alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

RICKY L. MILLER, JR.,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 181 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
Appendix C: Stationary Sources 

Report on Assessment of NOx/PM Strategies 

Assessment of need for NOX and PM milestones. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v), the State 

of New Mexico has evaluated the need for NOX and PM emission control strategies, the degree 

of visibility improvement expected, and whether such milestones are needed to avoid any net 

increase in these pollutants. This evaluation was made by the WRAP Market Trading Forum for

all WRAP states, including the transport region states. Several conclusions were reached based 

on current analyses. These include: 

 • That for the vast majority of Class I areas throughout the WRAP region stationary 

source NOX and PM emissions are not a major contributor to visibility impairment; 

 • That RAVI remedies are available in cases where particular stationary sources may 

impact particular Class I areas; 

 • That the need for stationary source NOX and PM milestones is not supported at this time 

with current state of analyses, but the need for milestones should be reassessed based on more

complete and accurate analyses prior to submittal of the 2007/2008 SIP revisions; and,

 • That the absolute need for milestones to support potential market-based programs is not

yet established.

This report is provided in Appendix C-2 of this implementation plan. The State of New Mexico 

has determined that NOX and PM strategies are not needed based on current information. The 

State of New Mexico will review the need for long-term strategies for stationary sources of PM

and NOX during the SIP revision updates due in 2008, 2013, and 2018.

NM Regional Haze SIP Page C-1 

12/31/03
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                          10,987
<SECURITIES>                                     3,336
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                       708
<INVENTORY>                                     11,649<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,555
<PP&E>                                          54,359
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,216
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  83,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,062
<BONDS>                                         13,406
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,507
<OTHER-SE>                                         248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    83,456
<SALES>                                        106,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               114,028
<CGS>                                           61,008
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,233
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   251
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 768
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,228
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,274
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,954
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,954
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .60
<FN>
<F1>INVENTORY DETAIL AT FEBRUARY 28, 1997 WAS FINISHED GOODS $7,334; WORK IN
PROCESS $918; RAW MATERIAL $3,397.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICK BERGSRUD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FKA Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as Successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 17181

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 01592

- RFB

- GWF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Richard F. Boulware II, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2018 **

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Patrick Bergsrud appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in his

d iversity action challenging a foreclosure sale. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

. Bourne Valley Court Tr. V. Wells Fargo

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 17181

Bank, NA , 832 F.3d 1154, 1157 (9th Cir. 2016)

. We affirm.

The district court properl y granted summary judgment for defendant Bank of

America, N.A. on Bergsrud’s claim s to set aside the foreclosure sale and quiet title
because Bergsrud filed this action after the statute of limitations to challenge

procedural defects to the sale had run , a nd assuming without deciding that these

deadlines were subject to equitable tolling, Bergsrud failed to establish that
equitable tolling should apply

. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080(5) and (6) (an action
to void a trustee’s sale must commence within 90 day s of the date of the sale
, or
120 days of the date of actual notice of the sale where the person entitled to notice

did not receive proper notice ) ; City of N. Las Vegas v. State Local Gov’t Emp.

- Mgmt. Relations Bd

. , 261 P.3d 1071, 1077 (Nev. 2011) (standard under Nevada
law for equitable tolling)

.
The d istrict court properly granted summary judgment on Bergsrud’s

wrongful foreclosure claim because Bergsrud failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact as to whether the property was not in defau lt at the time of the

foreclosure sale

. See Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 662 P.2d 610, 623

(1983) ( elements of a wrongful foreclosure claim under Nevada law).

We do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal, or matters not

spe cifically and distinctly raised an d argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v.3 17

- 17181

Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Energy East Exhibit 10-3 2005 10-K



Exhibit 10-3



AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

THE ENERGY EAST CORPORATION

DIRECTOR SHARE PLAN 




         The Energy East Corporation Director Share Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended effective January 1, 2005, pursuant to Article IX thereof, as follows:

         1. Section VII. B. Timing is revised to replace the second sentence with the following:
"Subject to the terms of such plan, a Participant may elect to defer the cash payments they will be entitled to receive under this Plan by making an election under the Deferred Compensation Plan - Director Share Plan."




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The Energy East Corporation hereby executes this Amendment as of the 8th day of December  2005.


















