alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 1, 2013

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Meeting with National Rural Electri c Cooperative Association (NRECA)

Attendees :

Robert J. Wayland, EPA Kevin Culligan, EPA Nick Hutson, EPA Barrett Parker, EPA William Maxwell, EPA Paul Versace, EPA Joe Eutizi, San Miguel Electric Cooperative Erik Hoven, Dairyland Electric Cooperative Juan Ramirez, Seminole Electric Cooperative Mile Opalinski, Seminole Electric Cooperative Mike Stiefermann, Centra l electric Cooperative Todd Tolbert, Associated Electric Cooperative Rae Cronmiller, NRECA

Discussion :

A general discussion was held regarding clarifying que stions from NRECA on startup issues related to the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) reconsideration.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Gary Machetta v. Arlene Machetta

Appellate case number: 01-17-00415-CV

Trial court case number: 2007-50042

Trial court: 310th District Court of Harris County

Appellee filed a motion to seal her brief. The motion is DENIED.

Rule 9.9 provides for privacy protection for documents filed in civil cases. We strike the 

brief that appellee proposed to file under seal. Appellee may refile her brief in conformance with 

Rule 9.9 within 20 days of the date of this order. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 16, 2018
REF ID:A67037 

St~L - &BB::ifl!!1 INPM!fA!!9N' •1 1 • ' PRI I ilrr • RI - q ' P 

IUI\TECT 1 Tcur Qf tmlf-l 

toa Chief' 1 ~ Sect.i.ri\y l.p:!lf:;J 

'The Ptrnta.;an 

A \t!lt GAs-22 

S'ECt:t~llY lNFORMAffart 

1. ""· Pr:lect-...n...,, vt-.o e-e~li.,d ");-, ! •• T .. ~·, 'thot:tpe:.111~ Vice 

Oha1.ttmn ~r 'tM ~,..~hand ~o;n; ~t nc..c"d., a."td bis assistant 

"'"• Deo!'\ Po:>t, on a vid.t. to t7S!!--l baa :r-..:-portod t..~t the tom- vaa 

nll·•?lrned, ahl,y c~.iat.«11 a'\i quito intOl'"Jlative. 

a. 'It 1a dnire.-d to b:Uoat.e our a:~t.1on o.t t.'1a o.PVJrt!mity "' !ft::r.1 Ill-. ~-·6VJ'.1 what a lari• 1.o~rco*1t at4tJ.on looks 

lJ.k.1 what. it doaa1 ~"li hDv 1t 1* opert.tod, l't '1ill be at>'Pl'.C1ated 

U J'Otl 1dll c >rrtv¥ our thaiika to .ii ~ mJe the v1a1 t ao plcraooat 

mx1 profi 1;abl.o. 

CCI AG 

G~ 

S/ASST 

H/Rs Sol.t-axplanatocy-. 

'Ii. F « Frlecr..a.n/S/Asst/6049.3/26 ~ 5)-oby 

CONFIDENTIAL 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 06-20-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a - ......
Exhibit 32.1





|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|Certification of CEO and 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Century Properties Fund XVI (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 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 Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: November 8, 2007 
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: November 8, 2007 





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Pnf•to.J' .Aa4ftw L IJ.eaaea 

11-2' :r...11 Jfose 

1farrad Ddftnlt; 

Cal6ritat .. ~·· llear...,.. 

REF ID:A72052 

\ 

~· 

I u snowed tmder w!t1' lhe p.\"'Oltl.eu O't., uv Jolt. 1 -,., no' 

be able 'o wit ="-1 1 Apftl 'o 4fscvu t!dap tdth J'O'Q.. 1'1eanwbtle 

w aft at.lll awatitng 70'rtr YU COA'1-aet. 

fMCl our COUHl&t!on of lact veek I lsd'ense4 'bat J'ft wn 

offerinc' 10-V cemee \o a f$r- \he smith of .wpat. aa4 tn aa4 D.a. 

WN e.qura.1,y atb'aottYG. tt wn14 balp wr ettona \o rapport SCA..liiP 

if ~u. vow.a £O to w.. i111 70" dO \hist lui&m.tDl.17 I erpect 

to be t.hwo for at lout tbs f'tnt IS)D-\h. ud ftl7 J>ftbabl.7 longer. 

:ie e:peet. Bob SbaJr. Oflca.1' lkltbans and Phil .Tolmson to 'M cut there 

the Ml tim from b:are. aad ~le llb& Joe DlclNs natl A~ S!nkoT 

pan Hu. 

t bope 70v ton 5? lmsiaees 1• et.raig:iiened m. A.a icn wrow 

you P&i4P ntMd.s one • 

.fe atUl hai.vGa&\ reeolftd the dgaal on ~·s aata urtTal., 

llut 008 na.7 lie 8tranded !a Parts. I hope so. 

?lease le-t ue ~ fJ'o1' J"OQ .a. gin 1ffl ~· to Oecrp Mseay 

and Joe ~and cq oi.her loaels vtioa I krtOY. 

/ 

ca 1 Ill"... J'r!edaa V 

a:>lO (2) 

34 - SCWIP 

Co'Z'41"11T. 

