alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5668 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5668

    To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on isomeric mixtures of 
                 substituted hydroxy phenyl triazines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 2012

  Mr. Bonner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on isomeric mixtures of 
                 substituted hydroxy phenyl triazines.

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

SECTION 1. ISOMERIC MIXTURE OF SUBSTITUTED HYDROXY PHENYL TRIAZINES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Isomeric mixtures   Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          of substituted                                                    12/31/2015
                          hydroxy phenyl
                          triazines
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3812.30.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF WEBGISTIX CORPORATION Docket No. FAA-2015-0208 (Civil Penalty Action) Judge Douglas M. Rawald NOTICE OF APPEARANCE**'~**

COMES NOW Complainant, by and through his undersigned attorney, and submits this Notice ofAppearance in accordance with Section 13.204(b) ofthe Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil PenaltyActions [14 C.P.R. §13.204(b)]. Complainant will berepresented inthe abovereferenced matter by: AndreaMichelle Harper, Esq. SeniorAttorney Federal AviationAdministration Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division, Southern Team P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, Georgia 30320 Telephone: (404) 305-5200 Facsimile: (404) 305-5223 E-mail Address: michelle.harper(a),faa.gov Respectfully submitted this 20'h day in April, 2016.

# ~~L\RPER Senior Attorney 1 Office ofthe ChiefCounsel Enforcement Division, SouthernTeamCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that I have this day served a copy ofthe foregoing Notice ofAppearance In the Matter ofWebgistix Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2015-0208, via federal express to: Patrick G. Byrne, Esq. Justin A. Shiroff, Esq. 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 Las Vegas, NV 89169 (FAX) (702) 784-5252 Webgistix Corporation Attn: President 880 Wigwam Parkway Ste. 120 Henderson, NV 89014 The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 US Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL (202) 366-5121 FAX (202) 366-7536 and the original and one copy to: Hearing Docket Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000



### AERALDA.JE Program Analyst

Dated Webgistix Corporation Attn: President 127 East Warm Springs Rd. Las Vegas, NV 89119
| | Exhibit 99.1
| | ------------





|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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Swank, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned each hereby certifies 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; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated:  May 13, 2003 | /s/ John A. Tulin             
|-------------------- | ------------------------------
|                     |                               
|                     | John A. Tulin, President      
|                     | (Chief Executive Officer)     
|                     |                               
|                     |                               
|Dated:  May 13, 2003 | /s/ Jerold R. Kassner         
|                     |                               
|                     | Jerold R. Kassner, Senior Vice
|                     | President and Treasurer       
|                     | (Chief Financial Officer)     



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Swank, Inc. and will be retained by Swank, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-5255 LARRY DEAN DUTTON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Terrence W. Boyle, Graham C. Mullen, District Judges. (CR-94-103-MU) Submitted: December 26, 1995 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and LUTTIG and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM:Larry Dean Dutton appeals from a district court judgment and sentence on a guilty plea for his possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. We affirm. Dutton makes clear that he is not attacking the validity of the guilty plea itself. Dutton complains that the district court erred in not either granting his motion for a continuance of the sentencing hearing or ordering an evidentiary hearing regarding his allegation that he was promised a polygraph examination that was never completed and for which counsel never r eceived a transcript of the aborted examination. Counsel wanted to use the transcript to rebut any attacks on Dutton's credibility by the Government during sentencing. We find the allegation of error meritless. First, the sentencing had been continued once. Second, the motion for continuance contained the information Dutton wanted to use to defend his character. We find no "`unreasoning and arbitrary insistence on expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay.'" United States v. Bakker , 925 F.2d 728, 735 (4th Cir. 1991) (quoting Morris v. Slappy , 461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983)). Further, three facts reveal that any error in denying the motion and not ordering an evidentiary hearing was harmless. First, Dutton referred to the polygraph evidence in support of his veracity,and the Government did not refute his characterization of the polygraph examination. Second and third, the Government did not use the information to attack Dutton's credibility, and the district court relied only on Dutton's extensive criminal history in setting the sentence at the top of the sentencing range. Thus, any error regarding the denial of the continuance motion and failure to order a hearing was harmless and provides no basis for vacatur of the judgment. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).
2Therefore, we affirm the district court order. We dispense with oralargument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3
### RE: PSD Determination for Carlsbad Energy Center

Tom W. Andrews t o : Shaheerah Kelly 08/10/2009 10:42 AM

Cc: "Piantka, George", "Tom W. Andrews"

From: "Tom W. Andrews" <TAndrews@sierraresearch.com> To: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Piantka, George" <George.Piantka@nrgenergy.com>, "Tom W. Andrews" <TAndrews@sierraresearch.com>

We expect to have the 1997 to 2008 emission summary for Encina Units 1, 2, and 3 finished and submitted to the EPA by approximately the middle of this week.