	 	
ENERGY EAST CORPORATION


	
 /s/Michelle Taylor                            

     Witness
	
By:   /s/Richard R. Benson                    

            Richard R. Benson

            Vice President and 

            Chief Administrative Officer
EXHIBIT E

Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 8 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 9 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 10 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 11 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 12 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 13 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 14 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 15 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 16 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-9 Filed 03/05/21 Page 17 of 17
Exhibit 31



CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Nancy M. Harvey, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of TenFold Corporation;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report 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 with respect to the period covered by this annual report;



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



4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                               
|/s/ Nancy M. Harvey                                            
|                                                               
|Nancy M. Harvey                                                
|President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
|March 22, 2004
Memo to: EPA Docket (EPA-EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788) 

Subject: Meeting on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for “Health and Environmental 

Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings,” 40 CFR Part 192 

On February 25, 2015 EPA staff members met with representatives of the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) in the EPA Headquarters offices in Washington, DC, to discuss the 

proposed rulemaking “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings”(40 CFR Part 192). The following persons participated in the meeting: 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): 

Mr. Geoff Fettus, Senior Attorney 

Dr. Lance Larson, Science Fellow 

Dr. Matthew McKinzie, Director, Nuclear Program 

Ms. Sarah Lyn Vollmer, Program Assistant 

EPA: 

Anthony Nesky, Center for Radiation Information and Outreach, EPA Radiation Protection 

Division 

Tom Peake, Director, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection 

Division 

Ingrid Rosencrantz, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection 

Division 

Dan Schultheisz, Associate Director, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, EPA 

Radiation Protection Division 

Susan Stahle, EPA Office of General Council (by telephone) 

In the meeting, NRDC members stated the organization’s intent to submit comments and data 

concerning proposed revision of 40 CFR Part 192. NRDC discussed a number of court cases 

involving in-situ recovery of uranium that they have been involved with and believe are a source 

of relevant information. The NRDC members also asked clarifying questions on baseline 

characterization, excursion indicators, and point-of-compliance. NRDC expressed support for 

public hearings in communities where in-situ recovery of uranium is taking place, and asked if 

EPA was considering extending the comment period.
### 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINTON, DC

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 3281

November 23, 2015

Michael J. Cameron, MPA

I t is my intention to remove closed set filming and the requirement for a Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MTOM) required by Or der 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1 from the FAA 333 Exemption Petition submitted wit h Regulatory Docket No

. FA A

- 2015

- 3281

.

Respectfully submitted,

Mi ke Hagler

786 Rancho Trails

Ramona, CA 92065

619.247.5077

m hagler6 8@gmail.com
Exhibit 32Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers ofDaimlerChrysler Financial Services Americas LLC, as Servicer of DaimlerChrysler Master Owner Trust(the “Trust”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:     The Trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Form 10-K”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material aspects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.   Date: March 24, 2006 /s/ Klaus Entenmann     Klaus Entenmann  President and Chief Executive Officer,  DaimlerChrysler Financial Services  Americas LLC, as Servicer of  DaimlerChrysler Master Owner Trust   Date: March 24, 2006 /s/ Paul E. Knauss     Paul E. Knauss  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,  DaimlerChrysler Financial Services  Americas LLC, as Servicer of  DaimlerChrysler Master Owner TrustA signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) has beenprovided to DaimlerChrysler Master Owner Trust and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
#### Amrich et al., Appellees, *v.*Boyle, County Treasurer, et al., Appellants. Harman et al., Appellees, *v.*Boyle, County Treasurer, et al., Appellants.

(No. 27737

Decided February 28, 1940.)

*326
      *Mr. Karl J. Ertle,*for appellees.

*Mr. William G. Graves*and *Mr. Herschel G. Holland,*for appellants.

Myers, J.

Upon the threshold of the consideration of this cause we are met with the age-old maxim that he who seeks equity must do equity. This cause presents a question of equitable estoppel. The Torrens Land Registration Act is not a system designed to notify the owner himself of any liens or other encumbrances. Rather it is a system for notifying third parties. It is not claimed by defendants that these special assessments may be collected from innocent purchasers of the properties or even mortgagees thereof. It is conceded that since there was no compliance with Section 8572-56, General Code, the assessments could not be enforced against third parties.

