alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Meeting Log

Includes all face-to-face meetings and phone calls between EPA personnel and stakeholders 

following signature of the RFS Renewable Identification Number (RIN) Quality Assurance 

Program Proposed Rule (78 FR 12158, February 21, 2013).

Date: 2/27/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, MI and Washington, D.C. via video

and phone call-in

EPA attendees: 

John Weihrauch (DC), Mary

Manners (Ann Arbor), Michael 

Prince (Ann Arbor), Brent 

Williams (Ann Arbor), Jeff 

Kodish (Denver), Tony Miller 

(DC)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Michael Whitney, General Manager, Musket Corporation

Tyson Redpath, Russell Group

Topics/issues/agenda:

Musket Corporation initiated the meeting to discuss the proposed rule, specifically the 

components of QAP A and the proposed exporter provisions.

Date: 03/04/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, MI via phone call

EPA attendees:

Michael Prince (Ann Arbor)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Ramon Benavides, Global Renewable Strategies

Topics/issues/agenda:

Discussed QAP requirements.
Date: 03/05/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, MI and Washington, D.C. via phone 

call-in

EPA attendees:

Michael Prince (Ann Arbor), 

Brent Williams (Ann Arbor), 

Mary Manners (Ann Arbor), 

Lindsay Fitzgerald (DC), Robert 

Anderson (DC)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Wade Watson, Weaver LLP

Mike Stein, Weaver LLP

Steve Schwarzbach, Weaver LLP

Topics/issues/agenda:

Weaver initiated the meeting to discuss their proposed QAP along with general feedback 

regarding the proposed rule, specifically issues surrounding using a QAP on RINs generated 

from imported fuel.

Date: 03/07/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, MI via phone call

EPA attendees:

Michael Prince (Ann Arbor)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Wade Watson, Weaver LLP

Topics/issues/agenda:

Discussed requirements for importers and general QAP information.

Date: 03/14/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, MI via phone call

EPA attendees:

Michael Prince (Ann Arbor)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Wade Watson, Weaver LLP

Sandra Dunphy, Weaver LLP

Topics/issues/agenda:

Discussed requirements for QAPs.
Date: 03/14/2013 Location: Ann Arbor, MI via phone call

EPA attendees:

Mary Manners (Ann Arbor), 

Brent Williams (Ann Arbor), 

Suzanne Bessette (Ann Arbor), 

Michael Prince (Ann Arbor), 

Robert Anderson (DC), John 

Weihrauch (DC), Lindsay 

Fitzgerald (DC)

Stakeholder attendees and affiliation:

Chris Bliley, Growth Energy

Bob Whiteman, POET

Geoff Cooper, RFA

Topics/issues/agenda:

Discussed producer comments/suggestions on QAP program.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 233 (Monday, December 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30727]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-389-013]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate 
Filing

November 28, 2000.

    Take notice that on November 20, 2000, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing the following contract for 
disclosure of a recently negotiated rate transaction: FTS-2 Service 
Agreement No. 69942 between Columbia Gulf Transmission Company and 
Murphy Exploration & Production Company dated November 14, 2000.
    Transportation service is scheduled to commence upon Commission 
authorization.
    Columbia Gulf states that copies of the filing have been served on 
all parties on all the official service list created by the Secretary 
in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30727 Filed 12-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 139

To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for a maximum speed

limit of 65 miles per hour on highways with 4 lanes or more located

outside of urbanized areas, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. COMBEST introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To amend title 23, United States Code, to provide for a

maximum speed limit of 65 miles per hour on highways

with 4 lanes or more located outside of urbanized areas,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT.

4 Section 154(a) of title 23, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) in clause (1) by inserting ‘‘or any other

7 highway with 4 lanes or more open to traffic’’ after

8 ‘‘Interstate System’’; and
2

•HR 139 IH

1 (2) in clause (2) by inserting ‘‘, or any other

2 highway within its jurisdiction with 4 lanes or more

3 open to traffic,’’ after ‘‘Interstate System’’.

4 SEC. 2. EFFECTS ON HIGHWAY SAFETY.

5 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of Transportation shall

6 conduct a study of the effects on highway safety of in7 creasing the maximum speed limit above 55 miles per hour

8 on highways with 4 lanes or more open to traffic under

9 the amendments made by section 1 of this Act.

