alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Lead

- Based Paint Program Summary of Renovation, Repair and Painting Program
The Lead

- Based Paint (LBP) program in Oklahoma received EPA delegation on August 10, 1998. It is administered by the Department of Environmental Quality’s Air Quality Division, specifically the Technical Resources and Projects Section . The program duties include enforcement, inspections, certification , accreditation of training pro viders, and public education.
In an effort to recei ve delegation of the Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) program in Oklahoma,
o n October 5 , 2011 the Oklahoma Air Quality Council approved changes to the Oklahoma Lead

- Based Paint Management Rules to incorporate by reference 40 CFR Part 745.225 , with th e exception of portions of the accreditation section of those rules, and other minor exceptions to allow transition to state oversight of RRP associated activities

. The changes were approved by the Oklahoma Environmental Quality Board on February 24 , 2012 . With the Governor’s approval and passage by the Oklahoma State Legislature the ru les became effective on July 1 , 2012.
Because the Oklahoma Lead

- Based Paint program already included EPA

- approved training provider elements that are considerably more stri ngent than the federal program, Oklahoma chose to maintain that portion of the Lead

- Based Paint program for use with the new RRP program . The differences include : requirements that only educational institutions and government agencies may become accredite d ; providers must offer on

- going programs that include both initial and refresher training ; and require ments for inspections , annual reviews , and renewal. Fees for training providers were also modified so that the annual renewal would not lead to a fee increase over the EPA program. During the public hearings before the Air Quality Council, concerns were raised that the DEQ RRP program would cause financial hardship on renovation firms and training providers that were already approved by EPA at th e time of delegation approval and might have several years left before they were required to renew under the EPA program. In response, the proposed rules were amended to include transition language exempting EPA

- approved firms and training providers from fees un til the expiration of their EPA

- approval. The Oklahoma RRP program will utilize the existing accreditation structure of inspections and close review to ensure a quality training system. The existing DEQ enforcement system will also apply to the RRP prog ram, but f or the RRP firms and their work practices, much of the enforcement will come through the DEQ complaint system. The complaint system uses a toll

- free state wide number, strict timelines for response and investigation, and referral to the various DEQ divisions for expert follow

- up. The DEQ complaint system is well

- established and has proven effective in all programs, including the Oklahoma LBP activities program. The activities program provides a network of individuals and firms throughout the st ate that also self

- monitor to assist in compliance.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Sherman R. Elwyn, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Ulster County,

November 12, 1957.

*Lloyd R. Le Fever*and *John E. Egan*for Marion D. Elwyn.

*Earry E. Flemming*for Martin P. Comean, executor.

*Floyd W. Powell*for Maurice Riseley and others.

*58Charles H. Gaffney, S.

Petitioner, Marion Elwyn, seeks an order that Martin F. Comean as executor of the joint last will and testament of Sherman it. Elwyn and Cornelia Elwyn, dated November 15, 1948, and as executor of the last will and testament of Sherman B. Elwyn, dated February 29, 1952, cease and desist from prosecuting an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court filed in the Ulster County Clerk’s office on August 15, 1957, or in the alternative that an order be made directing that in the event said judgment is affirmed that the cost of such appeal as well as attorneys ’ fees in connection with the appeal be borne solely by the said Martin F. Comeau, individually, and/or by the residuary legatees, other than your petitioner, Marion D. Elwyn.

Subsequent to the hearing of this application an authorization of attorney to appear for persons not served with citation signed by Katherine B. Elwyn, Helen E. Hawk and Katherine B. Elwyn, as administratrix of the estate of Harold Elwyn, deceased, authorizing Joseph T. Bussell, Esq., 8 Lafayette Place, Poughkeepsie, New York, to appear for them in this proceeding was filed in this court, along with a notice of appearance by Joseph T. Bussell, Esq., attorney for Katherine B. Elwyn, Helen E. Hawk and Katherine B. Elwyn, as administratrix of the estate of Harold Elwyn, deceased.

In view of the foregoing the relief sought by petitioner is premature at this time and is, therefore, denied, without prejudice to renew said application subsequent to the appeal herein if the facts and circumstances warrant same at that time.

