alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 21, 2015

Dear Mr. Wolnski:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket

No. FAA

− 2015

− 3439). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operati on. The descriptions should include the maximum weight (including pa yload). This information can be located in the
aircraft manuals.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by 11/4/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely,
/S/ Program Analyst
#### William George CARRELL v. STATE.

No. 25315.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 2, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty of the offense of theft by bailee of property of the value of $50 or over. His punishment assessed by the jury is two years in the penitentiary.

On April 19, 1951, appellant filed a request to withdraw the appeal stating that he now wishes to accept sentence in the above case. Said motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
896.07184
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         776,828
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  955,122
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,708,504
<PP&E>                                         1,564,567
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,119,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,179,655
<BONDS>                                        2,434,530
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       74,390
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,209,488)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,119,900
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,424,189
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,080,539
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,253,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             243,122
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (152,492)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (152,492)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.00)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I,Robert W. Zack, Chief Executive Officer of Catalytica Energy Systems, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)         The Annual Report onForm 10-K of the Company for the annual period endedDecember 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

|   | By:    | * * | /s/ ROBERT W.  ZACK     |
|--------|--------|----------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:  |     | Robert W. Zack          |
|   | Title: |     | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Date:  |     | March 30, 2006     |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
From: Vasu, Amy

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 3:55 PM

To: 'nfrey@omb.eop.gov'; Szabo, Aaron

Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid Subject: For interagency review -- 1st of 2 sets of files -- IPM parsed files for the Clean Power Plan

Nathan and Aaron,

Attached is the first of two sets of IPM parsed files for the Clean Power Plan final rule.

Thank you.

Amy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Amy B. Vasu U.S. EPA / OAQPS Sector Policies and Programs Division email: vasu.amy@epa.gov phone: 919.541.0107

<< WebReady_ParsedFile_Base Case_2025.xlsx >> << WebReady_ParsedFile_Base Case_2030.xlsx >> << WebReady_ParsedFile_Rate-Based_2025.xlsx >>

From: Vasu, Amy

Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 4:00 PM

To: 'nfrey@omb.eop.gov'; Szabo, Aaron

Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Harvey, Reid Subject: For interagency review – 2nd of 2 sets of files -- IPM parsed files for the Clean Power Plan

Nathan and Aaron,

Attached is the second of the two sets of IPM parsed files for the Clean Power Plan.

Thank you.

Amy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Amy B. Vasu U.S. EPA / OAQPS Sector Policies and Programs Division email: vasu.amy@epa.gov phone: 919.541.0107

<< WebReady_ParsedFile_Rate-Based_2030.xlsx >> << WebReady_ParsedFile_Mass-Based_2025.xlsx >> << WebReady_ParsedFile_Mass-Based_2030.xlsx >>
# Fluorescent Balla t^ 

# Waif

Commerciallindustrial D istribut ion Ma nufactur e rs

C on t r mi ctors

L a rge Company: New Construction Routine Maintenance Tenant Improve me nt T e nant Improvement Retrofit (Conversion) Routine M aintenance (K d User Retrofit ( v rJon) Routin e 

# °MM 20 

# AA /1/1 

# Fluorescent Ballast Market 

# I V 

# /1 III 

# Commercial/Industrial Distribution Channels

lumlnaire· Manufacturers

large Company: Routine Maintenanse Tenant Improvement New Construction Tenant Improvement Retrofit (Conversion) Routine Maintenance lighting Management Compani"



### End U.er Retrofit (Conv ..... on) Routine Maintenance
EXHIBIT 10.16


 


 


THIRD AMENDMENT


TO THE


LKQ CORPORATION EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT PLAN


 


WHEREAS, LKQ
Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the LKQ Corporation Employees’ Retirement
Plan (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, by
virtue and in exercise of the powers reserved to the Company by Section 11.1 of
the Plan, and pursuant to the authority delegated to the undersigned officer of
the Company by resolutions of its Board of Directors, the Plan be and hereby is
amended, effective as of December 15, 2005, by:


 


AMENDING SECTION 9.1(b) OF THE
PLAN IN ITS ENTIRETY TO READ AS FOLLOWS:


 


(b)         SMALL
ACCOUNT BALANCE.


 


(i) If the
Participant’s total Vested Account Balance at the time of distribution, or the
portion thereof distributed to a Beneficiary, does not exceed $1,000.00, then
distribution shall be made in the form described in paragraph (a).


 


(ii) If the
Participant’s total Vested Account Balance at the time of distribution, or the
portion thereof distributed to a Beneficiary, exceeds $1,000.00 but is less
than $5,000.00 and the Participant fails to affirmatively elect to have his
entire Vested Account Balance distributed in the form described in paragraph
(a), the Administrator shall transfer the Participant’s Vested Account Balance
to an individual retirement account or a trustee or issuer designated by the
Administrator, in its sole discretion, and shall notify the Participant in
writing that the Participant’s distribution may be transferred, without cost or
penalty to the Participant, to another individual retirement account selected
by the Participant. This Section 9.1(b)(ii) shall become effective as of the
first date prescribed by the IRS and the Department of Labor.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized officers, this 15th Day of December, 2005.


