alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### RE: Andrew Parks to: Flajole, Andy 08/02/2012 01:36 PM

Andy, after looking closer at our guidance and talking with our department, it appears I gave incorrect information regarding the completeness date. EPA will deem the application complete when all required information is received, and that date will not revert to the May 31 response to comments letter that you sent to us. As it stands, the items standing in the way of this are the BA, the details of the archeological assessment, and the "neg." values in the proposed permit limits. The latter 2 are smaller items, and it looks as if the archeological issues I relayed are sufficient. Therefore the BA determination will be the deciding factor. We will use Audra's determination as guidance. Worst case scenario, she would make an adverse impact determination and the BA would need to go to formal consult and BO. However this would go into public notice/comment and would not affect our timeline for completeness determination.

In general, it looks as though once we receive the BA determination from NMFS, and assuming the other items are received, we will then deem the application complete, at which point we would send a completeness letter which would start the 1 year clock.

Andrew B. Parks, P.E. Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-8122 Fax: 404-562-9019

"Flajole, Andy" 08/02/2012 12:47:15 PM Yes, sorry for my confusion earlier Andrew. We'...

From: "Flajole, Andy" <Andy.Flajole@fpl.com> To: Andrew Parks/R4/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/02/2012 12:47 PM Subject: RE:



### Yes, sorry for my confusion earlier Andrew. We’re on for 8/13 at 10 am.

Thank You, 

# Andy Flajole

Environmental Services (561 ) 691

‐ 2766

From: A ndrew Parks [mailto:Parks. A ndrew@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, A u g ust 02, 2012 12:46 PM To: Flajole, A nd y Subject:Andy, I have on my calendar a call we scheduled for August 13. Do you have that as well?

Andrew B. Parks, P.E. Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-8122 Fax: 404-562-9019
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Jamba, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Karen L. Luey, Senior 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 (“Section 906”), that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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 16, 2009 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronicversion 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.*
#### COMMONWEALTH v. DIXON, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

July 19, 1954.

Cleon K. Calvert, Pineville, for petitioner.

W. R. Knuckles and W. J. Stone, Pine-ville, for respondent.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This is an original proceeding in this Court brought by the Commonwealth for an order in the nature of a writ of prohibition under RCA 1.420 to prohibit the circuit judge of Bell County from proceeding to try an appeal taken from the Pineville Police Court by one Hubert Collett.

From the facts shown by the record, on May 9, 19S4, Collett was brought before the Pineville Police Court on a charge of possessing alcoholic beverages for the purposes of sale in dry territory. He pleaded guilty to the charge and was thereupon fined $100 and costs and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

On the same day Collett paid into the Court the full amount of the fine and court costs, and subsequently attempted to take an appeal to the Bell Circuit Court from so much of the judgment as imposed a jail sentence.

It has been held in Maggard v. Commonwealth, 201 Ky. 626, 257 S.W. 1009, that where a criminal judgment imposes a fine and a jail sentence, if the defendant satisfies so much of the judgment as fixes a fine, he may not prosecute an appeal from that part of a judgment imposing a jail sentence.

The respondent takes the position that because the original judgment certified to the circuit court did not show on its face that part of the judgment had been satisfied, he became vested with jurisdiction to hear the appeal since it was in all other respects properly perfected. However, after the appeal was taken a notation was made by the judge of the Pineville Police Court on the certified copy of the judgment that the fine and costs had been paid on the day the judgment was entered. Assuming respondent acquired jurisdiction when the certified copy was filed in his court, it seems clear to us that jurisdiction was lost when the true facts were made to appear in the record. It is not controverted that the fine and costs were actually paid before the appeal was taken.

While a contention is made that Collett was misled or made a mistake concerning his right to appeal, this is imma*168terial since the question is one of jurisdiction. In our opinion respondent is now without jurisdiction to try this appeal, and under the authority of the Maggard case above cited, his only authority is to enter an order dismissing the appeal.

The petition of the Commonwealth is sustained, and respondent is ordered to take no further action in the purported appeal of Hubert Collett except to enter an order dismissing the appeal.
* Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2649
KENNETH T. BOSLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES S. RIEPE; JOHN B. HOWARD; ADENA W. TESTA; EDWARD H. BERGE; GAIL P. RIEPE; MICHAEL DAVID TESTA; MELISSA L. BERGE; JAMES DORSEY BROWN, III; CHRISTINE WEBER BROWN; WESTERN RUN COMPANY, L.C.; COLD BOTTOM, L.L.C., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge. (CA-95-1190-HAR) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: April 22, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, * Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Kenneth T. Bosley, Appellant Pro Se. John Henry Lewin, Jr., VENABLE, BAETJER & HOWARD, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissinghis claim under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1961-1968 (West 1985 & Supp. 1995). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we deny Appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bosley v. Riepe, No. CA-95-1190-HAR (D. Md. July 26, 1995). In light of this disposition, we deny Appellees' motion to expedite as moot. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND 

Nos. 96, 97, & 98

September Term, 2015 

______________________________________ 

STATE OF MARYLAND 

v. 

