alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ONGOING and Past SATISFACTION SURVEYS UNDER 1845

- 0045 Dated 3/25/2013

1 Annual Direct Loan School Customer Satisfaction Survey Training Information Services Division
– TISD Training and follow

- up surveys FAFSA on the Web (FOTW) Survey Loan Choice for FFEL Borrowers Survey Tools for School Training Survey Federal Student Aid Aw areness Survey Student Aid and Applicant Services Survey FFEL Borrower Servicing Survey Long Beach Awareness Survey EDExpress Use Survey EDExpress Basics Survey Quality Assurance Program Survey Editorial Services Customer Satisfaction Survey Fall Confere nce Survey Defaulted Loan Survey Social Media Survey Multiple Servicers Satisfaction Survey (3) Fundamentals of Title IV Training Survey Ombudsman Customer Satisfaction Survey FSA for Counselors Training Survey Student A id on the W eb (SAOTW) Survey Enterpr ise Operational Change Management Customer Satisfaction Survey SA Pubs Focus Group Feedback Guide FSA Communications Messaging Customer Service SurveyONGOING and Past SATISFACTION SURVEYS UNDER 1845

- 0045 Dated 3/25/2013

2 Customer Satisfaction Survey for the Quality Assurance Program Ease of Doing Business with FSA

- School Partners Customer Satisfaction Survey Creative Review Focus Groups Online Interviews to Evaluate Website and Social Media Site Website Usability Testing Leadership and Management Seminar Evaluation Optional Point

- of

- Service Online Customer Satisfaction Survey for Accenture Use with School Services’ and Applicant Services’ Customers: January 2013
1 

### Knoppow, Brianna

From: Chumble, Prasad

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 3:42 PM

To: Knoppow, Brianna

Subject: FW: FW: Follow Materials from our Thursday Meeting

Attachments: Welsch et al 2006 BMP Field Manual (USF S-NAASF).pdf; USFS-NAASF BMP Protocol

Checklist (2007).pdf

Categories: Word Docs or PDFs

From: Gary Schiff

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 12:09 PM

To: Chumble, Prasad

Subject: FW: FW: Follow Materials from our Thursday Meeting

Prasad

– I believe you received this but just wanted to make sure.

Thanks,

Gary
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STANLEY L. BROWN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-373

[May 2, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 07-18605CF10A, 07-20600CF10A and 08-

02323CF10A.

Stanley L. Brown, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The data schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Boise
Cascade Office Products Corporation's Balance Sheet at September 30, 1996, and
from its Statement of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 1996.  The
information presented is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           9,281
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  258,740
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,125
<INVENTORY>                                    137,537
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               429,352
<PP&E>                                         207,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                  85,791
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 781,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          280,728
<BONDS>                                         95,053
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           625
<OTHER-SE>                                     383,689
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   781,576
<SALES>                                      1,428,884
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,428,884
<CGS>                                        1,055,148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,055,148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               299,063
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,290
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,283
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,406
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,877
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,877
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
U.S. DEPARTMKNT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVUTION ADMINISTRATION 

^ARTMENT OF 

0RTAT10N 

• ••!^T OPE 

In the Matter of: 

Oklahoma Skydiving Center 

^rc n p i2-us 

FAA Case No. 2009SW150061 

FAA Docket CP No. - To Be Assigned 

ludye - Nov Yel Assigned 

ANSWF.R 

t9m\Amio U^eiO'/SfT 

The Respondent files its Answer, luidcr Rule 209 of The Rules ot'Praciice in Fy\A Civil 

Penalty Acti^.inii, 14 C.F.R. §13,209, and states the foMowing: 

Paragraph I. ADTVITTTHO 

ADMITTED 

ADMITTED 

Respondent is \vithout sufficient information to form a belief as to 

the truth of Ihc allceations contained in paragraph 3 of the 

Administrator's Complaint and therefore, denies the same. 

ADMITTLD 

ADMITTED 

Parairraph TT( 11. 

Paragraph ll(2>. 

Paragraph ITO^. 

Paragraph 11(4). 

Paragraph Uf5). 

PaTagrai>h \\{^\ 

Paragraph ii(7). 

Paragraph IK8). 

ADMITTED 

Respondent is without sullicicnl inlbnnation to form a belief as to 

tlie truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of tliw; 

Administrator's Compldini and therefore, denies the same. 

Respondent is without sufficient infon-pation lo form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the 

Administrator's Complaint and therefore, denies the same. 

£00/10 0 %t< ^ ^ VVJ ^t-LfsefSos xvj VI.z\ oioziiiizv 
Paragraph 11(91. Respondent is without sufficient infomiation lo ibrm a belief as to 

the imth of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the 

Adminislralor's Complaint and therefore, denies the same. 

Paragraph 11(10). Respondent is without sufficient information to form a belief as to 

the truth uf ihe allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the 

Adniinirtrator'.s Complaint and therefore, denies the same. 

Paragraph n o T)- Respondent is without sufficient information to form a belief as lo 

the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the 

Administrator's Complaint and thereibre, denies ihc same. 

Paratfraphii IKHVa-cVDENlED. 