 


 


	
   

  	
  LKQ
  CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Victor
  M. Casini

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Victor M.
  Casini

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title: Vice
  President
The district court granted Pratt’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma 1

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 8, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM RAY PRATT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MARTY SIRMONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

No. 06-6351

(D.C. No. CIV-04-1070-F)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER

Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner-Appellant William Ray Pratt seeks a certificate of appealability

(“COA”), see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), that would permit him to appeal the district

court’s denial of his habeas petition asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Through 1

his habeas petition, Pratt challenged his five Oklahoma convictions for first

degree rape by instrumentation and one conviction for child sexual abuse, all

committed after former conviction of a felony, as well as the forty-five-year

sentences imposed for each conviction to run consecutively. In this § 2254

proceeding, Pratt asserts a number of grounds for relief, arguing: the trial court
- 2 -

erred in admitting, and defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to,

evidence of other crimes involving Pratt’s sexually abusing two other girls several

years earlier; the cumulative effect of several improper prosecutorial comments

and other trial errors deprived Pratt of a fundamentally fair trial; his trial attorney

was ineffective for failing to file a speedy trial motion, failing to assist Pratt in

his defense, failing to obtain full discovery from the State, failing to assist Pratt

with motions he was filing pro se, failing to request that Pratt’s sentences run

concurrently, and failing to investigate and present additional evidence in Pratt’s

defense; and the trial court abused its discretion in denying Pratt the opportunity

to make a record before the jury of the witnesses and evidence Pratt wanted

defense counsel to present in his defense. 

Pratt will be entitled to a COA if he can make“a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Pratt can make such a

showing by establishing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that

matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quotations omitted). 

However, for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, adopted by the district court, we conclude Pratt has failed to

make this showing. We, therefore, DENY his motion for a COA and DISMISS

this appeal. In light of that, Pratt’s motions for abeyance and rehearing en banc
- 3 -

of his request for oral argument and appointment of counsel are DENIED as moot. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3458 Received in Senate (RDS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3458

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 13 (legislative day, December 11), 2013

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To treat payments by charitable organizations with respect to certain 
                    firefighters as exempt payments.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fallen Firefighters Assistance Tax 
Clarification Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENTS BY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN 
              FIREFIGHTERS TREATED AS EXEMPT PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
payments made to--
            (1) any firefighter who was injured as a result of the 
        ambush of firefighters responding to an emergency on December 
        24, 2012, in Webster, New York,
            (2) the spouse of any firefighter who died as a result of 
        such ambush, or
            (3) any dependent (as defined in section 152 of such Code) 
        of any firefighter who died as a result of such ambush,
by an organization described in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 509(a) 
of such Code shall be treated as related to the purpose or function 
constituting the basis for such organization's exemption under section 
501 of such Code if such payments are made in good faith using a 
reasonable and objective formula which is consistently applied.
    (b) Application.--Subsection (a) shall apply only to payments made 
on or after December 24, 2012, and before the later of--
            (1) January 1, 2014, or
            (2) the date which is 30 days after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 12, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Honorable B. T. Walters 

County Auditor 

Smith County 

Tyler, Texas 

Opinion No. O-491 9 

Re: Does the Commissioners* Court 

of Smith County have the authority to appropriate county funds to 

pay election judges in common 

Dear Sir: 

school districts and independent 

school dfstrtcta under the facts 

stated ? 

Your letter of October 14, 1942, requesting the opinion of 

this department on the above stated question reads in part as follows: 

“After having been presqnted with a proper petition by the req,uired voters of the two districts, the Cornmissioners’ Court o,f Smith County ordered an election 

to be held in the Independent School Districts of Omen 

and Troup. Said election to determine whether or not the 

Omen District would be consolidated with the Troup district. The election Judge of the Omen district has presented a bill to Smith County for his services and the services of his two assistants. The consolidation move failed 

to carry and it appears the school authorities of the Omen 

district refused to pay the election expense. * 

“Please advise relative to the authority of the Commissioners’ Court of Smith County to appropriate County 

funds to pay Election judges in common school districts 

and in independent school districts. 

” ” 

. . . . 

Article 2806, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Statutes authorizes 

the holding of elections for the purpose of consolidating contiguous common school districts, contiguous independent school districts and further 

provides that common school districts may in like manner be consolidated 

with contiguous independent school dis~trtcts. 

Articles 2746, 2746a and 2746b, Vernon’s Annotated Civil Stat- 
Honorable B. T. Walters, page 2 (o-4919) 

utes regarding school district elections and expenses incurred in connection therewith provide in effect that all expenses incurred in connection with or incidental to any school district election in connection 

with a public school within such school district shall be paid out of the 

available maintenance fund belonging to such district or certain expenses 

enumerated in Article 2746, supra, shall be paid out of the local funds of 

the school district where the election was held. 

