alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 of 3 

Transport Rule Proposal Air Quality Modeling Data Drive 

EPA has placed in the docket a data drive containing certain air quality modeling data 

files, run scripts, and codes that were used for the Transport Rule proposal. 

Information on the air quality modeling performed for the Transport Rule including a 

description of the modeling domains, model inputs, emissions scenarios, contribution 

modeling, and results can be found in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support 

Document that is located in the Transport Rule docket. An electronic copy of this 

document is also available at the following web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/transport/tech.html 

The following information is contained on this data drive. The directory structure is 

shown in Table 1. 

I. CAMx Model Input Files 

- 2005 model-ready meteorology for the 36 km and 12 km modeling domains 

- Albedo/Haze/Ozone input files 

- Chemical Parameter file 

- Initial, boundary, and top concentration files for the 36 km domain (used for all 

36 km domain model runs) 

- Initial, boundary, and top concentration files for the 12 km domain (separate 

files for each emissions scenario) 

- Landuse files for the 36 km and 12 km domains 

- Photolysis Rates files for the 36 km and 12 km domains 

II. Emissions Processing Data, Codes, Scripts 

-Data and scripts that can be used with SMOKE 2.4 to reproduce 

emissions modeling data used for the transport rule air quality model simulations. 

III. CAMx model run scripts and post-processing scripts and codes 

IV. MATS output files for creating ozone, annual PM2.5, and 24-hour PM2.5 design 

values for each future year scenario modeled. 

V. Scripts and data used to create the air quality contribution tables for ozone, annual 

PM2.5, and daily PM2.5 from the 2012 source apportionment modeling. 

VI. Test case with emissions inputs for a two-day simulation of the 36 km domain and 

the 12 km domain. 
2 of 3 

EPA will respond to specific requests for subsets of the data or for specific additional 

inputs and outputs of the modeling process, depending on the availability of the data. In 

this regard, EPA has provided air quality model-ready emissions files not contained on 

the data drive in response to separate requests. These data include (1) emissions inputs 

for the 2005 base year, 2012 base case, 2014 base case, and 2014 remedy scenarios for 

the 36 km and 12 km modeling domains and (2) emissions inputs for the 2012 ozone and 

2012 PM source tagging model runs. These and all the relevant data and inputs used in 

the air quality modeling are incorporated into the docket. 

Requests for electronic copies of the Transport Rule air quality modeling data should be 

sent to Norm Possiel (possiel.norm@epa.gov) and Brian Timin (timin.brian@epa.gov) 
3 of 3 

Table 1. Directory Structure for Air Quality Modeling Data Drive.
Case 3:22-cv-01918-M-BN Document 13 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 134
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 57

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing

that, except in cases of national emergency, expenditures of the United

States Government shall not exceed its revenues, nor exceed 20 percent

of the gross national product, in any fiscal year.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. NEAL of North Carolina introduced the following joint resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States providing that, except in cases of national emergency, expenditures of the United States Government

shall not exceed its revenues, nor exceed 20 percent

of the gross national product, in any fiscal year.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, to be valid only if ratified

6 by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States
2

•HJ 57 IH

1 within seven years after the date of the final passage of

2 this joint resolution:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE—

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. Except in cases of national emergency,

5 as determined by a three-fifths vote by each House of the

6 Congress, expenditures of the United States Government

7 shall not exceed its revenues, nor exceed 20 percent of the

8 gross national product, in any fiscal year.

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to

10 enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
#### R. E. COOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23131.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 18, 1945.

'Charles A. Keilin and Arthur J. Man-dell, both of Houston, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for sodomy, punishment assessed being 10 years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed his affidavit advising this court that he does not desire to further prosecute his appeal, and same is dismissed at appellant’s request.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2001.



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





In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Andean Development Corporation (the "Company") on Form  10-QSB for the  period  ended September 30, 2004,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Lance Larsen, President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, that:



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



The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  November 1, 2004

/s/ Lance Larsen _____________

Lance Larsen, CEO
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 248

Entitled the ‘‘Citizen’s Tax Protection Amendment’’, proposing an amendment

to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit retroactive taxation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 3, 1993

Mr. ROYCE introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Entitled the ‘‘Citizen’s Tax Protection Amendment’’, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to prohibit retroactive taxation.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

•HJ 248 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘Congress shall pass no law increasing taxes or fees

5 which takes effect prior to its enactment.’’.