10 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date

11 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transpor12 tation shall transmit to Congress a report on the results

13 of the study conducted under this section.

Æ
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 07582

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 07582\07582_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

07582\07582_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

07582\07582_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 07582\07582_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07582\07582_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07582\07582_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07582\07582_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 07582\07582_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

07582\Certification Statement Plant ID 07582.pdf Plant certification statement

07582\Supplemental Documents\07582_A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 07582\Supplemental Documents\07582_A5-3 and D3-1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           12884
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 12884
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   22267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           932456
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         75950
<OTHER-SE>                                    (986139)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     22267
<SALES>                                           6849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  6849
<CGS>                                             9051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                489473
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (491675)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (491675)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (491675)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 6005

THOMAS M. ACCARDI, SR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. JOHN HERRING, Superintendent; ROBERT N. BURGESS, Unit Manager; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER COTTO; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LAWRENCE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 5:19

- ct

- 03107

- D )

Submitted : June 23, 2021 Decided: August 18, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Thomas M. Accardi, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Thomas M. Accardi , Sr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim

. Accardi forfeited appellate review of the portion of the district court’s order dismissing Defendant s Herring and Burgess from the action

. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). As to the claims against the remaining Defendants, w e have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Accardi v. Herring , No. 5:19

- ct

- 03107

- D (E.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2019). W e deny Accardi’s request to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered s ubmitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAY 3 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. JOSE GOMEZ-GOMEZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 98-4156 (D.C. No. 98-CR-89-W) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges. ** Mr. Gomez-Gomez appeals his sentence after being co nvicted by a jury of reentering the United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court increased his offense level by s ixteen levels, pursuant to USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A), because it found that he was prev iously deported after an aggravated felony conviction. Mr. Gomez-Gomez argu es for the first time on- 2 -

appeal that both convictions that the court relied upon were misdemeanors rather than felonies. His counsel, believing the appeal t o be without merit, has filed an Anders brief, see Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), and requested permission to withdraw. Our jurisdiction arises un der 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 1342(a). We grant counsel’s request and a ffirm. The district court’s determination that Mr. Gomez-G omez was convicted of two felonies is a factual determination which we re view for clear error, but we review the court’s interpretation of the sentencingguidelines de novo. See United States v. Wiseman , No. 97-2301, 1999 WL 190553, at *21 (10th Cir. Ap r. 5, 1999). The addendum to the presentence report indi cates that for both offenses, Mr. Gomez-Gomez “was allowed the privilege of a reduction to a misdemeanor if he completed probation successfully.” V R. Addendum at 1. However, because Mr. Gomez-Gomez was subsequently deported, the offe nses were not reduced to misdemeanors. See id. Mr. Gomez-Gomez offers nothing to contradict thes e findings, and thus we conclude that the district co urt did not err in increasing his offense level pursuant to USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 1.4


                      ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES OF
                   INCORPORATION OF CYCOMM INTERNATIONAL INC.


            The undersigned corporation, by and through its Board of Directors
      as authorized by W.S. Section 17-16-602(d), adopts the following amendment
      to its Articles of Incorporation:

            FIRST:      The name of the corporation is Cycomm International Inc.

            SECOND:     The following Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation
was adopted by the Board of Directors on February 19, 1998 in accordance with
the provisions of W.S. Section 17-16-602:

            Section 9 of the Articles of Incorporation of Cycomm International
      Inc. was amended to read as follows:

            "9. The aggregate number of shares or other ownership units which it
      has the authority to issue, itemized by classes, par value of shares,
      shares without par value and series, if any, within a class is:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NUMBER OF SHARES    CLASS          SERIES            PAR VALUE
                                                     PER SHARE
<S>                 <C>            <C>               <C>
Unlimited           Common         N/A               Without par value

   30,000           Preference     A-Convertible
                                   Redeemable
                                   Preferred
                                   Stock             Without par value

       20           Preference     B-Convertible
                                   Redeemable
                                   Preferred
                                   Stock             Without par value

Unlimited           Preference     N/A               Without par value"
</TABLE>
<PAGE>   2
      THIRD: The text of the Amendment determining the terms of the class or
series of shares is: "The designation of its Series B of twenty (20) shares of
Convertible Preferred Stock, no par value per share, created by the Board of
Directors of the Corporation pursuant to the authority granted it by the
Corporation's Articles of Incorporation, as amended, is 'Series B Convertible
Redeemable Preferred Stock'".

