alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6289** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v.

DUVALL HUCKS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. ( 8:95

- cr
- 00267

- AW

- 7 )

Submitted : September 7 , 2016 Decided: September 14, 2016

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Duvall Hucks, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee

.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Duvall Hucks appeals the district court ’ s order denying his

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for
the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

Hucks , No. 8:95

- cr
- 00267

- AW

- 7 (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2016). We dispense w ith oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
6100 Boeing Avenue  Anchorage, Alaska 99502  (907) 771-2500 Fax 771-2664 

www.penair.com

Peninsula Airways, Inc. D/B/A PENAIR

April 16, 2014

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Chief Counsel

Attn: Rules Docket, ACG-10

Exemptions and Approvals

800 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, D.C. 20591 Via website: regulations.gov

RE: Oxygen for Medical Patients (Exemption No. 6523H / Docket No. FAA-2001-9940)

Peninsula Airways, Inc. d/b/a PenAir respectfully requests the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) for a two-year extension of Exemption No. 6523H, allowing 

PenAir to carry and operate oxygen storage and dispensing equipment for medical use 

by passengers requiring emergency or continuing medical attention when the 

equipment is furnished and maintained by the hospital that is treating the passengers. 

Our current extension expires on October 31, 2014. The conditions that existed when 

this exemption was initially granted have not changed. The exemption is still in the 

public interest and does not reduce the level of safety required by the Federal Aviation 

regulations. 

PenAir has transported oxygen storage and dispensing equipment under this exemption 

without incident during this period and would like to be granted an extension with the 

same conditions and limitations.

I look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions, please call me at (907)

771-2552. 

Sincerely,

Matthew Macri

Director of Operations
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 Quarterly Report of Renewal Fuels, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on August 15, 2008, as amended by this Form
10-Q/A (No. 2) for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the SEC on
October 15, 2008 (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the
Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 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.





A signed
original 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.




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.





Dated:
      October 15, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Bryan
      ChanceBryan
      ChanceChief
      Executive Officer and
              Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting
    Officer)
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICERPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Drew A. Moyer, Principal
Financial Officer of Technitrol, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1)
the quarterly report on
 Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 26, 2008 (the Periodic
 Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the
 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and(2)
information contained in
 the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
 condition and results of operations of Technitrol, Inc.  Dated:
November 3, 2008
/s/ Drew A. MoyerDrew A. Moyer A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Technitrol, Inc., and will be
retained by Technitrol, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q
to which it relates, is
not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
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 providers, and public education. 

In an effort to receive delegation of the Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) program in Oklahoma, 

on 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 the 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 rules became effective on July 1, 2012.

Because the Oklahoma Lead-Based Paint program already included EPA-approved training provider 

elements that are considerably more stringent 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 

accredited; providers must offer on-going programs that include both initial and refresher training; and 

requirements 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 the 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 until 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 program, but for 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 state that also self-monitor to assist in compliance.
Order filed April 2 , 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00774

- CV

____________ GILCHRIST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION , Appellant

V. COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from County Court No

. 2 Galveston Cou nty , Texa s Trial Court Cause No. CV

- 0076026



### ORDER
The court has concluded there is a final appealable judgment in this case and a notice of appeal was timely filed . The appeal was reinstated on March 1 9, 2020,

pur suant to our order of F e bruary 13, 2020. App e llant ’ s bri ef is due April 20, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Spain.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

SOUTH TEXAS FRAC LLC §

Plaintiff §

§ CIVL ACTION NO. 20-cv-00678

V. §

§

PHOENIX PROCESS EQUIPMENT CO. § 

Defendant §

JOINT ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REPORT

In accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order and Local Rule CV-88, the parties 

file this Joint Dispute Resolution Report.

1. Status of Negotiations. The parties engaged in settlement discussions prior 

to suit being filed. The parties intend to continue engaging in good faith efforts to settle the 

matter at a mediation after the completion of additional discovery and the joinder of WI 

Texas Frac, LLC.

2. Persons Responsible for Settlement Negotiations. Plaintiff’s attorneys of 

record, Matthew T. Taplett, R.L. Florance, or Michael McCrum, will be responsible for the 

settlement negotiations on behalf of Plaintiff in this matter. Defendant’s representative, 

Gary Drake, and Defendant’s attorneys of record, Matthew B. Cano, or Stephen K. Luxton, 

will be responsible for the settlement negotiations on behalf of Defendant in this matter.

3. ADR as an Appropriate Method of Resolving Issues in Controversy. The 

parties agree that mediation is an appropriate method of attempting to resolve the issues 

in controversy. In that regard, the parties are currently circulating proposed mediators to 

preside over a non-binding mediation.

Case 5:20-cv-00678-OLG Document 14 Filed 10/02/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

Respectfully submitted,

POPE, HARDWICKE, CHRISTIE, SCHELL, KELLY &

TAPLETT, LLP

 

 By: /s/ R.L. Florance (w/ permission) 

Matthew T. Taplett

 State Bar No. 24028026

mtaplett@popehardwicke.com; 

Robert L. Florance, IV

 State Bar No. 24087520

rflorance@popehardwicke.com 

500 West Seventh Street, Suite 600 

Fort Worth, Texas 76102-4751

Phone: (817) 332-3245

Fax: (817) 877-4781

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

SOUTH TEXAS FRAC LLC

 And

BENJAMIN, VANA, MARTINEZ & CANO, LLP

By: ____________________________________

Matthew B. Cano

 State Bar No. 03757050

Email: mcano@benlawsa.com

Stephen K. Luxton

State Bar No. 24087953

Email: sluxton@benlawsa.com

3600 Bee Caves Road, Suite 201

Austin, Texas 78746

Phone: (512) 732-1880 

Fax: (210) 881-0668

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT PHOENIX

PROCESS EQUIPMENT CO.