From: Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov [ mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, A u g ust 07, 2009 6:56 A M To: Piantka, George; Tom W. A ndrews Cc: Rios.Gerardo@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Re: PSD Determination for Carlsbad Energy Center

Hi. I'm following up on our request for information below. Please let me know when you expect to send this information.

Thanks.

************************************ Shaheerah Kelly Air Division (AIR-3) U S EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-947-4156 Fax: 415-947-3579 email: kelly

. shaheerah @ epa

. gov -----"Piantka, George" <George.Piantka@nrgenergy.com> wrote: ----- To: Shaheerah Kelly / R9 / USEPA / US@EPA From: "Piantka, George" <George.Piantka@nrgenergy.com> Date: 07 / 16 / 2009 05:21PM cc: Gerardo Rios / R9 / USEPA / US@EPA, <TAndrews@SierraResearch.com> Subject: Re: PSD Determination for Carlsbad Energy Center Thank you for the earlier call and message and detail below. I have copied our air lead Tom Andrews. We'll coordinate a call tomorrow if your available.

From : Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov <Kelly.Shaheerah@epamail.epa.gov> To : Piantka, George Cc : Rios.Gerardo@epamail.epa.gov <Rios.Gerardo@epamail.epa.gov>Sent : T hu Jul 16 20:06:30 2009 Subject : PSD Determination for Carlsbad Energy Center

Hi. I obtained your email address from CEC Docket for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project. This is in response to the PSD determination request dated June 5, 2009 for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project. I am the EPA contact processing this request. In order to continue processing the request, emissions information for NOx, CO, PM, PM10, and PM2.5 for boilers 1, 2 and 3 for the years 1997 through the end of 2008 is needed. For NOx and CO, monthly emissions data for NOx and CO would be helpful. Please provide this information so that our office may continue processing your request. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Thanks.

************************************ Shaheerah Kelly Air Division (AIR-3) U S EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-947-4156 Fax: 415-947-3579 email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 5, 2018
.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00390
- CV
SARAH HAWKINS , Appellant

V. THE HOUSING AUTHORIT Y OF MCKINNEY , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 005
- 00584
- 2018 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Evans, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Schenck The filing fee and clerk’s record in this case are past due. By postcard dated April 6, 2018, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. By letter dated May 25, 2018, w e informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or to p rovide written
documentation appellant had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs within ten days . We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has n ot paid the filing fee, provided the required documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regard ing the status of this appeal.– 2

–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b) , (c)

.

180390F.P05 /David J. Schenck/ DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE– 3

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SARAH HAWKINS, Appellant

No. 05

- 18

- 00390

- CV V.

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF MCKINNEY, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 005

- 00584

- 2018. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Lang

- Miers and Evans participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee T HE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF MCKINNEY recover its costs of this appeal from appellant SARAH HAWKINS.

Judgment entered this 5th day of July, 2018.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30624

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT DEEMER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROXIE F. GOYNES-CLARK; KIMBERLY

LEMAIRE; WILLIAM L. KLINE; JOHNNY

CREED; RICHARD L. STALDER, Secretary,

Department of Public Safety and 

Corrections; STATE SELF INSURANCE FUND,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-648-C

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

February 4, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Deemer, Louisiana state prisoner #120219, appeals

from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit as

frivolous. He argues that the defendants filed false documents

in a state-court proceeding, that defendant Stalder subjected him

to rules that Stalder lacked the authority to enact, that he was

denied access to the Administrative Remedy Procedure, that

Stalder violated his right to equal protection under the law by 
No. 99-30624

-2-

discriminating against him because he was housed in extended

lockdown, that his good-time credits were improperly revoked, and

that defendant Creed improperly failed to take administrative

action and sanctioned the taking of Deemer’s property. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district

court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Deemer’s

complaint as frivolous. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191,

193 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
1

From: McCaskill, William L. [ mailto:Larry.McCaskill@alcoa.com ]

Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:28 AM

To: Putney, David

Cc: Shroup, Michael; Palazzolo, Michael A.; Van Der Me yden, Henk

Subject: PMACT ICR TEST REPORT

David,

Attached is the referenced report and supporting in formation for the testing that was conducted at the

Alcoa – Mt Holly facility in April. I will also be forwarding a hard copy of the report to you in the regular

mail.

Please let me know if you have any questions or nee d additional information.