      Dated: 19 February 1998.



                                    CYCOMM INTERNATIONAL INC.
S E A L

ATTEST:
                                    BY:  /s/ ALBERT I. HAWK
                                        ---------------------------------------
/s/ MICHAEL R. SKOFF                    ALBERT I. HAWK, President
------------------------------
MICHAEL R. SKOFF,
Assistant Secretary


                                      -2-
#### DICKSON et al. v. ELLIS COUNTY LEVEE IMP. DIST. NO. 10 et al.

No. 7615.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 24, 1940.

J. L. Gammon, A. R. Stout, and G. Goodwin Sweatt, all of Waxahachie, for plaintiffs in error.

J. P. Moseley, of Ennis, for defendants in error.

*261GERMAN, Commissioner.

This is a companion case to the case of J. M. Dickson et al. v. Navarro County Levee Improvement District No. 3, 139 S.W.2d 257, this day decided. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is reported in 124 S.W.2d 946.

The suit was instituted by E. K. Atwood as relator, and while same was pending in the Court of Civil Appeals the Legislature repealed the statute under which he was authorized to represent the district as relator, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St. art. 8017, as the suit was abated by reason of such repeal, the judgments of the Court of Civil Appeals and of the district court are reversed, and the cause is dismissed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.

SHARP, J., disqualified and not sitting.
QAADIR SAINTLOIT
,
Petitioner,

v.

JOHNISE SAINT E LOIT
, Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FI LED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 1053

Opinion filed May 27, 2015.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Qaadir Saintloit, pro se , Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the mer its. See Thomas v. State,

Dept. of Revenue , 74 So. 3d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (stating that absent a showing

that an express and distinct demand for performance was made, mandamus will not lie

to compel a court to rule on a pleading in a civil matter); ac cord Al

- Hakim v. State
,

783 S o. 2d 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

BENTON, CLARK, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Gloria Match, Respondent, v Robert Match, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kristin Booth Glen, J.), entered March 27, 1990, which directed defendant’s counsel to produce his time records, is unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and referred back to the Trial Justice to fix a reasonable fee for plaintiff’s counsel.

Since there has been a full evidentiary hearing before a Special Referee on the issue of counsel’s fee, and upon an evaluation of the entire record, including the previous record before this court, we find that there is ample evidence upon which the trial court can establish a reasonable counsel fee.

*227Based upon the record herein, and the Special Referee’s finding that plaintiff’s attorney’s records, relative to time expended, were "deplorable”, we find it to be an abuse of discretion to shift the burden of proving plaintiff’s counsel’s fee to the defendant’s counsel, by utilizing defendant’s counsel’s time records to assist in determining the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s counsel’s request for attorney’s fees. This does not mean, however, that recourse to an opposing attorney’s time sheets may not be proper in an appropriate case. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Ellerin, J., concurs in a separate memorandum as follows: I concur in the reversal because I believe that the record here provides the trial court with an ample basis for determining the amount of counsel fees that will fairly and reasonably compensate plaintiff’s attorney for the extensive work done in the case without any need for reference to defendant’s counsel’s time sheets. This does not mean, however, that recourse to an opposing matrimonial attorney’s time sheets would not be proper in an appropriate case — as for example, where the more affluent spouse takes issue with the reasonableness of the time spent on the matter by the opposing spouse’s attorney. *[See,*146 Misc 2d 986.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM GLOBAL WATER TECHNOLOGIES' ANNUAL REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         707,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,346,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                   136,029
<INVENTORY>                                    888,102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,413,312
<PP&E>                                       1,369,960
<DEPRECIATION>                                 601,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,263,930
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,472,976
<BONDS>                                      1,989,390
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    250,100
<COMMON>                                         3,083
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,493,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,263,930
<SALES>                                     67,952,967
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            67,952,967
<CGS>                                       60,851,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,821,405
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             266,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,870,897
<INCOME-TAX>                                   566,115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,304,782
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,284,782
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.004
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.004


</TABLE>