alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Withey, Charlotte [mailto:Withey.Charlotte@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:02 PM

To: Giff, Jennifer; Tsiolis. George (gtsiolis@nj.rr.com)

Cc: Nudd, Gregory; Webb, Thomas; McKaughan, Colleen

Subject: RE: Followup to November 14 Call Between SRPMIC, Phoenix Cement 

and EPA

Jennifer and George, 

I wanted to follow up and see whether you and your clients had any questions 

regarding the draft regulatory text that I sent on November 25, or any other input 

to share with us. I also wanted to let you know that we would need to receive any 

additional information by December 17, in order to have time to incorporate it into 

our analysis for the proposal. 

We look forward to hearing from you.

Charlotte Withey

Office of Regional Counsel

U.S. EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Tel: (415) 972-3915

Fax: (415) 947-3570

withey.charlotte@epa.gov

________________________________________

The information contained in this message, including any attachments hereto, 

may be privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable 

laws. It is intended for the recipient only. If you are an agency employee or 

consultant, please consult with the sender prior to disclosing the contents of this 

message to third parties. If you have received this transmission in error, please 

notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments.
oplnian Ro. CL95 Ret isriect, of rosolutlons at the Lo&slh?s~ OSof either tmmch thercaE, in Texas, ta effect the adoptian uf a lav.

The pertinent pro~iriom of ths present Constitution~of the St0t.a OSTexas aret Soctlna 1x, i&icls 3t e.nLach !?ous%maydot%mI~~ ths adlea or its mm proeaedln;;s, pmisl'i tamlmrefor dlsordorly ccmduct, md, With the COAS6nb Of two-thirds, t?xpel a mM.b9F,but t3Ot a rracond

tim3for the ss.w5

ofOrmbU&x!tion 29, ArtiClQ 31 "The Ork?LCti?.tg ChWlSe of &I1 ,it onncted by fh6 L0gl~6tuse of G%otlon 30, 

### Brtlcls31

. lauo shall hot ‘De the Mate of Texas.“’
"Ho Ipu @lall b'a p6as%d 0xMaptby blll,'cv!fl no bill sill be so amcded ln &,a pasea~e tbrw& 

## eit?mr Bousa, as to chanig Its origirul purpose.” Sectioa y, 

## Article 31

“WKS spryorigltdm in either Ifouse~ and; when P;rSSCd by SUch f!OuW, may.ban3anded altered OSxv91 jetted by tha other.” i%atton 32, Azw.cla, 38 “Ho b1l.l &all lime the 

### form of a law, until It

%tl bUls for raising revenue &all orlginato in the Xause of Kopeser?tf&luos, ?mt the Senate pny waend or xuject thea as other bills.” section 3b, Artiale 3,

‘thl’ter a till has bean consVlerad andttoi%ate3 by either Iiouae uf the Leglsl&uro, no bill. containiw the saw.3substmce, 6kQ.l bo parsed into a lw during the ttmo rzmslon. After a reaolctlon has hen acted on and defeated, no resoLutlon containing the Ss03 SUbSttmce, sknll be considered at tho rw~lssession.* Sootion 35, XrtiCle 3t.T Hall. Freda. wood, Page 3

act &all be void only as to so mch tlyweof, a8 6hall not be f%o expru6Soa.” So&ion 37, Art&lo ~3r Wo bill shallbe considered,unloas ithas been first rctferred to a cozmmltteeand reported thereon, and no bill shall be posssd which has not been pressntad a?d refcrrord to end reported fraa a cromaittee at laabt three days +Sore the flm1 adjomment vf t!he Laai6, l&W*.” section 38, Art1cY.e 3r

&ecthvn 15, Arti.01~ tt

lia~ttdtiohs shall apply thereto us proscribe In the T;i& pmcodln~ socclonin tdhacam of B All.” The Constitutions of 184i49,1861, and 1866 did not contain the prmrsim fvmd in section 30 0r the present Constltutlon, I. e*) n;;o lm t2d.l be ptw~od except by bill ..+‘I This provIsion ap pa8 r0r the 