L A. 1J!lll.D. 

Wet 

Jlathem\toal Jlneanh Dt.S.atea 

lffaafthm~ 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 02-12-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

.................................... ._.._. ____________ ._.._.._.._.._.._. ..........
### Faulk, Scott (OST)

From: Sent: To: Subject: Brianna ka'iulani Lyman <kaihiwalani@yahoo.com> Thursday, November 28, 2013 4:26 PM Faulk, Scott (OST) Department ofTransportation

Dear Department ofTransportation, .· .. ·.;

•.. ···, : i ···;

I have been flying Mokulele for over4 years, and I am writing to support Mokulele Airlines 4-year bid link Kaulapapa, Kahalui, Honolulu, Kapalua, and Ho'olehua. Mokulele will be the best candidate as they have the lowerfares, experienced friendly agents, frequent flights, mulitple islands and ease of booking. It is importantwe have safe, stable and affordable service to Kalaupapa. Please select Mokuleleto serve Kalaupapa for 4 years. Mahala, Kenny Dudoit-Enos

1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-8018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO GIL CORONA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-99-307, CA-01-1421)

Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: February 3, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roberto Gil Corona, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Gil Corona seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal based upon the district

court’s reasoning that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

is not retroactively applicable on collateral review under United

States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S.

Ct. 573 (2001). See United States v. Corona, Nos. CR-99-307; CA01-1421 (D. Md. Sept. 21, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

               CERTIFICATION 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 Interactive Data
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Steven G. Crane, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         (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.

Dated: March 31, 2003

                                         /s/ Steven G. Crane
                                         ------------------------------------
                                         Steven G. Crane
                                         Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Interactive Data Corporation and will be retained by Interactive
Data Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request
' . REF ID:A2263433 

BORIS HAGELIN. JR. 

. 909 BARR BUILDING 

TELEPHONE: !202! 296-3313 

TELEX: 440249 

CABLES: HAGELIN 

\~ 

910 17TH STREET, N. W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 

U.S. A. 

William F. Friedr.ian 

210 Second Street S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Friedman: 

July 31, 1969 

Please find enclosed a copy for one of the pages from 

Consumer's Report which describes an inexpensive home copying 

machine. 

WASHINGTON, 0. C. 

I have seen the same machine advcrtized in some stationery 

stores and if you both have the same interest, I would be most 

happy to look into this machine. 

Please also remember that my offer that Mr. Dobler or I 

would come and pick up any materi<il for which you would like to 

have a larger amount of copies still stands. 

Give my best regards to you and Mrs. Friedrnan. 

Sincerely yours, 

Boris llage lin, Jr. 

Boll: SS 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 08-06-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
BORIS HAGELIN, JR. 

909 BARR BUILDING 

910 17TH STREET, N. W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20008 

U.S. A. 

William F. Frie<lman 

310 Second Street S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20003
99-455.

#### State v. Krouse.

Lucas App. No. L-98-1082. *Sua sponte,*cause held for the decision in 98-1779, *State v. Conyers,*Lucas App. No. L-97-1327; briefing schedule stayed.
(EXHIBIT G) 

UAV Maintenance LOG 

Drone Model/Type 

Serial Number 

No. Maintenance Issue Resolution Sign Off Date 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 
 (EXHIBIT G) 

UAV Maintenance LOG 

Drone Model/Type 

Serial Number 

No. Maintenance Issue Resolution Sign Off Date 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

26 

28
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CMC
SECURITIES CORPORATION IV'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 828,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               52
<BONDS>                                        828,115
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                          31
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   828,199
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,907
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    20
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              75,967
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (80)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (80)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (80)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
99-394.

#### State ex rel. Besser v. Ohio State Univ.

In Mandamus. On answer of respondent, amended motion for judgment on pleadings, and amended motion for judgment on pleadings.

This cause originated in this court upon the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. Upon the court’s determination pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5),

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the parties’ motions for judgment on the pleadings are DENIED and that an alternative writ is hereby GRANTED and that the following schedule be set for the presentation of evidence and the filing of briefs:

The parties shall file any evidence they intend to present within twenty days of this entry. Relators shall file their merit brief within twenty days of the filing of the evidence; respondents shall file their merit brief within twenty days of the filing of relators’ merit brief; and relator shall file any reply brief within five days thereafter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that relators’ claims relating to the OSU Hospitals Board and OSU Strategic Planning Committee minutes are DISMISSED as moot.
# CE2004078EN.01065101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/651 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/651

---

(2004/C 78 E/0692)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3820/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Connection to electricity and water supplies

Subject:

Further to Written Question E-2399/03 and the Commission's reply, will the Commission please reply to the same question but with regard to the parts of Scotland that are not within the Highland and Islands Region?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

(27 January 2004)

3 746 381 people in Scotland live in areas eligible under Objective 2 of the Structural Funds or in Objective 2 transitional areas. The interventions are organised under three Objective 2 Programmes in accordance with Commission Decisions taken on 21 and 22 March 2001: the West of Scotland Objective 2 Programme, the East of Scotland Objective 2 Programme and the South of Scotland Objective 2 Programme.

