alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1837 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

170) IV-C-10 

Docket Number: 

A-84-33 

Printed 11/14/2008 3:48:11 PM Sheet 170 of 238 
J 

P.2 

&MX 

| WT Z ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - * ^ V 

\ ^ / WASHINGTON. DC . 20460 

JUL I 5 1988 

OFFICK OF 

QOTECT^O*' CtNtdALCOUNII L 

Joseph J. Brecher 

Attorney at Law 

506 15th Street 

Oakland, California 94612 

Re: Proposed Regulation of Surface Coal Mines 

Dear Mr. Brecher: 

This is in response to your letter regarding EPA's pending 

proposal to regulate surface coal mines under the new source 

review provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Since the time of oral argument in Sierra Club v. Thomas, 

No. 86-1134 (D.C. Cir.), EPA has revised its projections as to 

the expected completion date for the strip mines rulemaking. 

This revision is due in part to the press of other, high-priority 

rulemaking projects, many of which are subject to court-ordered 

deadlines, and to limitations on Agency resources. It is also 

attributable in part to the need for additional consideration of 

the many difficult and complex issues at stake in this 

rulemaking, including the actions of other agencies. 

In particular, since oral argument in Sierra Club v. Thomas, 

the Department of Interior (DOI) has published a proposal to 

regulate fugitive dust from roads at surface coal mines, 

including dust generated by the movement of equipment. See 52 

Fed. Reg. 42258, 42262 (Nov. 3, 1987). As discussed in the 

attached letter commenting on the DOI proposal, EPA believes that 

the prospective road dust rule represents an excellent 

opportunity to protect lands in the vicinity "of mining operations 

by minimizing a major portion of particulate matter emissions. 

Accordingly, EPA believes that the outcome of the DOI rulemaking 

is highly relevant to EPA's final action on its own proposal. 

I note that the most recent semiannual regulatory agenda 

projects final action on the DOI road dust rule in June 1988, and 

projects final action on EPA's strip mines rulemaking for October 

1988. See 53 Fed. Reg. 13947 and 14392 (April 25, 1988). 

However, these dates are merely estimates, and because of the 

many variables involved, I am unable to specify a firm date for 

EPA's final action. Indeed, DOI apparently has not met its June 
J P.3 

- 2 -

1988 target date. In addition, I have been informed by the 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards that the EPA date in 

the regulatory agenda has been subject to further change, and 

that the Agency now anticipates that it will take final action in 

mid-1989. Nevertheless, I can advise you that EPA is continuing 

to work on this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Jregory B\ Foote, Attorney 

Air and Radiation Division 

Attachment
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 16

- 00144

- CR

Anthony Lee SMITH,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10000

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

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

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED July 19, 2017.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
# comS^P^ 132015 NO. PD-1068-15 CHRISTOPHER ALAN LAWRENCE Appellant/Petitioner V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS Appelie/Respondent § § § IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF AUSTIN, TEXAS

MOTION TO SUSPEND T.R.A.P. RULE 9.3 NUMBER OF COPIES
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE[S] OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Christopher Alan Lawrence, pro se, and files this 

### FILEDIN Motion to Suspend Rule 9.3, Number of Copies, andAn,t^g&oxETpf this Motion would show the followinq: „.^,.
i. 

## Appellant/Petitioner is aprisoner inTexasDepartmentoP^nlininal Justice, Institutional Division. This Motion and the Petition for 

### Discretionary Review are filed pro se, as a prisoner there is no access to a copier. Therefore Appellant/Petitioner has no way to create the number of copies required by Rule 9.3 and therefore 

### humbly requests that this Honorable Court suspend Rule 9.3, Number of Copies and accept the Petition for Discretionary Review as one original copy.
Respectfully Submitted on this 6th day of November, 2015 By: 

# %/W~M^l/iLlf^^ IRISTOPHER ALAN LAWRENCE TDCJ # 1923479 3001 S. EMILY DR. BEEVILLE, TX 78102CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### The undersigned Appellant/Petitioner hereby certifies that a 

### true andcorrect copy of the foregoing Motion to SuspendT.R.A.P. 

### Rule 9.3, Number of Copies has beenmailed, byU.S. Mail, postage 

### prepaid, to the District Attorney, Appellate Division, Comal County Courthouse Annex, 150 S. Seguin Avenue Suite 307, New Braunfels, 

### Texas 73130, and to ths State ProsecutingAttorney, P.O.Box 12405 

### Austin, Texas 78711. On this 6th dayofNovember , 2015.


# a

CHRISTOPHER ALAN LAWRENCE T0CJ # 1923479
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1166

BENNIE LLOYD OUTLAW, a/k/a Sam Anthony, Sr.,
Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. SAM ANTHONY, SR., a/k/a Bennie Lloyd Outlaw,

Defendant – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:08-CV-00597-JBF-FBS)

Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 26, 2009

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bennie Lloyd Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Bennie Lloyd Outlaw appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. See Outlaw v. Anthony , No. 2:08-cv00597-JBF-FBS (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2009). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7428** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TONY RANDALL LOGAN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00012

- WO

- 1; 1:12

- cv - 00699

- WO

- JEP )

Submitted : January 28, 2016 Decided: February 18, 2016

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Tony Randall Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney s , Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding preced ent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Tony Randall Logan seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation s of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit j ustice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the distr ict court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (20 00); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Logan has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny

* We note that the timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. (Continued)3 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We d ispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

United States v. Midgette , 478 F.3d 616, 621

– 22 (4th Cir. 2007); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

– 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Because Logan, a pro se litigant, received notice of the consequences of failing to object and yet failed to file objections to the magistrate judge’s initial recommendation, Logan has waived appellate review of his claims under United States v. Simmons , 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). See Midgette , 478 F.3d at 621

– 22.
EXHIBIT 32.1

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Mark T. Walton certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-Q/A  of Travis  Boats &
Motors, Inc.;

2. Based on my  knowledge,  this  quarterly  report  does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made, not  misleading  with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included in this quarterly  report,  fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition,  results of operations,  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the  registrant  and have: a) Designed
such  disclosure  controls and  procedures to ensure that  material  information
relating to the registrant,  including its  consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made
known to us by others within those entities,  particularly  during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrant's  disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation  Date");  and
c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,  based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
the  registrant's  board of  directors  (or persons  performing  the  equivalent
functions):  a) All  significant  deficiencies  in the  design or  operation  of
internal  controls  which could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
record,  process,  summarize,  and report financial data and have identified for
the registrant's  auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls;  and b)
Any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and I have  indicated  in this
quarterly report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                                                /s/ Mark T. Walton
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Mark T. Walton, President

Date: February 18, 2004
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1078

_____________________________

JENNIFER LORENA SPARACINO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

October 16, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Robin B. Rogers, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2692 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 454
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2692

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4558 Broadway in New York, New York, as the ``Stanley Michels Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 18, 2018

Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                             June 14, 2018

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4558 Broadway in New York, New York, as the ``Stanley Michels Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STANLEY MICHELS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4558 Broadway in New York, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Stanley Michels Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Stanley 
Michels Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 454

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2692

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 4558 Broadway in New York, New York, as the ``Stanley Michels Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 14, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Paradise, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Melvin S. Gordon, as Chief Executive Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Paradise, Inc.



|                                     |  |                     
|------------------------------------ |  | --------------------
|/s/ Melvin S. Gordon                 |  | Date: March 31, 2009
|Melvin S. Gordon                     |  |                     
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |  |
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2734 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2734

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2018

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``George P. Kazen 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. GEORGE P. KAZEN FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate June 7, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David Trick,
as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.



|                |  |            
|--------------- |  | -----------
|/s/ David Trick
|Name:           |  | David Trick

|       |  |                                                                
|------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Title: |  | Senior Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|Date:  |  | April 9, 2010
## SERVED JULY 26, 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC.
IN THE MATTER OF ANTHONY TREMBLAY FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BEASSIGNED]
· (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2012-0780

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

## 30 Cj: 

## 30

This proceeding (heretofore designated as**~ase** No. 2012NE700040) has been assigned to AdministrativeLawJudge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other

Attachment

- Service List

### SERVICELIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1
Anthony Tremblay, Respondent 5 Jade Road Merrimack, NH 03054 

### ONE COPY

Christopher Waterman, 

### Respondent's Counsel Demeo & Associates, P.C. One Lewis Wharf · Boston, MA 02110 TEL: 617-263-2600 FAX: 617-263-2300 Vincent J. Bennett, 

### Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel, ANE-7 NewEngland Region Federal Aviation Administration 12 NewEngland Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803-5299 TEL: 781-238-7058 FAX: 781-238-7044 The Honorable J.E. Sullivan,

### Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2132 FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0780 (Civil Penalty Action)



## ..

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000, Washington, DC 20591;Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01020**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  01020\01020_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 01020\01020_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 01020\01020_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook 

### x 01020\01020_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01020\01020_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01020\01020_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01020\01020_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01020\01020_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01020\01020_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01020\01020_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01020\01020_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

01020\Certification Statement_01020.pdf Plant certification statement 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_IPL's Response to EPA ICR_IPL_091510.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_SGS A5-2 MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_SGS A5-2 MAP-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_SGS A5-3 WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_SGS D2-3 Ash Pond Study.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_SGS D3-1 D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_SGS F5-6 G3-2 MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_SGS Part G data review summary 07_14_2010 sampling event.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_SGS Part G data review summary 07_21_2010 sampling event.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_SGS Part G data review summary 07_28_2010 sampling event.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_SGS Part G data review summary 08_05_2010 sampling event.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01020\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS\01020_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.