### fir& tiim in the Constitution 

## 0r 1875. Furthsr, the C~mstitutlvns of l@tS, 1861, and 2.866contained this provision isea. 22, A+ 3 of the Cmstltutlor of 18451:

Ttxt present -CoxLstltutlcc?, hwdwur, hat -ad this p~ovlsim to read us r0nffm‘ml. wed B. Hood, Page 4 hpir /s/ R. W. Fairchild AsolsiQnt RmPBPtPw ~mvim /s/ Gerald C. Mann P
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 531

AN ACT

To authorize a circuit judge who has taken part in an in

banc hearing of a case to continue to participate in

that case after taking senior status, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

4 The last sentence of section 46(c) of title 28, United

5 States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘eligi6 ble’’ and by inserting before the period at the end of the

7 sentence ‘‘, or (2) to continue to participate in the decision

8 of a case or controversy that was heard or reheard by the

9 court in banc at a time when such judge was in regular

10 active service’’.

Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day,

September 25), 1995.

Attest:

Secretary.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 531

AN ACT

To authorize a circuit judge who has taken part in

and for other purposes.ticipate in that case after taking senior status,an in banc hearing of a case to continue to par-
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 11-0084

IN RE ASTEC UNDERGROUND, INC.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Real parties in interest’s unopposed motion for partial lift of stay, filed October 24, 2011, is granted.  The stay order issued February 7, 2011, staying all trial court proceedings in Cause No. C-2034-08-A, styled *Cynthia Cantu-Sapien, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Angel Sapien, Deceased, and as next friend of Alyssa Anne Sapien and Angel Sapien, Jr., Minors, and Amanda Maria Sapien, Jacob Sapien, and Sundie Sapien, All Individually v. Juan Mendoza Corporationd/b/a JM Construction, Gabriel Carrillo d/b/a Cage Utility Group; Astec Underground, Inc., Both Individually and d/b/a Astec and Astec Industries; Doggett Heavy Machinery Services, Ltd. and Doggett Heavy Machinery Services LLC*, in the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, is lifted in part only to allow the trial court to conduct a hearing to approve the parties' tentative settlement agreement. This Court's stay issued February 7, 2011, otherwise remains in full force and effect..

2.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this October 28, 2011.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith.



Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

(the
Companies)



Written Statement by Chief
Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the Companies Form 10-Q periodic
report containing their respective financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004 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 Companies as of that date.



|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|/s/ Leonard A. Campanaro                                                             
|                                                                                     
|Leonard A. Campanaro                                                                 
|Chief Financial Officer Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and Armstrong World Industries, Inc.



Dated: April 29, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1642

___________

Muhammad Jalal-Deem Akbar, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Warden Brian Jett, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 29, 2011

Filed: July 5, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Muhammad Jalal-Deem Akbar appeals the district court’s1

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Upon careful

review, we conclude that Akbar was not entitled to habeas relief for the reasons relied

upon by the district court. See Mitchell v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 538 F.3d 948, 951

(8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (standard of review). Accordingly, the judgment is

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan Richard

Nelson, then United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now United

States District Judge.
affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Akbar’s motion for release and motion

to expedite.

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.38


                     OUTSIDE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMPENSATION

1.    On an annual basis, outside directors will receive:

      a.    a retainer of $20,000, to be paid in cash;

      b.    an additional cash retainer of $7,000 for service as chair of the
            Audit and Finance Committee;

      c.    an additional cash retainer of $3,500 for service as chair of any
            other committee of the board;

      d.    a meeting attendance fee of $1,500 cash for each meeting of the full
            board and each meeting of a committee attended, whether a regular or
            special meeting and whether a face to face meeting or a
            teleconference, provided that only one such fee would be received
            for a single day on which a director participated in more than one
            such meeting;

      e.    an option grant as of the first trading day of the calendar year
            covering 15,000 shares of common stock with a strike price based on
            the closing price of the stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the
            date of grant, which option will become vested and exercisable in
            one tranche one year after the date of grant if the director remains
            on the Board at that time; and

      f.    a grant of restricted common stock units as of the first trading day
            following June 30 covering that number of shares of common stock
            having an aggregate value of $25,000, based on the closing price of
            the stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the date of grant, which
            restricted stock units are to become fully vested in thirds on each
            of the first three anniversaries after the date of grant if the
            director remains on the Board on each such date.