BRIAN RICE 

______________________________________ 

STATE OF MARYLAND 

v. 

EDWARD NERO

______________________________________ 

STATE OF MARYLAND 

v. 

GARRETT MILLER 

______________________________________ 

Barbera, C.J. 

Battaglia 

Greene

Adkins

McDonald

Watts 

Hotten,

JJ.

______________________________________ 

PER CURIAM ORDER 

______________________________________ 

Filed: March 8, 2016

No. 96 – Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case No. 115141035

No. 97 – Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case No. 115141033

No. 98 – Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case No. 115141034

Argued: March 3, 2016
STATE OF MARYLAND * IN THE

 * 

 Appellant * COURT OF APPEALS 

 * 

 * OF MARYLAND 

v. * 

 * 

BRIAN RICE * No. 96 

 * September Term, 2015 

 Appellee * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 

STATE OF MARYLAND * IN THE

 * 

 Appellant * COURT OF APPEALS 

 * 

 * OF MARYLAND 

v. * 

 * 

EDWARD NERO * No. 97 

 * September Term, 2015 

 Appellee * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 

STATE OF MARYLAND * IN THE

 * 

 Appellant * COURT OF APPEALS 

 * 

 * OF MARYLAND 

v. * 

 * 

GARRETT MILLER * No. 98 

 * September Term, 2015 

 Appellee * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * 

PER CURIAM ORDER 

 For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it is this 8th day of March, 

2016, 
- 2 - 

 ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Circuit 

Court for Baltimore City entered on January 20, 2016, denying the State’s Motion to 

Compel a Witness to Testify Pursuant to Section 9-123 of the Courts and Judicial 

Proceedings Article, is reversed; and it is further 

 ORDERED that the above captioned cases, State of Maryland v. Brian Rice, State 

of Maryland v. Edward Nero, and State of Maryland v. Garrett Miller, be remanded to the 

Circuit Court for Baltimore City for entry of an order granting the motion, and for trial; 

and it is further

 ORDERED that the stay issued by this Court be, and it is hereby, lifted, and it is 

further 

 ORDERED, that costs in this Court be paid by Appellees. 

 /s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

 Chief Judge
Exhibit 21.1    List of Subsidiaries
                --------------------                             
                                                            State in
                                                              Which
Subsidiary of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.                      Organized

Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL)                     Indiana

   Subsidiary of IPL

     Property and Land Company, Inc.                         Indiana

Mid-America Capital Resources, Inc.                          Indiana
   (Mid-America)

   Subsidiaries of Mid-America

     Indianaplis Campus Energy, Inc. (ICE)                   Indiana
     Store Heat and Produce Energy, Inc. (SHAPE)             Indiana
     Mid-America Energy Resources, Inc.
       (Energy Resources)                                    Indiana

     Subsidiaries of Energy Resources

       Cleveland Thermal Energy Corporation                  Ohio
       Cleveland District Cooling Corporation                Ohio


   Both IPL and Mid-America are wholly owned by IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.
as of December 31, 1995.  Each of the subsidiaries listed for IPL, Mid-
America and Energy Resources is wholly owned except for SHAPE, which was
70% owned by Mid-America as of December 31, 1995.  Both Cleveland Thermal 
Energy Corporation and Cleveland District Cooling Corporation conduct 
business under the name Cleveland Energy Resources.
EXHIBIT 32.1  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) by Gold Horse International, Inc. (the Registrant), I, Liankuan Yang, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify 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, and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of Registrant.  /s/ Liankuan YangName: Liankuan YangTitle: Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer  Dated: February 22, 2011  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, 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.
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 Annual Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 27, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Kass, Chief
Financial 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:

         (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/Steven Kass*
---------------
Steven Kass
Chief Financial Officer

March 26, 2004



* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
#### David Casale, Appellant, v Debbie Casale, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The court did not err in temporarily enjoining plaintiff from transferring a vacant lot acquired by the parties during their marriage. Although plaintiff had paid defendant $100,000 for her interest in the property, and title to the property was in his name alone, the property may still be found to be marital property *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]; [3]). The court did not err in preserving the major asset of plaintiff pending final determination of the proceeding.

