alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0011; FRL __________]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Iowa State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State on April 28, 

2009. The purpose of these revisions is to update existing air 

quality rules; make corrections, clarifications and 

improvements; and to add information with regard to the 

application of permit exemptions. EPA is proposing to approve

the SIP revisions pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in 

writing by [insert date 30 days from the date of publication in 

the Federal Register].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA-R07-OAR-2010-0011, by mail to Tracey Casburn, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also 

be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 
2

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracey Casburn at (913) 551-

7016, or by e-mail at casburn.tracey@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the state’s revision as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and 

anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct 

final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in 

response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please 

note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule 

and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see 

the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of 

this Federal Register.

Dated: __February 23, 2010._____ _/s/ Karl Brooks ____

Karl Brooks,

Regional Administrator,

Region 7.
Case 4:22-cr-00218-P Document 13 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 30
Case 4:22-cr-00218-P Document 13 Filed 08/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 31
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK et al.,

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

 v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of the United 

States et al., 

 Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROVIDE 

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY TO THEIR COUNT I BRIEFING AND THEIR 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ as-filed motion for leave to provide supplemental authority to their 

Count I briefing and their motion for summary judgment (the motion), Defendants do not oppose 

the motion. Although Defendants disagree with the arguments presented by Plaintiffs in the motion, 

as well as any contention that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment in whole or in part, Defendants intend 

to respond to those arguments in their forthcoming merits briefing. 

DATED: January 23, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

ALEXANDER K. HAAS

Director, Federal Programs Branch

LESLEY FARBY

Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch

/s/ Daniel Riess

DANIEL RIESS

MARTIN M. TOMLINSON

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 174 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 3153
2

TAISA M. GOODNATURE

Trial Attorneys

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

U.S. Department of Justice

1100 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 353-3098

Email: Daniel.Riess@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On January 23, 2023, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of court 

for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the 

court. I hereby certify that I have served all parties electronically or by another manner authorized by 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2).

/s/ Daniel Riess

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 174 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 3154
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

 

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim

Defendant,

v.

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, et al.,

Defendants/Counterclaim

Plaintiff.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-343-Y 

Judge Terry R. Means

(Relates to Motion Referred to 

Magistrate Judge Cureton)

Photo of USB Drive for 8-23-2023 Telephone Recording (Ross)

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 168-1 Filed 11/28/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 3445
United States District Court 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

DINESHSAH § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3 :22-CV-1688-S-BT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in 

this case. Objections were filed. The Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed 

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the 

remaining proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, 

the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge. 

Moreover, considering the record in this case, the Court DENIES a certificate of 

appealability. The Court adopts and incorporates by reference Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed in this case in support of its finding 

that Movant has failed to show (1) that reasonable jurists would find this Court's "assessment of 

the constitutional claims debatable or wrong," or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable 

whether the [motion] states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable 

whether [this Court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000). 

Case 3:22-cv-01688-S-BT Document 25 Filed 02/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 165
If Movant files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

SO ORDERED. 

SIGNED February 22, 2024. 

2 

Case 3:22-cv-01688-S-BT Document 25 Filed 02/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 166
# Official Journal C 45A/7 Fe

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 45A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 617 February 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 45A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 617 February 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2018/C 45 A/01 | Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 — Information and Communication Technology (ICT) experts (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Data Analysis and IT Service 2. Digital Workplace, Office Automation and Mobile Computing 3. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) 4. ICT Security 5. IT Infrastructure 6. IT Portfolio/Programme Management and Enterprise Architecture | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2018/C 45 A/01

Reserve lists — Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 — Information and Communication Technology (ICT) experts (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Data Analysis and IT Service 2. Digital Workplace, Office Automation and Mobile Computing 3. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) 4. ICT Security 5. IT Infrastructure 6. IT Portfolio/Programme Management and Enterprise Architecture

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 32.1





Section 1350 Certification





In connection with the Quarterly Report of TN-K Energy Group Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ken Page, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial and accounting officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 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, as amended, and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.Dated: August 20, 2010

/s/Ken Page

Ken Page, Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer, principal financial and accounting officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 11

- 00230

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.B. and E.S.B., Children

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2002

- CI

- 09082

Honorable Victor Hugo Negron Jr. , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 22, 2011

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed a notice of nonsuit which the court construes as a motion to dismiss

this appeal. The motion contains a certificate of service to appellee, who has not opposed the

motion. Therefore, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a)( 1).

Costs of the appeal are taxed against appellant.

PER CURIAM
#### RHYNE v. STATE.

No. 21618.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 28, 1941.

Dabney & Dabney, of Eastland, for appellant.

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

■ DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a case of driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated, and as a second offender, under the provisions of Art. 62, P. C.; the punishment, two years in the state penitentiary.

Whether the appellant was intoxicated at the time he operated the automobile on a public highway was the disputed issue of fact. The State’s witnesses affirmed; those of the appellant denied. The appellant did not testify.

In submitting the case, the trial court instructed the jury as follows : “Now therefore, if you find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, George Rhyne, on or about the 10th day of March, 1940, in Eastland County, Texas, while he the said George Rhyne was then and there in any degree under the influence of intoxicating liquor, you will find the defendant guilty and assess his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for not more than two years, or by *600confinement in jail for not less than five days nor more than ninety days, and by fine of not less that $50 nor more than $500.”