Case 5:20-cv-00678-OLG Document 14 Filed 10/02/20 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 7

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 8 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 9 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 10 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 11 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 12 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 13 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 14 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 15 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 16 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 17 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 18 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 19 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 20 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 21 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 22 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 23 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 24 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 25 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 26 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 27 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 28 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 29 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 30 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 31 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 32 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 33 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 34 of 35
Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 46-14 Filed 03/05/21 Page 35 of 35
#### Arthur HALL, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 11, 1951.

John G. Prather, Somerset, for movant.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., and John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FREDERICK BERNARD THOMAS, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D19

- 2548

[ March 24, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; John Joseph Murphy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015CF008185B.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Timothy Wang, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. Acuña,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

K LINGENSMITH

, J.

Frederick Bernard Thomas appeal s his conviction and sentence for grand theft and conspiracy to commit grand theft. We affirm his conviction without

comment but reverse to correct a scrivener’s error.

The trial court sentence d Thomas concurrently to twenty years for grand theft

and ten years for conspiracy to commit grand theft

. Thomas moved to correct

his sentence because the written judgment incorrectly listed his conspiracy

conviction as a first

- degree felony

. The trial court did not issue a ruling within sixty days, and the mot ion was deemed denied. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). This appeal followed.

This court reviews a motion to correct a sentencing error under a de novo standard because it presents a pure question of law. See Kittles v. State , 31 So. 3d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800

allows a trial court to correct a scrivener’s error. See Willard v. State , 22 So. 3d

864 , 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)

. A “scrivener’s error refers to ‘clerical or ministerial errors in a criminal case that occur in the written sentence, judgment, or order of probation or restitution.’” J.D. v. State , 849 So. 2d 458, 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting Ashley v. State , 850 So. 2d 1265, 1268 n. 3, (Fla. 2003)).2 Under section 777. 04(c), Florida Statutes (2015), conspiracy is a second

degree felony “if the offense attempted, solicited, or conspired to is a life felony or a felony of the first degree.” Thomas was convicted of grand theft, a first

degree felony, making his conspiracy conviction a second

- degree felony. The trial

court erred when it did not correct the written judgment to reflect this

. The State properly concedes this error.

We reverse and remand for the trial court to correct the written judgment to

reflect that the conspiracy to commit grand theft conviction is a second

- degree felony. Thomas does not have to be present for this correction. See Lucas v.

State , 247 So. 3d 23 , 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with instructions.

C IKLIN and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**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 Pathmark Stores, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 3, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frank G. Vitrano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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 my knowledge: |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | (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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
| 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 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.                                                |

 

 

 

|   |       | **/s/ Frank G. Vitrano**                  |
|--------|------------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |       |                                      |   |
|   | **Name:**  | **Frank G. Vitrano**                      |
|   | **Title:** | *President and Chief Financial Officer*** |
|   | **Date:**  | April 19, 2007                            |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tektronix, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 1, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Colin
L. Slade, 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, that to the best of my knowledge:

      (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.

Dated: October 10, 2007

/s/ COLIN L. SLADE
-----------------------------------------------------
Colin L. Slade
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 12.1
 RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
  Year Ended December 31,2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004Income (loss) before income taxes and
discontinued operations
    
    $
    (213,346
    )
    
    $
    21,823
    
    
    $
    19,168
    
    
    $
    (7,914
    )
    
    $
    203Fixed charges:Interest expense and amortization of
capitalized costs of indebtedness
    
    $
    100,695
    
    
    $
    111,453
    
    
    $
    84,201
    
    
    $
    51,561
    
    
    $
    42,080Estimated interest within rental expense
    
    
    839
    
    
    
    402
    
    
    
    296
    
    
    
    209
    
    
    
    197Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    5,024
    
    
    
    204
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total fixed charges
    
    $
    106,558
    
    
    $
    112,059
    
    
    $
    84,497
    
    
    $
    51,770
    
    
    $
    42,277Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    (5,024
    )
    
    
    (204
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Total earnings
    
    $
    (111,812
    )
    
    $
    133,678
    
    
    $
    103,665
    
    
    $
    43,856
    
    
    $
    42,480Total fixed charges
    
    $
    106,558
    
    
    $
    112,059
    
    
    $
    84,497
    
    
    $
    51,770
    
    
    $
    42,277Interest expense on deposits
    
    
    66,025
    
    
    
    76,692
    
    
    
    57,518
    
    
    
    34,067
    
    
    
    27,652Total fixed charges excluding deposit interest
    
    $
    40,533
    
    
    $
    35,367
    
    
    $
    26,979
    
    
    $
    17,703
    
    
    $
    14,625Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges
and preferred stock dividends:Including deposit interest
    
    
    (1.05
    )
    
    
    1.19
    
    
    
    1.22
    
    
    
    0.83
    
    
    
    0.99Excluding deposit interest
    
    
    (2.76
    )
    
    
    3.79
    
    
    
    3.82
    
    
    
    2.42
    
    
    
    2.87