Æ
Zimbra 

Zimbra 

Parcel Question 

From :Barry Hammer <Barry.Hammer@faa.gov> 

Subject: Parcel Question 

To: rmaguire@norwoodma.gov 

Russ, 

Page 1 of 1 

rmaguire@norwoodma.gov 

Thu, Jul 26, 2012 02:46 PM 

@ 1 attachment 

I took a look at the parcel that you requested the release for and I believe it's a 

different parcel (though in the same vicinity) as the one the town inquired about. 

I've attached a plan highlighting the parcel the town asked about selling. Let me 

know if you think it's airport property? Again, it doesn't appear so by the Exhibit 

'A', but I want to make sure you know what's going on. 

I'm traveling tomorrow, but will be available Monday and Tuesday next week if 

you'd like to talk. 

Regards, 

Barry J. Hammer, P.E. 

FAA Airports Division 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01803 

781.238.7625 

Norwood Parcel.pdf 

~ 302 KB 

https://ncs.norwoodma.gov/h/printmessage?id=3501&tz=America/New_York 4/26/2015
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1150

PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TRIANGLE PAVING, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

EMJ CORPORATION; UNITED STATES FIDELITY &

GUARANTY COMPANY,

Defendants.

CAROLINAS AGC, INCORPORATED; INSURANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION ASSOCIATION,

Amicus Curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-95-892-5-3-BR)

Argued: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 29, 1997
2

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Circuit Judge, and NORTON,

United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina,

sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Jay McCullam Wilkerson, BUGG & WOLF, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter Edgar Brock, Jr., YOUNG, MOORE &

HENDERSON, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:

John B. Taylor, JOHNSON, TAYLOR, ALLISON & HORD, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Amicus Curiae Carolinas AGC. Laura A. Foggan, Daniel

E. Troy, Alex M. Azar, II, WILEY, REIN & FIELDING, Washington,

D.C., for Amicus Curiae Insurance Association.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (Penn

National) brought this declaratory judgment action against Triangle

Paving, Inc. (Triangle), seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to provide insurance coverage under two insurance policies

it had issued to Triangle for damages associated with job-site runoff (sedimentation) from a construction site. The district court

granted summary judgment in favor of Penn National, concluding that

the job-site runoff was a "pollutant" as that term was defined in

the policies and, therefore, fell within the policies' "total

pollution" exclusions. Triangle now appeals that decision. Our

review of the record, the district court's opinion, and the arguments of counsel have revealed that this appeal is without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the

reasons stated by that court in its opinion. See Pennsylvania

National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Triangle Paving,

Inc., No. 5:95-CV-892-5-3-BR (E.D.N.C. December 30, 1996).

AFFIRMED
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **CMBS Department**

 

MAC N9401-011

1055 10th Avenue SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. 

1585 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, New York 10036-8200

 

RE: Annual Statement ofCompliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C22,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C22

 

Per the Pooling and ServicingAgreement dated as of April 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), theundersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the yearending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

/s/ Gail Vannest

GAIL VANNEST

Vice President

 

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Case 4:22-cr-00036-Y Document 21 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 35
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51363

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LASARO SANTOYO-GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(2:05-CR-59-ALL)

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Lasaro Santoyo-Garcia pleaded guilty to a

single-count indictment charging illegal reentry into the United

States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He was

sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment and three years of

supervised release. He now appeals his sentence, which was imposed

after the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005), asserting that it was unreasonable, because it was

greater than necessary to meet the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2

The record shows that the district court fulfilled its duty to

consider all of the § 3553 factors and that the court sentenced

Santoyo-Garcia to 41 months of imprisonment, the lowest end of the

sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d

511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). This

sentence is within the properly calculated advisory guidelines

range and is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Alonzo,

435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir. 2006). There is no indication that

the sentence imposed was unreasonable. See Mares, 402 F.3d at 519.

Santoyo-Garcia also asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). Santoyo-Garcia’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998).

Although Santoyo-Garcia contends that Almendarez-Torres was

incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would

overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments because Almendarez-Torres remains binding

Supreme Court precedent. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410

F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005).

