alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Culligan, Kevin [mailto:Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:13 AM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: Re: Current version of 111(d) preamble 

I am working on getting you a timeframe on both TSDs. The RE is a stand-alone document. 

From: Higgins, Cortney <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:09:09 AM 

To: Culligan, Kevin 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: RE: Current version of 111(d) preamble 

Specifically, there is a reference to an Alternative RE Approach TSD. When will we see that TSD, 

or has it been incorporated into the abatement TSD already (and if so, where)? 

 

Thanks on the legal memo. 

From: Culligan, Kevin [mailto:Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:07 AM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: Re: Current version of 111(d) preamble 

We are working as hard as we can on the legal TSD. As early tomorrow as possible. 

I will get you a page number shortly, but the RE discussion is in Section VI. 
From: Higgins, Cortney <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:04:35 AM 

To: Culligan, Kevin 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: RE: Current version of 111(d) preamble 

Hi Kevin, 

Where can readers find the new RE approach referenced in 2? 

 

Also, I left you a voicemail, but any idea on when the revised legal memo will be ready/shared with 

us? 

Regards, 

Cortney 

From: Culligan, Kevin [mailto:Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 11:16 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: Current version of 111(d) preamble 

I believe this addresses most of the big ticket items: 

 

1. take comment on new 2025 option that is more stringent 

2. take comment on new RE approach 

3. request comment on new NGCC as BSER 

4. remove requested langauge related to 75% in the above 70% option. 

 

We are working on a version with bubble responses and a response to the list of written 

comments. Will get as soon as possible.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64202-64203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27459]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Mississippi Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Mississippi Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 
6:00 p.m. and adjourn at 8:00 p.m. on November 13, 2000, at the Crowne 
Plaza Hotel, 200 East Amite, Jackson, Mississippi 32901. The purpose of 
the meeting is to plan future projects.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the 
Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 (TDD 913-551-1414). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting

[[Page 64203]]

and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact 
the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled 
date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, October 20, 2000.
Lisa M. Kelly,
Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Regional Programs Coordination 
Unit.
[FR Doc. 00-27459 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

Directorate Identifier: **2011**

**- NM** 
**- 157** 

**- AD** 

**Costs:** Labor per airplane (1 work hour(s) x $8 5 /hour) $ 85 Parts per airplane $ + 0 Cost per airplane $ 85 Number of U.S.

- registered airplanes x 745 Total fleet cost $ 63,325

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a s ignificant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### DALLAS JOINT STOCK LAND BANK OF DALLAS v. WILLACY COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 1.

No. 11164.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 29, 1942.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1942.

Lawther, Cramer, Perry & Johnson, of Dallas, for appellant.

Sawnie B. Smith, of Edinburg, for appel-lee.

NORVELL, Justice.

Article 7880 — 109, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.Stats., in part provides that: “Suits for delinquent water assessments may be brought either in the county in which the irrigation district is situated or in the county in which the defendant resides.”

*150Appellant asserts that because of the provisions of Article 3, § 35, of the Texas Constitution, Vernon’s Ann. St., the provision above quoted is inoperative.

We overrule this contention. Hidalgo and Cameron Counties Water Control and Improvement District No. 9 v. American Rio Grande Land & Irrigation 'Co., 5 Cir., 103 F.2d 509.

As the main office and principal place of business of appellee district is now and was at the time of the filing of this suit located in Hidalgo County, Texas, appel-lee’s suit for collection of flat rate water assessments, made in conformity with the provisions of Article 7880 — 109, may be maintained in said county.

The trial court properly overruled appellant’s plea of privilege and its judgment is affirmed.
#### BARNES v. COMMONWEALTH ex rel. KASH, Commonwealth’s Atty., 23rd Dist.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 2, 1951.

John W. Walker, Irvine, for appellant.

W. L. Kash, Irvine, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Mrs. Jessie Barnes is appealing from a judgment forfeiting her land in Irvine, Kentucky, under the provisions of KRS 242.310 and 242.320. The court found that a nuisance existed on the property because of the possession and sale of liquor on the premises in local option territory. For reversal the appellant urges that the petition contains only general allegations as to the cause of action and does not specify any particular offense or any particular person who violated the local option laws.