Paragraph 111(1). DENIED. 

ParapraphHI(2). DEUIED. 

Respondent respectfully requests that the administrative law judge enter an order 

dismissing the Admimslrator's Complaint. 

Dated: M^/^/O 

Respectfully submitted, 

Bret A. Glenn 

Counsel for Respondent 

414 N.W. 4^" Street, Suite 200 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 

(405)702^980 

(405) 702-4984 fax 

£00/300 SWO + VVd Sfrt5S6fr202 XVd fLSL OLOS/il/Sl 
CERTIRCATEOP SFRVICE 

1 hereby certify that 1 have this date mailed, by Certilied Mail, Reiian Receipt Requested, 

an original and one copy of the foregoing Answer addressed to: 

J'ederal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Docket Hearing Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

And further, that T have this date mailed, by regular mail, a copy of the foregoing Answer 

aOdresst-d to: 

Gregory S. Lander 

Attorney, Safety Enforcement Branch 

tcderal Aviation Administration 

2601 Mcacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137-0007 

Dated: jl - j^h ) 

Bret A. Cilenn 

eoo/eooia swo * wwj , — ~ — — 

^^^ SnSG6tS0 S XVd MS L 0L0S/iL/2 L
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

57) IV-C-23 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:53 AM Sheet 57 of 232 
P.2 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

!:-. JAN S 9 \bb 

Honorable Brian Donnelly 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Donnelly: 

Thank you for passing along the comments of Mr. Louis A. 

Barretta concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard refueling 

emission controls. Be assured that these comments will be 

considered in the next phase of our rulemaking process. We 

will also be placing them in the public docket for the rulemaking. 

Thank you again for your concern in this matter. f 

•insincerely yours, 

••KlGWAl'SIGNED BY 

P.K-HA3DD. WILSON 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Docket A-87-11
#### TAYLOR v. STATE.

No. 21873.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 4, 1942.

On Motion to Reinstate Appeal Feb. 25, 1942.

W. L. Wray, of Hillsboro, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The transcript in this case does not contain a caption showing when the term of court began and when it ended, if there was one, and, consequently, no jurisdiction is shown in this court.

The appeal is dismissed.

On Motion to Re-Instate Appeal

GRAVES, Judge.

This cause was dismissed because of a failure to have shown in the transcript caption the opening and closing of the term of the court at which this cause was tried.

This defect has now been remedied, and the appeal is re-instated and we will proceed to consider this cause.

There are neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions in the record.

There does appear in the record the order of the commissioners’ court of Hill County of date February 12, 1903, putting into effect prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors in said county, but such order is not-otherwise preceded by nor followed by any statement of any kind, neither as an introduced fact nor a fact complained of in a bill of exceptions. There is no objection shown to its introduction, nor even any showing as to whether same was introduced. We are not informed nor do we see why such order, standing alone, should be found in the record.

The order thus found in the transcript is the identical order that we have recently passed upon in the recent case of Arthur Taylor v. State, 158 S.W.2d 817, from Hill County, opinion delivered February 11, 1942, and in which last-named case such order was held to be a valid order, and-that same put into effect the law prohibiting *126the sale of intoxicating' liquors in Hill County, Texas, in February 1903.

By virtue of the authority of the above case of Taylor v. State, this judgment is affirmed.
January 3, 19%

Mr.~Ch@rl8S R.~I$a.r~ln~~~. CountyAuditor, Harrison County Marshall,Texas

Dear Mr. Martin: opinion BO. o-06

Re: Bond PremiumExpense of County Officer

Your letter of Deoember :,3c,,.,$938, ,a@ressed:~to Attorney QeneralWm. M&raw, has been referned to this Dijpa5tineik

for attention. Your letter reads, in part, as follows:

"WI11ybu please advise me'whether or not..the

premium on the suretybond made m the oounty officer Is-an expense btine by the oountg, or should same be paid by the auditor?" You are respeotkly advLsed that it 1s the opinion of this Department that the premium on the offlolal bond of the oounty office of Harrison County, Texas, should be pald by the auditor personallyas a personal expense and should not be paid by Harrison County.

The CountyAuditor Is not a fee officeratid does not oome within the provisionsof the Officers'Salary Law, whereby such oharaoterof expense could be legally charged up as an expense of office.

There is no provlslon in the Statutes providing for the payment of the CountyAuditor's bond premium on his offlclalbond.

On July 17, 1935, HohorableLeon 0. Moses, AssistantAttorney General of Texas, w??ote an opinionCharles L. Martin - January 3, 1939 - Page 2 (0-06)

coveringa questionvery similarto the above question, and I enclose herewitha oopy of Mr. Moses' opinion.

Trusting that the above answersyour question, IsIll Yours respectfully, ATTCRNEY QXNERAL OF TEXAS

BY Asslstant WJFxBT:mjs ENCLOSURE APPROVEP: " /s/ Oerald C. Mann ATTC%@EYGEIilQULOF~~
Exhibit
32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Stratus Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge:
 
 (1) This
Report on Form 10-K for the ear ended December 31, 2008 (“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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:  April
      15, 2009/s/
      John F. MoynahanName:    John F. MoynahanTitle:     Acting Chief
      Financial Officer
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00257-CV

CITY OF GRAPEVINE, Appellant

V.