Such charge is fundamentally defective in that it does not require the jury to find the existence of any constituent element of the offense charged. In fact, it does not require that the jury find that appellant drove or operated an automobile in any event. Such a defect requires a reversal of the case.

In passing, we say that we feel sure the defect was the result of inadvertence and mistake on the part of the trial court, but this court is bound by the record as made and certified to us.

For the error pointed out, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK et al.,

 Plaintiffs, Case No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

 v.

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of the United 

States et al., 

 Defendants.

DEFENDANTS’ COMBINED OPPOSITION TO ORIGINAL PLAINTIFFS’ 

AND INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, Defendants hereby move this Court to enter 

summary judgment for Defendants, and to deny the motions for summary judgment filed by Jennifer 

VanDerStok; Michael G. Andren; Tactical Machining, LLC; Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. (ECF No. 

140); by BlackHawk Manufacturing Group Inc. d/b/a 80 Percent Arms (ECF No. 144); and by 

Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. (ECF No. 165). In accordance with 

Local Rule 56.5, this motion is accompanied by a brief that sets forth the arguments and authorities 

on which Defendants rely in support of this motion, and that contains the matters required by Local 

Rules 56.3(a) and 56.4(a). A proposed order also accompanies this motion. 

DATED: February 13, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

ALEXANDER K. HAAS

Director, Federal Programs Branch

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 180 Filed 02/13/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 3200
2

LESLEY FARBY

Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch

/s/ Daniel Riess

DANIEL RIESS

MARTIN M. TOMLINSON

TAISA M. GOODNATURE

Trial Attorneys

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

U.S. Department of Justice

1100 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 353-3098

Email: Daniel.Riess@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On February 13, 2023, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of 

court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system 

of the court. I hereby certify that I have served all parties electronically or by another manner 

authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2).

/s/ Daniel Riess

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 180 Filed 02/13/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 3201
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 22
- 00507
- CR

Jordan L. Walker , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 83722 , THE HONORABLE PAUL L. LEPAK , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On January 31, 2023, this Court abated the appeal and remanded to the trial court
for a hearing to determine whether appellant desired to continue prosecuting this appeal and requested tha t the trial court prepare supplemental reco r ds pertaining to the hearing an d file
the records with this Court

. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8. Following the hearing, the trial court prepared supplemental clerk ’ s records containing a docket entry showing that appellant wished
to d ismiss her appeal, a mo t ion to dismiss the appeal signed by appel lant and her trial counsel , and affidavits fro m appellant and her trial counsel swear ing that the statements in the motion

to dismiss we re true and accurate. See id

. R. 42.2. Accordingly, we grant the motion and
d ismiss the appeal. See id. ; see also R. 2 (allowing appellate courts to suspend rule ’ s operation
or order different procedure “ to expedite a decision or for other good cause ” ); Lucero v. St ate , Nos. 03

- 21

- 00313

— 00315, 2022 WL 16556833, at *8

- 9 (Tex. App.

— Austin Oct. 31 , 2022, no2

pet.) (me m. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing appeals where record from Rule 38.8 hearing established that defend ant had agreed to dismi ss appeals).

__________________________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice
Before Justices Baker, Sm ith , and Jones* Dismissed on Appellant ’ s Motion
Fi led : March 23, 2023
Do N ot Publis h *Before J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice (Retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov ’ t Code § 74.003(b).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00084-Z-BR

§

ROBERTO JOSE MERCADO (2) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ROBERTO JOSE MERCADO (2), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 

1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R.CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment.

After cautioning and examining ROBERTO JOSE MERCADO (2) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned 

in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by 

an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea 

of guilty be accepted, and that ROBERTO JOSE MERCADO (2) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 

841(b)(1)(C) - POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE and have sentence imposed 

accordingly. After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: February 21, 2023

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00084-Z-BR Document 101 Filed 02/21/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 246
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
             THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

      The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, James G. Bradley, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: (1) the Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 or
other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

                                   Date: November 14, 2003


                                   By: /s/ James G. Bradley
                                       ----------------------------
                                           James G. Bradley
                                           Chief Executive Officer









The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission as an Exhibit to this report and should not be considered filed as a
part of this report.
Extension Letter with Roger W. Rose



 Exhibit 10.3 
  





 
 August 28, 2015 

Mr. Roger W. Rose 
 President RTI Donor Services 

Executive Vice President, Tissue-Based Implants 
 RTI Surgical,
Inc. 
 11621 Research Circle 
 Alachua FL 32615 

Dear Mr. Rose: 
 Your Executive Transition
Agreement with RTI Surgical, Inc., dated August 29, 2012, is about to expire. This letter will memorialize our agreement that your Executive Transition Agreement is hereby extended through December 31, 2015, and its terms and conditions
shall otherwise be unchanged. If the above reflects your understanding, please execute a copy of this letter in the place indicated below and return it to me. 

 

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	RTI SURGICAL, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Brian K. Hutchison

		 	Brian K. Hutchison
		 	President and Chief Executive Officer


  

	
	Agreed by:
	
	 /s/ Roger W. Rose

	Roger W. Rose
	President RTI Donor Services
	Executive Vice President, Tissue-Based Implants
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 42 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 11764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4991]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, March 9, 2011; 10 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered: 

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: March 1, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4991 Filed 3-1-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```