alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Yanca, Catherine

To: Yanca, Catherine

Subject: EO 12866 Comments - EPA Tier 3 NOPR

Date: Thursday, April 11, 2013 3:12:18 PM

Attachments: EPA_Response_to_EO_12866_Comments_Tier_3_2060-AQ86_NPRM - 3_5_2013.doc

From: Sargeant, Kathryn 

Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:51 PM

To: Whiteman, Chad

Cc: Charmley, William; Stewart, Lori; Ghanta, Venu; Nickerson, William; Jutras, Nathaniel; Nagelhout,

Peter; Brunner, Christine

Subject: EPA response to 3/5 EO 12866 Comments - EPA Tier 3 NOPR

Attached are EPA’s responses to the comments from 3/5.  As you requested, we have retained the

redline and strikethrough from the 2/28 package.  Our responses are contained in the comment

bubbles, accompanied by some additional text edits.

From: Whiteman, Chad [mailto:Chad_S_Whiteman@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:25 PM

To: Sargeant, Kathryn

Subject: RE: EO 12866 Comments - EPA Tier 3 NOPR

Kathryn,  Here are the comments in the rule document.  Thanks, Chad

From: Whiteman, Chad 

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:46 PM

To: Sargeant.Kathryn@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: EO 12866 Comments - EPA Tier 3 NOPR

Kathryn,

   Attached are additional EO 12866 comments on the preamble.  I added all of the comments to

the passback version of the preamble/rule that you passed back to me 2/28.  Please keep all of the

redline in the document, in other words do not accept any of the changes made up to this point,

when you passback to us.  I’ll try to catch up with you today to discuss.

Thanks,

Chad

From: Whiteman, Chad 

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:44 AM

To: Sargeant.Kathryn@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: EO 12866 Comments - EPA Tier 3 NOPR

Kathryn,

    Attached are additional EO 12866 comments on the RIA and a few overarching policy questions

on the Tier 3 proposed rule (RIN 2060-AQ86).  I plan to send other comments on the rule over to

you today. 

Regards,

Chad
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 24.3
                                                                    ------------


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


       KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints each of Barry F. Schwartz, Robert K. Kretzman and Michael T.
Sheehan or any of them, each acting alone, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact
and agent, with full power of substitution, for him and his name, place and
stead, in any and all capacities, in connection with the REVLON CONSUMER
PRODUCTS CORPORATION (the "Corporation") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2001 (the "Form 10-K") under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
to sign the Form 10-K in the name and on behalf of the Corporation or on behalf
of the undersigned as a director or officer of the Corporation, and any
amendments to the Form 10-K and any instrument, contract, document or other
writing, of or in connection with the Form 10-K or amendments thereto, and to
file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection
therewith, including this power of attorney, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and any applicable securities exchange or securities self-regulatory
body, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, full
power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, or his substitute or
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed these presents this 22nd
day of February, 2002.



                                                 /s/     HOWARD GITTIS
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                         HOWARD GITTIS
SPSIS-l 

. 

REF ID:A71909 

A~ SERVICE FORCES 

Signal Security Agency 

Washington 25, D. c. 

SUB.J""ECT:' llAmtenanco of Security Af'ter VJ-Day 

TO: .Ul Njlitary and Civilian Personnel Sig~..al Security Agency 

-4 September 1945 

' 

1.' ii.li personnel of Signal Security Agency have greatly contributed t6uards the uinning of the \1ar. •The strict maintenance of our 

secur5ty regulations haD been responsible to ~ high degree for our success~ I uish to cor.unend a.11 of you for your splendid cooperaGion 

in this'matter. 

2. With the termination of tho >1ar, -r:e I:lust be more tha.n e•1er 

on the o.lert to Tiithhold from our defeated enemies and all possitil.e 

future tknemies kno\1ledge of the activities performed by this Age:icy. 

The i'uturo sa.f ety of our country is dependent upon our saf'eeua.rding 

o.ny such in.t'ormc.tion. Let us do our pa.rt to insure a lasting pe!l.ce 

by no~,:; d.isseminating any :i.nformaticn concerning tho Sienal Security 

Agency br any of its activities. 