2.    The cash elements above are to be paid quarterly at the end of each
      quarter, beginning with the first quarter of calendar 2004.

3.    In addition to the foregoing, upon being initially elected to the board, a
      new director will receive a "welcome grant" of 20,000 stock options as
      well as restricted common stock units covering that number of shares of
      common stock having an aggregate value of $25,000, based on the closing
      price of the stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the date of grant, which
      shall be the day on which such director is first elected. Such stock
      options and restricted stock units will vest in thirds on each of the
      first three anniversaries after the date of grant if the director remains
      on the Board on each such date.

4.    The Non-Executive Chairperson of the Board is to receive double the equity
      amounts as stated in Sections 1e and 1f above, as well as double the
      equity amounts in the "welcome grant" as stated in Section 3 above.



                                      E-53
-77.6 -77.4 -77.2 -77.0 -76.8 -76.6 -76.4

38.4 38.6 38.8 39.0 39.2 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/25 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
#### Robert Earl GASSAWAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27273.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 5, 1955.

No attorney on appeal.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Houston, Eugene Brady, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Under indictment for murder with malice, appellant was found guilty of murder without malice and assessed punishment at five years in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.
##### 



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 Greenfield Online, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 to be filed
with Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert E. Bies, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial
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.



By: /s/ Robert E. Bies
                    
    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                Robert E. Bies
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 9, 2006
Order entered August 19, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00471-CR

No. 05-21-00472-CR

JEWELL LEE THOMAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-31413-T & F18-10610-T

ORDER

We REINSTATE these appeals.

We abated for the appointment of counsel. On August 12, 2021, the clerk’s 

records were filed containing, among other things, the appointment. We DIRECT 

the Clerk of the Court to list LaToya Blakely as counsel for appellant in these 

appeals. All future correspondence shall be sent to Ms. Blakely at 6505 W. Park 

Blvd, Ste 306 PMB 290, Plano, Texas 75093-6212.
The reporter’s record was due July 26, 2021. That same day, the Court 

received the requests of Crystal Carey and Vearneas Faggett for extensions of time. 

Both requests indicate there are other court reporters preparing parts of the record

and that there is no official court reporter for the 283rd Judicial District Court.

These appeals cannot proceed without a reporter’s record. and there is no 

official court reporter to coordinate the filing of the record. Therefore, we ORDER 

the trial court to hold a hearing, at which all court reporters who have taken a 

portion of the record in these cases are present, to determine (1) the names and 

addresses of all court reporters preparing portions of the record for these appeals; 

(2) which court reporter shall be responsible for filing the complete reporter’s 

record; (3) when the reporter’s record will be completed; and (4) what steps need 

to be taken to ensure the record is filed by that date.

The trial court shall make its findings concerning the reporter’s record in 

writing. The findings shall be filed in a supplemental clerk’s record no later than 

September 13, 2021. A supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing shall also be 

filed no later than September 13, 2021.

The Court will defer ruling on the requests of Ms. Carey and Ms. Faggett 

until the supplemental records are received.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Lela 

Mays, Presiding Judge, 283rd Judicial District Court; to Felicia Pitre, Dallas
County District Clerk; to Crystal Carey, deputy court reporter, 283rd Judicial 

District Court; to Vearneas Faggett, deputy court reporter, 283rd Judicial District 

Court; and to counsel for all parties.

We ABATE the appeals to allow the trial court an opportunity to comply 

with this order. They will be reinstated when the supplemental records are filed or 

the Court deems it appropriate to do so.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Grant of Security Interest in U.S. Patent, dated February 5, 2004



 Exhibit 10.8 
  
 GRANT OF SECURITY INTEREST 
 IN U. S. PATENT 
  
 WHEREAS, TieTek Technologies, Inc. (formerly known as TieTek, Inc.), a Texas corporation, with offices located at 14315 West Hardy Road, Houston, Texas 77060 (“Grantor”); and Tie Investors, LLC, a Texas limited liability
company, with offices located at 5949 Sherry Lane, Suite 1900, Dallas, Texas 75225 (“Grantee”), are parties to a certain Patent Security Agreement, dated March 5, 2004 (the “Agreement”), which is incorporated herein
by reference; 
  