# Larry McCaskill

Sr Air Compliance Specialist

ALCOA

- Mt Holly

FAX 843-572-5378

VOICE 843-572-5246

MOBILE 704-773-1077

INTERNET Larry

. McCaskill @ Alcoa

. com
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26998]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[516 DM 1-15]


National Environmental Policy Act Revised Implementing Procedures

AGENCY: Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Extension of time.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is for the sole purpose of granting the public an 
extension of time to review our August 28, 2000, publication of the 
above named procedures. The publication appears at 65 FR 52211-52241. 
The Department of the Interior will now accept comments from the public 
through close of business on November 13, 2000.

Willie R. Taylor,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 00-26998 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-RG-M
NO. 07-0 4-0588-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILL O PANEL A JANUARY 6, 2005

____________

____________

______ LAWRENCE HIGG INS, A PPELLANT

V. WOODBURN, SEARS & WATKINS, APPELLEE

____________

____________

_________ FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUN TY; NO. 050573 C; HONORABLE PATRICK PIRTLE, JUDGE

____________

____________

_______ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINI ON Appell antLawrence Higgins, proceedi ng pro se , filed a notice of appeal, received by this cou rton Sept ember 3, 2004, stating that h e was appea ling a n order dated Au gu st 23, 2004 , dismis sing his ca se for want of prosecution. Appellan t did not pay the filin g fee of

$125 fo r the appeal or submi t an af

fidav it of indig ence bef

ore or at the time he filed his notice of appe al. Tex. R. App. P. 20. 1(c)(1).

### -2-

By letter date d December 22, 2004, the clerk of t his court notif ied appel lant t hat th e fil ing fee had not

been pai d, and that failure to pay itcould r esult in di smissal . Tex. R. App. P. 5, 42.3. He respond ed with a “Motion to Pro ceed on App eal in Forma Pa uperis.” The moti on does not comportwith the requiremen ts of an affidavit of indigence describe d under Rule 20.1(b ), nor was itfiled within the deadline pre scribed by Rule 20 .1(c)(1). In addition, appella nt did not f ile a timely motion reques ting an extension of time to file his affidavit o f indi gence. T e x. R. App. P. 20.1(c)(3). Appell antrefer

s us to documentation of hi s indi gence fi led wit h the tria l cour t as pr oof of his inabilit

y to pay tri al court costs. Filing an affidavit of inability to pay trial court costs does not comply with t he requi rement t hat, f or appeal , an af

fidav it of indig ence be f

iled in accordance w ith Rule 20.1. Holt v

. F.F. Enterp rises , 990 S. W.2d 756, 758 (Tex.App.–Am arillo 1998, pet. denied). Failure to ti mely fi le an af fidav it of indig ence, or

a motio n for e xtens ion of time to fil e the affidavit, precl udes appea l withou tthe payment of costs. See Ford v. Whi tehead , 2 S. W.3d 304, 306 (Tex. App.–San Antoni o 1999, no pet. ). Ap pellant is not excuse d by statute or the Rules of Appellate Procedu re fr om paying the fi ling f

ee and hasfailed to comply w ith t he requi rement t hat he pay t he fee t his cou rt isoblig ated to coll ect. Tex. R. App. P. 5. All parties having had mo re than ten days’ notice tha t d ismiss al coul d resul t fr om appellant’s continued fail ure to comply with t he rules, the appeal is dismissed. Tex . R. App. P. 5, 42.3(c).

James T. Cam pbell Justice

### -3-
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 13
- 00364
- CR GARY LEE REID , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012
- 2323
- C2

ORDER

An Anders brief was filed by appellant’s counsel on January 21, 2014. No motion
to withdraw was filed with the Anders brief. A motion to withdraw must be filed before we can proceed further with thi s appeal. In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 412 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Further, the Court has not been presented with an adequate basis to determine that counsel has complied with his “educational burdens” and fully informed the appellant of the right t o review the appellate record, to file a brief or other response,Reid v. State Page 2

and to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 n. 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussion of counsel’s “educational burdens” when filing an And ers brief); Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (right to file pro se pdr); Sowels v. State , 45 S.W.3d 690, 693 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2001, no pet.), overruled in part on other grounds , Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (right to review record and file a brief or other response). Accordingly, counsel is ordered to file a motion to withdraw within 14 days from the date of this order. Counsel is also ordered to provide to the Court, within 14 days
f rom the date of this order, some form of indication that counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the motion to withdraw and fully informed the appellant of the right to review the appellate record, the right to file a brief or other response, and the right to
file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Compliance with these “educational burdens” may be in the form of a certificate attached to the motion to withdraw. The failure to comply with the Court’s order will result in the striking of appellant’s Anders b rief.

PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed January 3 0 , 2014