relevant conduct under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 1B1.3(a) (1995). See United States v. Ballew, 40 F.3d 936, 943

(8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1813 (1995).

The Guidelines provide that
-2-

the base offense level "shall be determined on the basis of . . . all acts

and omissions . . . that were part of the same course of conduct or common

scheme or plan as the offense of conviction." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 1B1.3(a)(2) (1995). Furthermore, "in a drug distribution case,

quantities and types of drugs not specified in the count of conviction are

to be included in determining the offense level if they were part of the

same course of conduct or part of a common scheme or plan as the count of

conviction." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3, comment.

(backg'd.) (1995). 

Here, Jones sold cocaine base on twelve occasions within a five-month

period in the same geographic area. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 1B1.3, comment (n.9) (1995) (factors showing same course of conduct

include similarity, repetitions, and temporal proximity of acts). The less

than three-fold increase in sentencing range that resulted from considering

this relevant conduct does not raise due process concerns. See United

States v. Galloway, 976 F.2d 414, 426 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**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 OnScreen Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company"), on Form 10-QSB of the quarter ended June 30, 2007, I hereby certify
      solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
      knowledge:





(1)
      The
      quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





OnScreen
      Technologies, Inc.





By:
            /s/
                Cynthia M. Wilson
              Cynthia
                M. Wilson
            Dated
                this 14th day of August 2007Interim
                Chief Financial Officer