alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

PECOS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

Plaintiff(s), §

§ 

v. § Civil Action No. P:20-CV-0046

§ 

MICHAEL MARK TRAVALINO §

AKA “MARK WHITE EAGLE” §

 ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST

MICHAEL MARK TRAVALINO, AKA “MARK WHITE EAGLE”

NOW COMES Defendant, Michael Mark Travalino AKA “Mark White Eagle”, and

respectfully shows:

1. Defendant denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 50 in

Plaintiff’s Complaint for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Permanent

Injunction.

PRAYER

Defendant prays that all allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Original Complaint be stricken

or denied in subsequent proceedings, that Plaintiff take nothing, and that Defendant be granted

any and all relief as Dedendant may be entitled to in law or in equity.

Respectfully submitted,

By:/s/CHARLES S. CHAMBERS 

 Charles S. Chambers

 Texas Bar No. 04067500

 Email: charleschambers_540@msn.com

 915 Texas Avenue

 LUBBOCK, TX 79401

 Tel: (806) 763-9900

 Fax: (806) 763-9904

 Attorney for Defendant

Case 4:20-cv-00046-DC-DF Document 14 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on June 17, 2020, a true and correct copy of Defendant’s Original Answer

was served on United States Assistant Attorney, Eduardo R. Castillo, via federal electronic filing

manager and/or facsimile.

/s/CHARLES S. CHAMBERS 

Charles S. Chambers

Case 4:20-cv-00046-DC-DF Document 14 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 2
UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSTS

James E. McMahon

(JEMcMahon@LBL.gov)

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

U.S. DOE Workshop on Standards

for Residential Furnaces and Boilers

July 17, 2001

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 02OO
Utility Impact Analysis:

PURPOSE AND METHOD

PURPOSE

- Estimate effects on electric and gas suppliers of

reduced energy sales due to new energy efficiency

standards

METHOD uses NEMS-BRS

- integrated model of U.S. energy sector, including

supply and demand, all fuels

publicly available model, with forecast through 2020

® extrapolate beyond 2020

- current basis: EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2001

® will update model when EIA does (usually annually)

29

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 02OO
Utility Impact Analysis:

INPUTS

• Annual energy consumption and Saving by

fuel type for residential furnaces and boilers

from National Energy Saving spreadsheet

• All other inputs from EIA

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 02OO
Utility Impact Analysis:

METHOD and OUTPUT

• METHOD

- NEMS-BRS balances all supply and demand given

savings from new energy efficiency standard

• OUTPUT

- Change in energy sales and price by fuel type

(electricity, gas, oil) by region

- Change in mix of electricity generation

- Change in new capacity construction

31

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 02OO
f„

Utility Impact Analysis:

OE Requests Input from Stakeholders

• Should we consider using alternative

methods to NEMS for conducting the utility

impacts analysis?

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 02OO
### SERVED: MAY 3, 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### EVERGREENINTERNATIONALAIRLINES, INC. FAADOCKETNo. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Case) FDMS No. FAA-2012-0022


### ORDER OF DISMISSAL On March 15, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration ("Complainant") filed a Complaint. OnMarch 7, 2012, Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. ("Respondent") had filed a Request for Hearing.· OnApril24, 2012, Respondent filed a Withdrawal of Request for Hearing, citing settlement. 14 C.P.R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint orparty may withdraw a request for a hearing withoutthe consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." · WHEREFORE, Respondent's Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing having been read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Respondent's Withdrawal ofRequest for Hearing be and is hereby granted; and2


### 2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1 ONE COPY Catherine V. Dammel, Respondent's Counsel DammelLaw, PLLC
. 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1920 Seattle, WA 98101 TEL: 206-624-9914 FAJ(: 206-624-9827 David F. Shayne, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 Federal Aviation Administration 1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. Renton, WA 98057 TEL: 425-227-2165 FAJ(:**425~227-1007** FDMS No. FAA-2012-0022 (Civil Penalty Action)

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 Legal Assistant FAJ(: 202-366-7536

1 Service wasbyU.S. Mail. Forservice inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., WilburWright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430. -2-
1

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PUBLIC MEETING FOR BATTERY CHARGERS AND

EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington DC, 20585

Room 8E

- 089

October 13, 2010



### Purpose

DOE is holding this public meeting to discuss the preliminary analyses it has conducted as

part of the energy conservation standard s rulemaking for battery chargers (BCs) and

external power supplies (EPSs) . DOE will also explain its plans for the remaining analyses

, including its methodologies, assumption s, and data sourc es, and will seek comment on these

topics.