Therefore, all election expenses incurred by school districts 

must be paid out of the available maintenance fund belonging to the school 

district or districts or the local funds of the school district or districts 

where the election was held as authorized by said statutes 

Specifically answering your question you are advised that it is 

the opinion of this department that the Commissioners’ Court of Smith 

County has no authority to appropriate County funds to pay election judges 

in common school districts or independent school districts for any election held in such district or districts. 

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your inquiry, we are 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXA 

BY /s/ Ardell Williams 

Ardell Williams 

Assistant 

AW :mp:da 

APPROVED OCT 20, 1942 

/s/ Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED OPINION 

COMMITTEE BY BWB 

CHAIRMAN
#### SIMPSON v. STATE.

No. 24938.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 1, 1950.

E. A. Blair, Lubbock, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The information contains three counts, charging, respectively; (a) that appellant on October 20, 1949, unlawfully possessed beer for the purpose of sale; (b) that on March 26, 1945, appellant was convicted of an offense of like character; and (c) that on November 14, 1944, appellant was convicted of an offense of like character. •

The information was not subject to any valid objection and was sufficient to invoke the provisions of Art. 61, P.C.

The punishment assessed against appellant was confinement in jail for one year.

In cases of this character, to enhance the punishment it is necessary that the succeeding conviction be subsequent to the prior conviction, both in point of time of the commission of the offense as well as the conviction. Harrison v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 386, 168 S.W.2d 243; Square v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 493, 154 S.W.2d 852; Childress v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 116 S.W.2d 396.

*585In the instant case, the allegations of the information complied with the rule stated.

The question is whether the state sustained -such allegations by the proof — that is, whether the conviction of March 26, 1945, was shown to be for an offense committed subsequent to the conviction of November 14, 1944.

To sustain this proof, the state relies, alone, upon the judgment of conviction. The information upon which that judgment was founded was not offered in evidence, nor is the date of the offense for which the appellant was convicted otherwise shown in the .testimony. The judgment of conviction recites only that the appellant was, on the date mentioned (March 26, 1945), found guilty of selling whisky, as charged, with punishment assessed at a fine of $200. There is nothing in the judgment identifying the date the offense was committed for which appellant was there convicted.

From what has been said, it 1⁄8 apparent that the state failed to establish, by proof, the allegations of the information relative to the prior convictions.

The facts being insufficient to warrant the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 351 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 351

To repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
       Act providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2013

  Mr. Roe of Tennessee (for himself, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Benishek, Mr. 
Bilirakis, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mrs. Black, Mrs. 
 Blackburn, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Burgess, Mrs. 
 Capito, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Chabot, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Courtney, Mr. 
     Cramer, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Daines, Mr. Denham, Mr. Dent, Mr. 
DesJarlais, Mr. Duncan of Tennessee, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. 
Fleming, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Gingrey of 
Georgia, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Griffith of 
    Virginia, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Harper, Mr. Harris, Mrs. 
 Hartzler, Mr. Heck of Nevada, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. 
  Jones, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Lance, Mr. Latham, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of 
California, Mr. Long, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Matheson, Mr. McKinley, Mr. 
      Meehan, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Murphy of 
   Pennsylvania, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Olson, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Pearce, Mr. 
 Petri, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Posey, Mr. Price of Georgia, 
 Mr. Reed, Mrs. Roby, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Rokita, Mr. Roskam, 
Mr. Schock, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Thompson 
 of Pennsylvania, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Walden, 
 Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Wilson of 
 South Carolina, Mr. Womack, and Mr. Young of Florida) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, 
and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Rules, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
       Act providing for the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Seniors' Access to 
Medicare Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD.

    Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), sections 3403 and 10320 of 
such Act (including the amendments made by such sections) are repealed, 
and any provision of law amended by such sections is hereby restored as 
if such sections had not been enacted into law.
                                 <all>
```
#### Ex parte GRUBMAN.

No. 22736.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1944.

Howard Dailey, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

The relator filed his application for writ of habeas corpus in the Criminal District' Court No. 2 of Dallas County,' alleging that he was illegally restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of Dallas County, Texas.

There is no statement of facts, nor are there any bills of exceptions, accompanying the record. The order of the court remanding the relator to the custody of the sheriff of Dallas County recites that the court examined the writ of habeas corpus and the return made thereon by the sheriff of Dallas County, together with all papers and documents attached to the return, and that the court heard the testimony offered by each side, and that it appeared the re-, lator was held by the sheriff of Dallas County for the authorities of Nolan County to answer an indictment charging the relator with forgery and knowingly passing a forged instrument. The relator was admitted to appearance bond in the *amount*of $750, and remanded to custody pending. the making- of such bond. No attack is made on the amount of the bond fixed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.