DISTRIBUTION 

"E'~ 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-20-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

--
SCWC-14-0000436

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF CENTURY CENTER, 

INC., by and through its Board of Directors, 

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

THAI HAWAIIAN MASSAGE, INC., POJJANEE VARNEY, and CHARLES VARNEY,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellants,

and

CK ENTERPRISES, LLC, 

Respondent/Intervenor-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-14-0000436; CAAP-14-0001238; CIV. NO. 1RC13-1-8808)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee’s Application for Writ of

Certiorari filed on October 14, 2016, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 25, 2016.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0000436

25-NOV-2016

02:22 PM
# C_2014219EN.01000701.xml

| 11.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 219/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 219/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 July 2014

2014/C 219/10

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3604 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 137,87 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4553 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79505 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2168 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2143 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,3770 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,440 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,40 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1420 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3956 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8997 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4520 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4515 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5431 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5451 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6911 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 380,61 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,6176 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,4401 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6120 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 753,59 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3326 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,204 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 46,3325 |
| THB | Thai baht | 43,786 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0238 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7042 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 81,9043 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3604

JPY

Japanese yen

137,87

DKK

Danish krone

7,4553

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79505

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2168

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2143

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,3770

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,440

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,40

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1420

RON

Romanian leu

4,3956

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8997

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4520

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4515

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5431

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5451

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6911

KRW

South Korean won

1 380,61

ZAR

South African rand

14,6176

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,4401

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6120

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 753,59

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3326

PHP

Philippine peso

59,204

RUB

Russian rouble

46,3325

THB

Thai baht

43,786

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0238

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7042

INR

Indian rupee

81,9043

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
November 22, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF A.I.F.

NO. 14-16-00016-CV 

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment signed November 6, 2015 in favor 

of appellee Elizabeth Jarufe, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of 

the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant Jose Eduardo Farach to pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 26, 2016

a1017

Order 

Clerk

October 26, 2016

152957 & (16)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152957

COA: 329797

Wayne CC: 91-004044-FC

VALIANT LEON WHITE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 2015 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion to remand 

is DENIED.
#### Dougherty and another vs. The North Wisconsin Railway Company.

Bill op Exceptions. (1) *When necesswry in action tried before referee.*(2) *What this court reviews in the absence of such a bill.*

1. It is the settled law of this state, that in an action tried before a referee, this court, on appeal, cannot review the referee’s finding of facts and . conclusions of law, unless the same, with the exceptions taken thereto in the circuit court, are preserved in a bill *of exceptions,*regularly settled and signed by the judge. 30 Wis., 157.

2. In the absence of such a bill of exceptions, in a case of that kind, this court can review only the pleadings and judgment; and if the complaint states a cause of action, and supports the judgment (in plaintiff’s favor), such judgment must be affirmed.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Si. Croix*County.

*403Action for a balance alleged to be due plaintiffs for work done in grading defendant’s roadbed, under an express contract The printed case contains, 1. The pleadings. 2. A stipulation for a reference of the cause to John Comstock for trial. 3. The report of said referee of the evidence taken before him, with his findings of fact, and his conclusion of law, that plaintiffs were entitled to recover of defendant the amount demanded in the complaint. This report shows various exceptions taken by the defendant to the rulings of the referee in respect to evidence. 4. Exceptions in writing taken by the defendant to the referee’s findings and legal conclusion. 5. Notice of a motion by plaintiff’s attorney for a confirmation of the report. 6. Order of confirmation; to which is appended a statement, signed by the circuit judge, that defendant excepted to the order. 7. The judgment in plaintiff’s favor. But the case does not show that any bill of exceptions was ever settled or signed.

The defendant appealed from the judgment.

*Baker &*Spooner, for appellant.

*L. P. Wetherby*and *H. A.*Wilson, with *Vilas & Bryant,*of counsel, for respondents.

Lyon, J.

The action was brought to recover an unpaid balance for work and labor alleged to have been performed by the plaintiffs for the defendant. The cause was tried before a referee, who found and reported that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment for the sum demanded in the complaint. The circuit court confirmed such report, and gave judgment in accordance therewith, and the defendant has appealed therefrom.