Santoyo-Garcia properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in

light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, raising it here

only to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.
1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 DALLAS DIVISION 

SHEDRICK THORNTON, § 

Dall. Cnty. Jail BookIn No. 22003389, § 

 § 

 Petitioner, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-CV-1957-D 

§ 

STATE OF TEXAS, § 

§ 

Respondent. § 

ORDER 

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

recommendation in this case. Petitioner filed objections on September 16, 2022 and 

additional objections on September 29, 2022. The undersigned district judge 

reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation to which objections were made, and reviewed the remaining 

proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding no 

error, the court adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge. While petitioner made several objections, no objection is 

sufficient to avoid the time bar that precludes him from proceeding in this case. 

Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, 

and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability. The court 

adopts and incorporates by reference the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, 

Case 3:22-cv-01957-D-BN Document 13 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 63
2 

and recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that petitioner has 

failed to show that reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition 

states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right” or “debatable whether [this 

Court] was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000). 

But if petitioner elects to file a notice of appeal, he must either pay the $505 

appellate filing fee or move for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 

SO ORDERED. 

October 28, 2022. 

 ______________________________ 

 SIDNEY A. FITZWATER 

 SENIOR JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-01957-D-BN Document 13 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 64
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          53,789
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,181,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,303
<INVENTORY>                                    776,797
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,082,114
<PP&E>                                       7,542,821
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,391,969
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,809,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,341,740
<BONDS>                                      2,140,493
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,014,110
<OTHER-SE>                                     828,774
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,809,804
<SALES>                                      2,472,932
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,472,932
<CGS>                                        1,738,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,738,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               598,624
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,707
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127,605
<INCOME-TAX>                                    49,850
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,755
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,755
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10455

Conference Calendar

__________________

RONNIE TOLER,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CARRIE TOLER,

FRENCH EARL RICHARDSON,

T.J. RICHARDSON, CORTNEY TOLER,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 95-CV-00078

- - - - - - - - - -

August 23, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

"To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must (1) allege

a violation of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the

United States and (2) demonstrate that the alleged deprivation

was committed by a person acting under color of state law." 

Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.

1994). 
No. 95-10455

-2-

Toler failed to state a cognizable § 1983 claim, as his

complaint relates to the application of Texas state probate law,

a matter more appropriately left to the Texas state court. See

Robertson v. Robertson, 803 F.2d 136, 138 (5th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE B 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is made and entered as of September 3, 2015 (the “Effective
Date”), by and among GLADSTONE LAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware limited partnership (“Borrower”), and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation (“Lender”), with reference to that certain Promissory Note
in the original principal amount of up to TWENTY-FIVE MILLION AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($25,000,000.00) made by Borrower to the order of Lender and dated April 30, 2014 (“Note B”). Any capitalized terms used in this Amendment but not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in Note B. 
 NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, Borrower and Lender hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Amendment of Note B Terms. As of
the Effective Date, the following sentence is inserted after the third sentence of the first paragraph of Section 1 of Note B: 

“On September 1, 2015, the “Spread” will be adjusted to be 225 basis points (2.25%).” 

2. No Implied Modifications. Except as expressly modified by the terms of this Amendment, all of the terms, covenants and conditions
set forth in Note B shall remain in full force and effect. All references to Note B in any of the other Loan Documents shall be to Note B as amended by this Amendment. 

3. Entire Agreement. This Amendment supersedes all previous oral and written agreements related to this modification and constitutes
the entire agreement between Borrower and Lender with respect thereto. No provision of this Amendment may be further modified except through the execution of a subsequent written agreement by the party to be charged therewith. 

[Remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.] 

  
 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower and Lender have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.

  

							
	BORROWER:
	
	 GLADSTONE LAND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

a Delaware limited partnership

		
	By:	 	 Gladstone Land Partners, LLC,
 a
Delaware limited liability company
 Its General Partner

			
		 	By:	 	 Gladstone Land Corporation,
 a
Maryland corporation
 Its Manager

				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ David Gladstone

		 		 		 	David Gladstone
		 		 		 	Its Chief Executive Officer


 (Signatures continue on following page) 

  
 2 








 
			
	LENDER:
	
	METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Tom Bozzo

	Printed Name:	 	 Tom Bozzo

	Its:	 	 Director




  
 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SHERMAINE LASTER, Fed. Reg. No.

52285-509,

Plaintiff,

VS.

JANE BOYLE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-1913-G-BP

)

)

)

)

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. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation is ripe for review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the

undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the

Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and Conclusions

of the court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

Case 3:22-cv-01913-G-BP Document 16 Filed 12/05/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 53
SO ORDERED.

December 5, 2022.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-01913-G-BP Document 16 Filed 12/05/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 54