 WHEREAS, said Agreement provides, inter
alia, for the granting of a lien on, and a security interest in, U.S. Patent Published Application No. 20020123553 (“the Patent”) with Application Date of March 5, 2001, including any reexaminations or reissues thereof; and

  
 WHEREAS, it is the purpose of this document to perfect and
memorialize the security interest granted to Grantee in the Patent, in a form suitable for recording in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged, and subject to the terms and conditions of the Agreement,
Grantor hereby assigns and grants to Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perfected first priority continuing general security interest in and lien on the Patent including, without limitation, (a) all divisions, reissues, substitutions,
continuations, continuations-in-part, renewals, and extensions thereof; (b) all income, royalties, damages, and payments for past or future infringements thereof; (c) the right to sue for past, present, and future infringements; (d) all rights
corresponding thereto; (e) all accounts receivable, general intangibles, and instruments arising out of any of the foregoing; (f) all proceeds of insurance relating to any of the foregoing; and (g) all proceeds of any of the foregoing, to secure the
Obligations (as defined in the Agreement). Grantor further agrees that it will pay any maintenance fees due for the Patent and do all other things necessary to maintain such patent in force during the term of this grant of security interest.

  

			
	GRANTOR:
	
	TIETEK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Texas corporation
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Henry W. Sullivan


	 Name:
	 	 Henry W. Sullivan


	 Its:
	 	 President
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1686 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

200 South Morgan Street in Shelbyville, Illinois, as the ‘‘Jesse M. Donaldson Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2011 

Mr. SHIMKUS (for himself, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, and Mr. RUSH) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 200 South Morgan Street in Shelbyville, Illinois, as the ‘‘Jesse M. Donaldson Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JESSE M. DONALDSON POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 200 South Morgan Street in 

6 Shelbyville, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Jesse M. Donaldson Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1686 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Jesse M. Donaldson 

3 Post Office’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United Stat es Court of A ppeals

For the First C ircuit

No. 02-2321 JEFFREY E. SIMPSON, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. CHERYL GALLANT, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. Margaret Kravchuk, U.S. Magistrate Judge ] Before Selya, Circuit Judge , Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge , and Lynch, Circuit Judge . Jeffrey E. Simpson on brief pro se. Michael J. Schmidt and Wheeler & Arey, P.A. on brief for appellees.
May 8, 20032

Per Curiam . Jeffrey E. Simpson appeals fromthe order below granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing his civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have reviewed the record, the parties' briefs, and t h e applicable law, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM

the judgment for essentially the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's decision entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Simpson v. Gallant et al. , No. 02-15-B-K (D.Me. Sept. 25, 2002).
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00810-CV

Stephen D. Fox, as next friend of C. F. and M. F., Appellant

v.

Mirna Azucena Alberto Perez, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. C2014-1613B, HONORABLE DIP WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Stephen D. Fox filed his notice of appeal on December 24, 2014, and his

brief was originally due on February 4, 2015. On Fox’s motion, the deadline for filing was extended

to May 5, 2015. However, Fox did not file a brief by this deadline but instead filed a second motion,

requesting that we extend his deadline for filing to August 3, 2015. On May 14, 2015, this Court

granted Fox’s second motion for extension of time and ordered him to file his brief no later than

August 3. We also notified Fox that his failure to comply with the order could result in the dismissal

of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a). To date, Fox has not filed a brief. Accordingly, we

dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3 (b), (c).
____________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: September 4, 2015

2
From: Brian Ashbrook [mailto:Brian.Ashbrook@ormet.com] 

Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:13 PM 

To: Putney, David 

Subject: RE: section 114 testing 

Mr. Putney, 

Attached are files that should answer all questions you had during your initial review of Ormet’s 

data. Attached are Ormet’s letter to OEPA notifying them of the special sapling, Ormet’s laboratory test plan 

that was followed for sample collection, Ormet’s emission report , and a revised Table 3-1. 

If there are still questions or concerns, please let me know. 

I can be reached at 740-483-2732. 

Thanks, 

Brian Ashbrook 

p.1 of 1