Submit order.
Exhibit 99(b)

                         Independent Accountants' Report
                         -------------------------------


The Board of Directors
Household Finance Corporation

We have examined management's assertion that the servicing of mortgage loans
owned by Household Mortgage Loan Trust 2002-HC1 (the loans) has been conducted
by Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer, in compliance with the
terms and conditions of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated July 3, 2002 (the
Agreement) for the period of July 3, 2002 to December 31, 2002. Management is
responsible for the assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assertion about Household Finance Corporation's compliance based on
our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and in
compliance with the audit guide for audits of non-supervised mortgagees approved
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (to the extent that the
procedures in such audit guide are applicable to the servicing obligations set
forth in the Agreement), accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
evidence about Household Finance Corporation's compliance with the terms and
conditions of the Agreement and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the servicing of the loans has been
conducted by Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer, in compliance
with the terms and conditions of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated July 3,
2002, for the period of July 3, 2002 to December 31, 2002 is fairly stated, in
all material respects.


                                              /s/ KPMG LLP
                                              KPMG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
February 28, 2003
<PAGE>

                              Management Assertion
                              --------------------


For the period of July 3, 2002 to December 31, 2002, the servicing of mortgage
loans owned by Household Mortgage Loan Trust 2002-HC1 has been conducted by
Household Mortgage Services, a division of Household Finance Corporation, in its
capacity as subservicer for Household Finance Corporation, as Master Servicer,
in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Sale and Servicing Agreement
dated July 3, 2002.







/s/ Chris Worwa                        /s/ Greg Gibson
---------------                        ---------------
Chris Worwa                            Greg Gibson
Chief Financial Officer-               Managing Director-Operations
Household Mortgage Services            Household Mortgage Services


February 28, 2003                      February 28, 2003
------------------------------         ------------------------------
Date                                   Date
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**582 KA 14-00981** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND CURRAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JEROME INGRAM, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (MATTHEW B. POWERS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.), rendered May 12, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial is granted on the first count of the indictment.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]), defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish his guilt and the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. We reject those contentions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that “there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences to support the jury’s finding that defendant committed the crime[] of which he was convicted based on the evidence presented at trial” ( People v Scott , 93 AD3d 1193, 1194, lv denied 19 NY3d 967, reconsideration denied 19 NY3d 1001; see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson
, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495). Although a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, it cannot be said that the jurors failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded ( see People v Canfield , 111 AD3d 1396, 1397, lv denied 22 NY3d 1087; People v Ettleman , 109 AD3d 1126, 1128, lv denied 22 NY3d 1198).

We agree with defendant, however, that reversal is required based on Supreme Court’s refusal to charge criminal trespass in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.15 [1]) as a lesser included offense of**-2- 582 KA 14-00981** 

burglary in the second degree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must in this context ( see People v Randolph , 81 NY2d 868, 869), we conclude that there is “a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that the defendant committed the lesser offense but not the greater” ( People v Van Norstrand , 85 NY2d 131, 135; see People v Borges , 90 AD3d 1067, 1069), i.e., that he did not intend to commit a crime when he entered the victim’s apartment without her permission.

In light of our determination, we need not address defendant’s remaining contentions, none of which, if meritorious, would result in dismissal of the indictment.

Entered: June 17, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7160
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRUSO R. WALLACE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:02-cr-00101; 5:04-cv-00732) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cruso R. Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Cruso R. Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wallace has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Wallace’s motion for abeyance and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 5862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2655]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-170-000]


Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Change 
in Gas Tariff

February 1, 2000.
    Take notice that on January 28, 2000, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on 
Appendix A to the filing, with a proposed effective date of March 1, 
2000.
    Columbia is making the instant filing to reflect various 
administrative revisions to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 
No. 1 to reflect items including, but not limited to, changes to date 
references on various forms of service agreements and revisions to 
company contact information.
    Columbia states further that copies of this filing have been mailed 
to all of its customers and affected state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Sections 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-2655 Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IB 

Union Calendar No. 474 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 277 

[Report No. 113–634] 

To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Sachuest Point Unit RI–04P, Easton Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond 

Unit RI–06, and Hazards Beach Unit RI–07 in Rhode Island. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 15, 2013 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

DECEMBER 1, 2014 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on January 15, 2013] 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 277 RH