Under Objective 2, the interventions relate to the diversification and revitalisation of areas in economic decline. Infrastructures in these areas are supported where they are ‘a prerequisite for the location or development of job-creating economic activities’. In all three Objective 2 Programmes there is provision for actions to promote the adoption of waste minimisation, energy efficiency and environmental management to benefit economic activity and better protect the environment through more efficient use of resources.

The responsibility for deciding on the selection of projects co-financed by European Structural Funds lies with the Regional Partnership for each Objective 2 Programme. For the West of Scotland Programme, this is the Strathclyde European Partnership Ltd (SEP Ltd), for the East of Scotland, this is the East of Scotland European Partnership Ltd (ESEP Ltd) and for the South of Scotland, this is the South of Scotland Partnership (SOSEP).

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5926

JAMES A. CLEMENT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

Elizabeth V. Hallanan, District Judge.

(CR-92-195)

Submitted: May 14, 1996

Decided: August 6, 1996

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James Clement appeals the district court's order revoking his

supervised release and imposing a sentence of twenty-four months

incarceration. Clement contends that the district court clearly erred

when it found that he had violated the terms of his supervised release1

by committing a second-degree sexual assault2 upon an elderly

woman at the nursing home where he was employed. Finding that the

district court's factual determination was not clearly erroneous, we

affirm.

At the revocation proceedings, the district court found the victim

of the assault to be highly credible and her testimony compelling. The

victim testified that Clement forcibly assaulted her while giving her

a bath alone in her room at the nursing home. When she told Clement

to stop, Clement refused. Additionally, the nursing home administrator and director of nursing testified to the victim's reputation for

veracity, and that they had never known her to lie, exaggerate, or suffer from delusions. Further, the victim's description of the assault

remained consistent from the time she reported the assault until she

testified in court.

Under such circumstances, we cannot find that the district court

abused its discretion in revoking Clement's supervised release; therefore, we affirm the district court's revocation of Clement's supervised

release.3 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

_________________________________________________________________

1 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West Supp. 1994).

2 W. VA. CODE § 61-8B-4 (1992).

3 See United States v. Stephenson , 928 F.2d 728, 731 (6th Cir. 1991).

 2
#### Losse, Appellant, vs. Peoria Cordage Company, Respondent.

*December 2*

December *16, 1902.*

*Contracts: Evidence: Appeal and error: Direction of verdict.*

In an action for damages for breach, of an alleged contract of sale of binding twine, it is not error to direct a verdict for defendant where the evidence shows that neither quantity, quality or price of the twine was ever definitely- agreed upon.

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: Obben T. Williams, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Eor the appellant there was a brief by Turner, *Pease &*Turner, and oral argument by *W. J. Turner.*

Eor the respondent there was a brief by *John F. Burlce,*attorney, and *Harrison 8. Green,*of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr.' Green.*

Winslow, J.

The plaintiff is a merchant engaged in the mail-order business in Milwaukee, and brought this action against the defendant to recover damages for alleged breach of contract. The plaintiff’s claim was that in December, 1897, he made an oral contract with the defendant by which defendant was to manufacture and deliver to the plaintiff during the season of 1898 a large quantity of binder twine of specified qualities, at fixed prices, and that the defendant failed and refused to carry out the 'contract. The defendant denied that it ever entered into the contract claimed or any contract to manufacture or deliver any specified quantity of twine. The action was tried before a jury, and at the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.

The verdict was directed because, in the opinion of the trial judge, there was no evidence which, upon the most favorable view, would have justified the jury in finding that a con*130tract such, as tbe plaintiff claims was ever made. Careful examination of the evidence, as contained in the bill of exceptions, convinces us tbat the direction was right. There was much negotiation and much talk of quantities and qualities and prices, and there was also considerable correspondence, but the utmost that can be said is that there was evidently an expectation on both sides that the plaintiff would purchase his season’s twine of the defendant. Neither quantity, quality, nor price was ever definitely agreed upon. A review of the evidence would be of no value.

*By the GourL*— Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.01



              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-71462, Form S-8 No. 333-05253, Form S-8 No. 333-15191 and
Form S-8 No. 333-61997) pertaining to Occupational Health + Rehabilitation Inc
of our report, dated March 27, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Occupational Health + Rehabilitation Inc included in
the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.



                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 2000
• • 

USCIB: 14. 3/10 

26 January 1955 

S!ISE.m 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB~ 

Subject.: Replacement of SUSLO, London. 

Reference: USCIB 14.3/9 (Item not on agenda, lllth USCIB meeting). 

1. Pursuant to the USCIB decision contained in the reference, this 

office requested that SUSLO, London obtain the views of I.SIB regarding 

the cogtemplated assignment of Coilll'.Il.a:l}~e~ Prescott H. Currier to tne 

position of SUSLO, London upon the expiration of Colonel B. S. Pulling's 

tour of duty. 

2. SUSLO, London has this date advised that LSIB concurs in 

Commander Currier's appointment. 

USCIB: 14.3/10 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 03-04-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

SECRET