### Agenda

9:00

– 9:05 am Welcome

9:05

– 9:1 0 am Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review

Victor Petrolati

9:1 0

– 9: 30 am Background and Overview

Vic tor Petrolati

9: 30

– 10: 00 am Opening Comments from Participants

Doug Brookman

1 0: 00

– 10: 45 am Product Definitions and Scope

Ari Reeves

10: 45

– 1 1:00 am Break

11:00

– 11:30 am Market Assessment

Daniel Lauf

11:30 am

– 12:00 pm Technology Assessment

Michael Vladimer

12: 0 0

– 1: 0 0 pm Lunch2

1:00

– 2:00 pm Engineering Analysis

Michael Vladimer and Matthew Nardotti

2:0 0

– 2: 3 0 pm Energy Use Analysis

Tobias Swope

2:30

– 2:45 pm Product Price Determination

Daniel Lauf

2:4 5

– 3: 15 pm Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

Matt hew Hartley

3: 15

– 3:30 pm Break

3 : 30

– 4:00 pm Shi pm e nts and National Impact Analyses

Tobias Swope

4:00

– 4: 15 pm Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Robert Carmichael

4 :15

– 4:30 pm NOPR Analyses

Sanaee Iyama

4:30

– 4:5 5 pm Closing Comments from Participants

4:5 5

– 5:00 pm Closing Remarks

Vic tor Petrolati
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**Officer Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS) on Form10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (Form 10-Q), each of the undersignedofficers of SPS certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to suchofficer’s knowledge:

 

(1)                      TheForm 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                       Theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of SPS as of thedates   and for the periodsexpressed in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Date: Oct. 29, 2007                         |
|---------------------------------------------|
|                                        |
|  /s/  DAVID L. EVES                    |   |
|  David  L. Eves                        |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer      |
|                                        |
| /s/ BENJAMIN  G.S. FOWKE III                |   |
| Benjamin  G.S. Fowke III                    |
| Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                             |  |  |

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 andis not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to SPS and will be retained by SPS andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
**Exhibit 31.1: Sarbanes-Oxley Certification**Re:  Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp. Home Equity Asset Trust 2005-2 Home Equity Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-2 I, Bruce Kaiserman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Home Equity Asset Trust 2005-2 (the "Trust"); 2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution information required to be prepared by the Trustee based upon the servicing information required to be provided by the Servicers under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement is included in these reports; 4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statements included in the report and required to be delivered to the Trustee in accordance with the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and based upon the review required under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, and except as disclosed in the report, the Servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement; and 5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the Servicers' compliance with the minimum servicing standards based, in each case, upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar standard as set forth in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement that is included in these reports. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on the information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: the Servicers (other than Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.) and the Trustee. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2005 (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement"), among Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., as depositor (the "Depositor"), DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., as seller (in such capacity, the "Seller"), Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. ("SPS"), as a servicer (in such capacity, a "Servicer"), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("WFBNA"), as back-up servicer (in such capacity, the "Back-Up Servicer") and as a servicer (in such capacity, a "Servicer" and together with SPS, the "Servicers"), The Murrayhill Company, as credit risk manager (in such capacity, the "Credit Risk Manager") and U.S. Bank National Association as trustee (in such capacity, the "Trustee") /s/ Bruce KaisermanBruce Kaiserman Vice President March 30, 2006
#### Alyce Gordon, Appellant, v Board of Education, City of New York, et al., Defendants, and United Federation of Teachers, Local No. 2, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for an alleged breach of the duty of fair representation, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 7, 1989, as granted the motion of the defendant United Federation of Teachers, Local No. 2 to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) insofar as it is asserted against it.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Board of Education of the City of New York appointed the plaintiff Alyce K. Gordon as a probationary teacher pursuant to Education Law § 2569-a, which requires a three-year probationary period without a reduction for any prior substitute service. The plaintiffs employment was terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory performance before the end of the three-year probationary term. After hearings conducted pursuant to the Board of Education’s bylaws by the Chancellor’s review committee, the determination was affirmed. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the Board of Education to recover damages for the allegedly illegal termination of her employment and against the United Federation of Teachers, Local No. 2 (hereinafter the UFT) for breach of the duty of fair representation.

The trial court properly found that the plaintiffs claim that she had tenured status was not supported by the record and that the UFT did not breach its duty of fair representation to her. The duty of fair representation is breached when the conduct involved is "deliberately invidious, arbitrary [and] founded in bad faith” *(Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn. v Public Employment Relations Bd.,*132 AD2d 430, 432, *affd*73 NY2d 796).