The petition alleges that the appellant is the owner of the property in question, which is situated in Estill County. It is further alleged:

“* * * that the said defendant has knowingly and intentionally used said property and permitted same to be used for the unlawful purpose of selling, possessing and dealing in intoxicating liquors in violation of the local option laws; that said Estill County at all the times herein mentioned was in dry territory and that the local option law was in full force and effect therein at said times, and that defendant was thereby guilty of committing a nuisance.”

The allegation is substantially in the terms of the statute, KRS 242.310. It was held in Rickman v. Commonwealth, 204 Ky. 848, 265 S.W. 452, that a similar allegation, couched solely in the words of the statute, Acts 1922, Chapter 33, section 13, was not sufficient because it did not apprise the defendant of the particular acts on the basis of which a nuisance was claimed to exist and for which reason a forfeiture was sought. In the later case of Schneider v. Commonwealth, 232 Ky. 199, 22 S.W.2d 587, a similar contention was made. We distinguished the Rickman case on the ground that the petition also charged a specific act of sale of intoxicating liquor. On the basis of these two *455cases, the petition in the instant case was demurrable.

 A forfeiture proceeding is, though civil in form, in the nature of a criminal proceeding. Under these circumstances, the defendant should be apprised clearly of the charges he is called upon to defend. Forfeiture is such a drastic remedy that it should be circumscribed rigidly by the rules of pleading and practice.

Since we have concluded that the demurrer to the petition should have been sustained, it is unnecessary to discuss other questions raised.

Judgment reversed.
EX-10.5
                            PROMISSORY NOTE

                            PROMISSORY NOTE

Principal amount $9,494.53                        Date: January 29, 2004

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, RMD Technologies, Inc. hereby promise to pay
to the order of Patrick A. Galliher the sum of Nine Thousand Four
Hundred Ninety Four Dollars and Fifty Three Cents, together with
interest thereon at the rate of 1% per month on the unpaid balance.
Said sum shall be paid upon demand.

     This note shall at the option of any holder thereof be
immediately due and payable upon the occurrence of any of the
following:  1) Breach of any condition of any security interest,
mortgage, loan agreement, pledge agreement or guarantee granted as
collateral security for this note. 2) Breach of any condition of any
loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage, if any, having a
priority over any loan agreement, security agreement or mortgage on
collateral granted, in whole or in part, as collateral security for
this note. 3) Upon the death, incapacity, dissolution or liquidation
of any of the undersigned, or any endorser, guarantor to surety
hereto. 4) Upon the filing by any of the undersigned of an assignment
for the benefit of creditors, bankruptcy or other form of insolvency,
or by suffering an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership
not vacated within thirty (30) days.

     In the event this note shall be in default and placed for
collection, then the undersigned agree to pay all reasonable attorney
fees and costs of collection. All payments hereunder shall be made to
such address as may from time to time be designated by any holder.

     The undersigned and all other parties to this note, whether as
endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain fully bound until
this note shall be fully paid and waive demand, presentment and
protest and all notices hereto and further agree to remain bound,
notwithstanding any extension, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence or discharge or release of any obligor hereunder or
exchange, substitution, or release of any collateral granted as
security for this note. No modification or indulgence by any holder
hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any indulgence on any
one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or future
occasion. Any modification or change in terms, hereunder granted by
any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgement of any of the
undersigned, and each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant
to each of the others a power of attorney to enter into any such
modification on their behalf. The rights of any holder hereof shall be
cumulative and not necessarily successive. This note shall take effect
as a sealed instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced
in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

RMD Technologies, Inc.


By: /s/  Pat Galliher
Pat Galliher, President
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

AmerUs Group Co.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in
the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-20905,
333-20907, 333-32201, 333-32203, 333-40065, 333-63895,
333-72237, 333-91493, 333-50030 and 333-101961) pertaining to
various employee benefit plan filings and in the Registration
Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-50249, 333-72643,
333-88794 and 333-103347) of AmerUs Group Co. and in the related
Prospectuses of our reports dated February 5, 2003, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements
and schedules of AmerUs Group Co. included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
2002.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | (ERNST & YOUNG LLP SIG)

Des Moines, Iowa

March 14, 2003
**Exhibit 32(i)**

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

In connect with the quarterlyreport of Taylor Devices, Inc. (the "'Company"') on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2011 to be filed withSecurities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "'Report"'), I, Douglas P. Taylor, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as ofthe dates and for the periods covered by the Report.