A BILL 

To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Sachuest Point Unit RI–04P, Easton 

Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond Unit RI–06, and Hazards Beach Unit RI–07 in Rhode Island. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 277 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

4 BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM MAP. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The map subtitled ‘‘Sachuest Point 

6 Unit RI–04P, Easton Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond 

7 Unit RI–06, Hazards Beach Unit RI–07’’, included in the 

8 set of maps entitled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Re9 sources System’’ referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal 

10 Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to 

11 certain John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

12 units in Rhode Island, is hereby replaced by another map 

13 relating to the units entitled ‘‘John H. Chafee Coastal Bar14 rier Resources System Sachuest Point Unit RI–04P, Easton 

15 Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond Unit RI–06, and Hazards 

16 Beach Unit RI–07’’ and dated September 16, 2013. 

17 (b) AVAILABILITY.—The Secretary of the Interior shall 

18 keep the replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on 

19 file and available for inspection in accordance with the pro20 visions of section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

21 (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 474 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 277 

[Report No. 113–634] 

A BILL 

To revise the boundaries of John H. Chafee Coastal 

Rhode Island. Unit RI–06, and Hazards Beach Unit RI–07 in RI–04P, Easton Beach Unit RI–05P, Almy Pond Barrier Resources System Sachuest Point Unit 

DECEMBER 1, 2014 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
**
**Exhibit 31.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

I, Nader Z. Pourhassan, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K/A of CytoDyn Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement 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; and 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

Date:September 28, 2018 

 
/s/ Nader Z. Pourhassan
Nader Z. Pourhassan, Ph. D.

President andChief Executive Officer
**
|**EXHIBIT 32.1**
      **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
      1350,**
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**                                                        
|**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**                           

In connection with the Annual Report of MCG Diversified, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof or immediately thereafter
(the "Report"), I, Marguerite Godels, President, Chairman of the Board of
Directors, and Chief Executive Officer, 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

|/s/ MARGUERITE GODELS                                                                          
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Marguerite Godels, President, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
      Chief Executive Officer
|March 30, 2004                                                                                 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed
to be filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

|
|
exv10w41



 






Exhibit 10.41




	 	 	 
	 

	 	November 29, 2005






Mr. Michael A. Miles

1350 Lake Road

Lake Forest, IL 60045




Dear Mike:




          This will confirm the following agreement relating to the deferral of your director’s fees in
2006.



          1. All director’s fees and retainers (“Fees”) payable to you in connection with your service
on the boards of directors (including committees of such boards) of AMR Corporation and American
Airlines, Inc. for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 , will be deferred and paid
to you in accordance with this letter agreement.



          2. Fees will be converted to Stock Equivalent Units in accordance with the Directors’ Stock
Equivalent Purchase Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Plan”).



          3. On the 30th business day after the date when you cease to be a
Director of AMR
Corporation, the Stock Equivalent Units accrued in 2006 pursuant to the Plan will be converted to
cash and paid to you by multiplying the number of such Stock Equivalent Units by the arithmetic
mean of the high and the low of AMR stock (“fair market value”) during the month when you ceased to
be a Director of AMR Corporation.



          4. In the event of your death, the number of Stock Equivalent Units as of your date of death
will be multiplied by the fair market value of AMR stock during the calendar month immediately
preceding your death, and the amount paid to Pamela Miles. The payment contemplated by this
paragraph 4 will be made on the 30th business day following the date of your death.













 





          If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please indicate by signing one of the originals (two
are enclosed) and returning it to me.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Charles D. MarLett

Corporate Secretary	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Accepted and agreed:
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Michael A. Miles
 


	 	 
	 	 
	Michael A. Miles
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	12/19/2005
 


	 	 
	 	 
	Date
---

EXHIBIT 13.1



PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Nevada Geothermal Power, Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended June 30, 2009 (the Annual Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Brian D. Fairbank, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Andrew T. Studley, 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, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



(1)

the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

















Date: November 30, 2009



/s/ Brian D. Fairbank

Name: Brian D. Fairbank



Title: President and Chief Executive Officer









Date: November 30, 2009



/s/ Andrew T. Studley

Name: Andrew T. Studley

Title: Chief Financial Officer

---