LUDMILLA B. MUNS, RICHARD 

MUELLER, KARI PERKINS, KEVIN 

PERKINS, PAMELA HOLT, AND A-1

COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL 

SERVICES, INC., Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 348th District Court

of Tarrant County (348-303736-18)

August 5, 2021

Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in part of the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the trial court’s order is 

affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part. We reverse that portion of the trial 

court’s order denying Appellant City of Grapevine’s amended plea to the jurisdiction 

as to Appellees’ preemption claim and render judgment dismissing it. We affirm the 

remainder of the trial court’s order.
It is further ordered that each party shall bear their own costs of this appeal.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2014 -**  **0192**
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Stratus Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge:





(1)    This Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010 (“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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  April 29, 2011/s/ John MoynahanName:    John MoynahanTitle:     Chief Financial Officer




The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.
Acceptance of Responsibility - Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. No. 4:22-CR-066-O

CLOIS GLENN RABORN (01)

GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE REGARDING 

ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY

The government files this motion regarding Acceptance of Responsibility pursuant 

to USSG § 3E1.1(b):

If the Court determines that the defendant is entitled to a reduction for Acceptance 

of Responsibility and that his offense level is 16 or greater, the government moves that 

the defendant receive an additional third point reduction for Acceptance of Responsibility 

pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1(b). The defendant assisted authorities in the investigation or 

prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to 

enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and 

permitting the government and the court to allocate their resources efficiently.

Case 4:22-cr-00066-O Document 26 Filed 03/17/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 47
Acceptance of Responsibility - Page 2

Respectfully Submitted,

CHAD E. MEACHAM

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Brandie Wade 

BRANDIE WADE

Assistant United States Attorney

Texas State Bar No. 24058350

801 Cherry Street, Suite 1700

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Telephone: 817-252-5200

Facsimile: 817-252-5455

Email: brandie.wade@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 17, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the clerk for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the 

electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a ANotice 

of Electronic Filing@ to the following attorney of record who has consented in writing to 

accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means: Cody Cofer and 

Atticus Gill.

/s/ Brandie Wade 

BRANDIE WADE

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 4:22-cr-00066-O Document 26 Filed 03/17/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 48
1

Summerhays, John

From: Dines, Jennifer [Jennifer.Dines@epa.state.oh.us]

Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:50 AM

To: Summerhays, John

Subject: Steubenville Area SO2 Designations

John, per our discussion, it was Ohio’s intent that all the area within the outer border of the Steubenville township be a 

part of our recommended nonattainment area. Meaning the City of Steubenville be included. 

Jennifer Dines 

Manager, State Implementation Plan and Rulemaking Section 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

Wk (614) 644-3696 

Fax (614) 644-3681
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 February 10, 2017

Order 

Clerk

February 10, 2017

152448(135)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 152448

v COA: 317892

St. Clair CC: 10-002936-FC

TIA MARIE-MITCHELL SKINNER,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for a modified briefing scheduled to 

enable the case to be heard on the May 2017 case call is DENIED.
# S

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

MANDATE

TO THE 15TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF GRAYSON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, on the 23 rd day of March , 2018, the

cause on appeal to revise or reverse the judgment between

IN THE INTEREST OF W .J.J., A CHILD

No. 05

- 17

- 01247

- CV On Appeal from the 15th Judicial District

Court, Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FA

- 16

- 1280.

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill.

Justices Francis and Myers participating.

was determined; and this Court made its order in these words:

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED

.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of the Court of Appeals

for the Fifth District of Texas, in this behalf, and have it duly obeyed and executed.

WITNESS the HON. CAROLYN WRIGHT, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, with

the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Dallas, this 5th day of June, 2018. 

# 5 L M

LISA MATZ, Clerk
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 3, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

132029 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. ANTOINETTE LONG, as Next Friend of Stephen J. Markman, Dounika Long, a Minor, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 132029 COA: 266948 Wayne CC: 02-243011-NH CHILDREN’S HOSPITA L OF MICHIGAN, ALEXA CANADY, M.D., SANDEEP SOOD, M.D., and PEDIATRIC NEUROSURGERY GROUP, P.C., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 1, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERS E the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reason that the insanity saving provision of MCL 600.5851(1) applies to the plaintiff’s medical malpractice claims. Vega v Lakeland Hospitals at Niles and St Joseph, Inc , 479 Mich 243 (2007). We REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings cons istent with this order.

t0926 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 3, 2007

Clerk
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE01753

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          428397
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7749093
<ALLOWANCES>                                    111696
<INVENTORY>                                   13419401
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1371002
<PP&E>                                         2192918
<DEPRECIATION>                                  369963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                41689866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6178352
<BONDS>                                        8726718
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                   20925000
<COMMON>                                          2384
<OTHER-SE>                                     5857412
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  41689866
<SALES>                                        6734727
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6774170
<CGS>                                          3594639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3594639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2327357
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              206632
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 645542
<INCOME-TAX>                                    238851
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             406691
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    406691
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>