We find no bill of exceptions in the record. It is the settled law of this state, that, on appeal, this court cannot review the finding of facts by the referee, or his conclusions of law thereon, unless the same, and the exceptions thereto taken in the circuit court, be preserved in a bill of exceptions regularly settled and signed by the judge. *Gilbank v.*Stephenson, 30 Wis., 157. *404We Rave, therefore, nothing before us for review but the pleadings and judgment. Beyond all question the complaint states a cause of action, and the judgment is supported by the complaint. This is all we can decide on this appeal.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limit ed circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________________

No. 96-11126

(Summary Calendar)

_________________________

LINDA NIRSCHL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HARRIS METHODIST HOSPITAL,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________________________________________

Appeal from United States District Court

from the Northern District of Texas

(4:94-CV-717-Y)

__________________________________________________

April 23, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This ju dgment is AFFIRMED, essentially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS on August 7, 1996. The plaintiff sues for quid pro

quo and hostile environment sexual harassment by a lesbian supervisor under Title VII. Plaint iff’s

claim is foreclosed by this court’s holding in Garcia v. Elf Atochem N. Am.

, 28 F.3d 446, 451-52 (5thCir. 1994) that same-sex harassment claims are not viable under Title VII. Though plaintiff argues

that a very different claim is presented here than is covered by the Garcia holding, we are bound by

the determination of subsequent panels which have recognized Garcia as binding precedent on the

issue of same-sex harrassment. S ee Blake v. City of Laredo

, 58 F.3d 63 7 (5th Cir. 1995) (per

curiam) unpublished and Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc. , 83 F.3d 118 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.
No. 15-0879 – Brenda Albert v. City of Wheeling

Benjamin, Justice, concurring in result: 

 I agree with the decision to affirm the trial court, but for reasons separate 

from those set forth in Justice Loughry’s decision. I agree with my colleagues and with 

Judge Cuomo crediting the complaint as having been artfully drafted. I also agree with the 

circuit court that artfully pled claims do not trump facts when considering immunity issues. 

 After considering the nature of the petitioner’s claims, the circuit court 

dismissed this matter with prejudice on the basis that both statutory and common law 

immunity barred petitioner’s claims. Specifically, with respect to common law immunity, 

the circuit court relied upon Wolfe v. City of Wheeling, 182 W. Va. 253, 378 S.E.2d 307 

(1989), to conclude that there was no special duty owed to petitioner either pled or present, 

thereby requiring dismissal. Petitioner appealed the order below only with respect to the 

circuit court’s statutory immunity ruling. Petitioner did not raise the common law 

immunity portion of the circuit court’s ruling in her Petition for appeal. In her Reply Brief 

herein, in response to respondent’s arguments, she contends that because of the manner in 

which her complaint was pled, common law immunity is not at issue. However, being an 

independent basis of the circuit court’s decision below, the failure to appeal the common 

law immunity portion of the circuit court’s order requires affirmation of the dismissal of 

the matter below. I, therefore, concur insofar as this Court affirms the dismissal of this 

matter. 

FILED 

November 28, 2016 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                             196
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,489,903
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,489,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          412,082
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,077,658
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,489,903
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  612,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (315,991)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (315,991)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (315,991)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2014217EN.01000801.xml

| 10.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/8

---

Special Report No 8/2014 ‘Has the Commission effectively managed the integration of coupled support into the Single Payment Scheme?’

(2014/C 217/04)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 8/2014 ‘Has the Commission effectively managed the integration of coupled support into the Single Payment Scheme?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
Exhibit 32.1

 (a) Certification of Annual Report by Chief Executive Officer.

                            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 of GraphOn Corporation (the
"Company") on Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-KSB on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Dilworth, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
   of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ Robert Dilworth
                                       -------------------
                                       Robert Dilworth
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       January 15, 2007



<PAGE>


(b) Certification of Annual Report by Chief Financial Officer.


                            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 of GraphOn Corporation (the
"Company") on Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-KSB on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, William Swain, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
   of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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/ William Swain
                                       -----------------
                                       William Swain
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       January 15, 2007
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1616

ARRON FREDERICK LEMON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JEANNIE JINKYUNG HONG,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. 

(1:16-cv-00979-ELH)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arron Frederick Lemon, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arron Frederick Lemon appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lemon v. 

Hong, No. 1:16-cv-00979-ELH (D. Md. May 3, 2016). 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