The UFT did not treat the plaintiff differently from other similarly situated members of the collective bargaining unit. It investigated her claim to the extent that it could under the law and exercised its business judgment not to pursue her claim for reinstatement, which had already been found lacking in merit by the Commissioner of the State Education *510Department in an administrative proceeding before him in 1985. Measured by the above standard, there is no basis for a finding that the UFT’s conduct was deliberately invidious, arbitrary and founded in bad faith. Consequently, the court properly granted the UFT’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) insofar as it is asserted against it. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons 

UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Jonanthan Villareal et al 

Plaintiff 

V. 

John Saenz et al 

Defendant 

for the 

Western District of Texas 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00571-OLG 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Miguel Villarreal, Jr. 

(Name of the plaintiff's attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, 

two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of return in~ one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court's 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 05/13/2020 , the date when this request was sent ( or 90 days if it was sent outside the 

United States). Ifl fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: 05/19/2020 ---------

Miguel Villarreal, Jr. 

Printed name of party waiving service of summons 

George H. Spencer, Jr. 

Printed name 

745 E. Mulberry Avenue, Suite 700 

San Antonio, Texas 78212 

Address 

gspencer@lang leybanack. com 

E-mail address 

(210) 736-6600 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons 

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons 

and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in 

the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

"Good cause" does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant's property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver fonn, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff 

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served. 

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 6 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I that on this 20th day of May, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 

the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and served all counsel of record in accordance 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

 /s/George H. Spencer, Jr.

George H. Spencer, Jr.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 6 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 2
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 June 2006

(2006/C 146/03)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 11-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 4
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 11-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 4
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 11-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 3 of 4
Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 11-3 Filed 07/13/20 Page 4 of 4
-79 -78 -77 -76

 37

 38

 39

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mike Kaplan, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court (Allen G. Alpert, J.), rendered August 4, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of six counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, four counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, eight counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms aggregating 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The sole question presented on appeal is whether the court erred in denying defendant’s application to call an expert psychiatric witness to testify that as a result of defendant’s drug dependency, he was more susceptible to inducement, in connection with the entrapment defense raised. While such testimony is generally admissible *(see, United States v Newman,*849 F2d 156, 165), a necessary predicate for its admission is that it rest on facts in evidence or personally known to the expert *(People v Jones,*73 NY2d 427, 430). After an extensive voir dire, it was established that the expert did not have personal knowledge of defendant’s purported addiction, and at the time defendant sought to call the expert, no facts, except hearsay testimony, had been offered regarding defendant’s alleged addiction. The trial court suggested that it would admit the expert testimony if defendant were to testify and supply the requisite foundation. Defendant eventually took the stand and testified, stating that he was in fact a drug addict. During a recess in the midst of defendant’s testimony the court asked defense counsel if he would next call the psychiatrist and counsel answered affirmatively. However, the doctor was never called. Under these circumstances, defendant has failed to preserve the claim, having failed to avail himself of the opportunity to call the witness at the appropriate time. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5123 

To suspend temporarily the duty on a Phosphor Blend of Yttrium Oxide 

doped with Europium, Cerium Aluminate doped with Terbium and Barium Aluminate doped with Europium. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. HUELSKAMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on a Phosphor Blend of 

Yttrium Oxide doped with Europium, Cerium Aluminate 

doped with Terbium and Barium Aluminate doped with 

Europium. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PHOSPHOR BLEND OF YTTRIUM OXIDE DOPED 

4 WITH EUROPIUM, CERIUM ALUMINATE 

5 DOPED WITH TERBIUM AND BARIUM ALU6 MINATE DOPED WITH EUROPIUM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5123 IH

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 A Phosphor Blend of Yttrium Oxide doped with 

Europium, Cerium Aluminate doped with Terbium and Barium Aluminate doped with Europium as a preblended 

luminophore (CAS Nos. 

102110–17–8, 102110– 

19–0, and 68585–82–0) 

(provided for in subheading 3206.50.00) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

4 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

5 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATIONS





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of Standard Microsystems Corporation (the Company), does
hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2009 of the
Company fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By:
            /s/ CHRISTINE
      KING(signature)Christine
      King
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)




By:
            /s/ KRIS
      SENNESAEL(signature)Kris
      Sennesael
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)





Dated:
January 7, 2010