 

It is not intended thatthis statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 293 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 293

 To expand retroactive eligibility of the Army Combat Action Badge to 
  include members of the Army who participated in combat during which 
 they personally engaged, or were personally engaged by, the enemy at 
                 any time on or after December 7, 1941.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2013

  Mr. Nugent introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand retroactive eligibility of the Army Combat Action Badge to 
  include members of the Army who participated in combat during which 
 they personally engaged, or were personally engaged by, the enemy at 
                 any time on or after December 7, 1941.

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

SECTION 1. RETROACTIVE AWARD OF ARMY COMBAT ACTION BADGE.

    (a) Authority To Award.--The Secretary of the Army may award the 
Army Combat Action Badge (established by order of the Secretary of the 
Army through Headquarters, Department of the Army Letter 600-05-1, 
dated June 3, 2005) to a person who, while a member of the Army, 
participated in combat during which the person personally engaged, or 
was personally engaged by, the enemy at any time during the period 
beginning on December 7, 1941, and ending on September 18, 2001 (the 
date of the otherwise applicable limitation on retroactivity for the 
award of such decoration), if the Secretary determines that the person 
has not been previously recognized in an appropriate manner for such 
participation.
    (b) Procurement of Badge.--The Secretary of the Army may make 
arrangements with suppliers of the Army Combat Action Badge so that 
eligible recipients of the Army Combat Action Badge pursuant to 
subsection (a) may procure the badge directly from suppliers, thereby 
eliminating or at least substantially reducing administrative costs for 
the Army to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Nebraska Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 6:30 p.m. and adjourn at 8:00 p.m. on November 16, 2000, at the Doubletree Hotel, 1616 Dodge, Omaha, Nebraska 68102. The purpose of the meeting is to receive planning input for project development for the next two years. 

Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation to the Committee, should contact Melvin L. Jenkins, Director of the Central Regional Office, 913-551-1400 (TDD 913-551-1414). Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. 

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission. 

Dated at Washington, DC, October 20, 2000. 

Lisa M. Kelly, 

Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Regional Programs Coordination Unit. 

[FR Doc. 00-27460 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### HARRIS v. STATE.

No. 22308.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 2, 1942.

Sam T. Holt, of Carthage, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Conviction was had for a violation of the local option liquor laws, and a fine assessed of $100.

The record is before us without any statement of facts or bills of exceptions. All proceedings appear to be regular, with no objection shown thereto.

The judgment is affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.B****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 forthe period ending September 30, 2005, of Tennessee GasPipeline Company (the “Company”) as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Greg G. Gruber, Senior VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify(i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Greg G. Gruber           Greg G. Gruber *Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer* *and Treasurer* *(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)*      November 4, 2005A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Tennessee Gas PipelineCompany and will be retained by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Companyand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
Order entered January 13, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00475-CR

EULALIO BRAVO MEZA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-00492-W

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due September 27, 2019. When it was not filed, we notified 

appellant by postcard dated October 1, 2019 and directed him to file a brief and a motion to 

extend time to file the same. To date, no brief or motion has been filed, nor have we had any 

communication from appellant counsel. 

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has 

not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, whether 

appellant has abandoned the appeal, or whether appointed counsel has abandoned the appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, 

the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 
708 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Tracy Holmes, 

Presiding Judge, 363rd Judicial District Court; to J. Daniel Oliphant; and to the Dallas County 

District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Division.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated twenty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2


WESTERN RESERVE BANCORP, INC.


FORM 10-K


Year ended December 31, 2010





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Western Reserve Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Cynthia A. Mahl, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted 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/ Cynthia A. MahlCynthia A. MahlExecutive Vice President/Chief Financial OfficerMarch 31, 2011