But what about these plaintiffs who signed the petitions and requested the city to make the improvements? The improvements requested were pavements laid in front of and for the benefit of their own prop*327erties. It was their act that caused the required legislation by the city to be set in motion. May they now come into a court of equity to ask that the cost of improving their property, their streets, be shifted to other taxpayers by reason of the failure of the clerk of council to perform a duty designed not for their benefit but for the, benefit of third parties — the world at large? Clearly not. To hold otherwise would be to misapply one of the most ancient and fundamental principles of equity. Much was stated in the brief of plaintiffs about whether any assessment liens were created or exist on their properties. Since the plaintiffs under equitable estoppel are not entitled to maintain this action, we are not called upon to determine that question.

Plaintiffs cite the decision of this court in *Curry et al., Bd. of Commrs.,*v. *Lybarger, County Rec.,*133 Ohio St., 55, 11 N. E. (2d), 873. It need only be stated that there was no principle of equitable estoppel involved in that ease.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals will be reversed and the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas affirmed.

*Judgment reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### Emmett McFALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23640.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 16, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Proper affidavit having been filed, the appellant’s motion to withdraw this appeal is granted and the clerk is directed to so certify.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101-3140
OFFICE OF 

### APR 

## 21 2016 AIR, WASTE, AND TOXICS
The Honorable Blaine Edmo Chairman, Fort Hall Business Council Shoshone-BannockTribes P.O. Box 306 Fort Hall, Idaho 83203 Subject: Offer for Consultation and Coordination on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Review ofand Action on the Idaho Rules for Sulfur Content ofFuels Dear Chairman Edmo: Thepurpose ofthis letter is to offer consultation and coordination on the EPA'sreview ofand action onthe Idaho Rules for Sulfur Content ofFuels. Idaho revised these rules and submitted them to the EPA for approval into the Idaho State Implementation Plan. The Rules for Sulfur Content ofFuels set limits on the sulfur content ofresidual fuel oil, distill.ate fuel oil, and coal that is sold, distributed, used, ormade available in Idaho. Idaho has revised the rules to include an alternative method to complywith the limits. Sources must apply to the Idaho Department ofEnvironmental Quality, through the permittingprocess, to request the alternative compliance method. To obtain approval to use a fuel with higher sulfur content, a source must show that, byinstalling a control device, hourly controlled emissions will be less than the maximumhourly emissions from combusting complying fuels. This consultation and coordination process will be conducted in accordance with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes and the EPA Region 1 0 Tribal Consultation and Coordination Procedures. We welcome any input you mayhave for us as we move forward onthis action. Ifyou would like to consult onthis EPA action, or would like more information, pleasehave your staffcontact Kristin Hall at (206) 553-6357 orhall.kristin@epa.govbyMay 23, 2016. I appreciate yourtribe's consideration to consult with the EPA onthis air quality work. Sincerely, / / 

# /



# ~s,AJ6::~;/

**(__-~~** ofAir, Waste and Toxics
cc: Mr. RogerTurner Air QualityManager, Land Use- Air Quality Ms. Lori Howell Technician, Land Use- Air Quality
1

The Honorable Ralph Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of North Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1388

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of North Dakota.

*

Michael Alan Petzold, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 2, 2010

Filed: February 5, 2010

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Michael Petzold challenges the sentence imposed

by the district court1

 after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy, murder, and related

charges. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967). 

Petzold pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained a

waiver of his right to appeal his sentence. We will enforce the appeal waiver here.
-2-

See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (court

should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver,

both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no

miscarriage of justice would result). Petzold’s argument on appeal falls within the

scope of the appeal waiver, the record shows the requisite knowledge and

voluntariness, and we see nothing to suggest that a miscarriage of justice would result

from enforcing the appeal waiver. See United States v. Michelsen, 141 F.3d 867, 871-

72 (8th Cir. 1998) (appeal waiver is enforceable so long as it resulted from knowing

and voluntary decision; examining personal characteristics of defendant and

circumstances surrounding plea agreement when assessing knowledge and

voluntariness of waiver). 

Having reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988) for any nonfrivolous issues not covered by the waiver, we find none.

Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw and we dismiss the appeal. 

______________________________
#### BLEVINS v. STATE.

No. 24144.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1948.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for burglary with intent to commit theft, punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary.

The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. The proceedings appear to be regular. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.