The award of temporary maintenance to defendant of $150 per week was proper in light of the facts that defendant had not worked during the marriage, was in ill health, and lived a lavish life-style during the marriage. In any event, the remedy for a claimed inequity in temporary maintenance is a prompt trial *(see,*Scheinkman, 1987 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, 1990 Pocket Part, Domestic Relations Law C236B:40, at 67; *see also, Sayer v Sayer,*130 AD2d 407). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Schneier, J.—temporary support.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.
ATTACHMENT G

Display Related to OMB Control #2070-0052 - Listings of 

Related Regulations in 40 CFR 9.1

As of May 10, 1993, the OMB approval numbers for EPA regulations in Chapter I of 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) appear in a listing in 40 CFR 9.1 (58 FR 

27472). This listing fulfills the display requirements in section 3507(f) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) for EPA regulations. The listing at 40 CFR 9.1 displays this OMB Control 

number for the following regulations:

Program Title 40 CFR citation

Packaging Requirements for Pesticides and Devices .............................................................157.22

.....................................................................................157.24

.....................................................................................157.34

.....................................................................................157.36
cool_ex1089.htm

EXHIBIT 10.89
  
 AMENDMENT
 TO THE $220,000 PROMISSORY NOTE DATED January 26, 2018
  
 The parties agree that $220,000 Promissory Note by and between Cool Technologies, Inc. (“Company”) and Lucas Hoppel (“Holder”) is hereby amended as follows:
  
 Maturity Date: The Maturity Date shall be extended to October 1st, 2018.
  
 Conversion Price: The Conversion Price in section 3(a)(ii) shall permanently be changed to equal $0.025 cents.
  
 ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE $220,000 PROMISSORY NOTE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
  
 Please indicate acceptance and approval of this amendment dated May 22nd, 2018 by signing below:
  
  	/s/ Tim Hassett 	 	/s/ Lucas Hoppel 	 
	Tim Hassett	 	 Lucas Hoppel
	 
	 Cool Technologies, Inc.
 Chief Executive Officer
#### John P. WILLETT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27698.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for driving a motor véhicle' upon a public highway while intoxicated, the jury having assessed as punishment one year'in jail and a fine of $250. ., ;

The statement of facts found in the record, which is agreed by counsel for the State and for appellant to be “a correct statement of all the facts given in evidence on the trial” and which is approved by the trial judge, requires that‘the cause be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence.

According to this statement of facts the State offered -no testimony to show that appellant was intoxicated. No witness testified that he was intoxicated or expressed his opinipn on - the subject.

The evidence shows that appellant complied with the request 'of -the arresting officers and blew up. a balloon for an intoxi-meter test, and that it was turned over to “authorities at the courthouse”. But there is no evidence to show that the intoximeter test which the state’s witness examined was that which the officers took from appellant.

Because the. evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction, .we need, not pass upon the bills of exception. We observe, however, that'the bills .are' formal bills and were not separately filed 'in the trial court and included in the transcript, as required by 'law. " -

*747We also notice that in qualifying the bills of exception the trial court recites certain testimony which if given and included in the statement of facts might have supplied the evidence, the absence of which requires that the conviction be set aside.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded. -
_____________ No. 95-3908SI

_____________ Janet R. Root, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Southern * District of Iowa. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * of the Social Security * [UNPUBLISHED] Administration, * *

Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: May 13, 1996 Filed: May 22, 1996

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Janet R. Root appeals a decision of the district court upholding the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that no error of lawappear s. Because an opinion would have no precedential value, w e affirm without an opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### McCOY v. STATE.

No. 26531.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 28, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*564DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

A violation of the liquor laws is the offense ; the punishment, a 'fine of $250.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, without which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable Myron H. Bright, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 8/16/96

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD VAUGHN KELLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JARDINE PETROLEUM CO., INC.,

STERLING JARDINE, D. CHRIS

BUTTARS, ALPHA TRANSPORT,

INC., JACK WHITE, DLD

DISTRIBUTING CO. OF WYOMING,

DENTON L. DUNN, DENNIS

MURRAY, ORSON MADSEN,

ROBERT RIETZ, individually, and in

their own official capacity with the

Salt Lake County Constable

Departments,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-4202

(D.C. No. 94-CV-86)

(D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, BRIGHT,** and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Edward Keller appeals from the district court’s order granting

summary judgment for defendants. The record on appeal is voluminous. 

Nevertheless, plaintiff has failed to provide in his appellate briefs any references

to the record. His arguments are relegated to broad, conclusory statements and to

simple repetition of the allegations contained in his complaint. We are not

required to sift through the record, manufacturing plaintiff’s arguments for him,

and we decline to do so in this case. SEC v. Thomas, 965 F.2d 825, 826-27 (10th

Cir. 1992). The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of

Utah is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1961 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the taxable 

income limit on percentage depletion for oil and natural gas produced 

from marginal properties. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2011 

Mr. BOREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate 

the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil 

and natural gas produced from marginal properties. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF TAXABLE INCOME LIMIT ON 

4 PERCENTAGE DEPLETION FOR OIL AND NAT5 URAL GAS PRODUCED FROM MARGINAL 

6 PROPERTIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (H) of section 

8 613A(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1961 IH

1 to oil and natural gas produced from marginal properties) 

2 is amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(H) NONAPPLICATION OF TAXABLE IN4 COME LIMIT WITH RESPECT TO MARGINAL PRO5 DUCTION.—The second sentence of subsection 

6 (a) of section 613 shall not apply to so much 

7 of the allowance for depletion as is determined 

8 under subparagraph (A).’’. 

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

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2010. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS