alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 13, 2011

MEMORANDUM

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

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

Subject: Meeting with National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC)

Attendees :

Ellen Kurlansky, EPA/OAR/OAA/OPAR Joel Beauvais, EPA/OGC/IO Kellie Ortega, EPA/OECA/OCE/AED Phil Brooks, EPA/OECA/OCE/AED Joseph Goffman, EPA/OAR/OAA/OPMO Chuck Gray, NARUC Robin Lunt, NARUC Jon McKinney, commissioner from West Virginia

On phone :

John Betkoski, Connecticut Tracy Babbidge, Connecticut Colette Honorable, Arkansas Erin O'Connell-Diaz, Illinois Rob Powelson, Pennsylvania Matt Baker, Colorado Cheryl Roberto, Steve Lesser, A ndre Porter, Ohio Commissioners Hisham Choueiki, Klaus Lambec k, Kim Wissman, Ohio staff Jim Gardner, Kentucky Stan Wise, Georgia Jean Fox, New Jersey Kim Jones, North Carolina staff Ed McNamara, Vermont staff James Austen, New York staff

Discussion :

A general discussion was held of the proposed Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) and the potential role of PUCs in verifying reliability problems and in solving them (see attached).
Memorandum 

To United States Department of Energy 

From Benjamin Longstreth, Natural Resources Defense Council 

Date March 19, 2014 

Re Ex Parte Communication 

On Tuesday March 18, 2014, a group of energy efficiency advocates had a 

conference call with representatives of the Department of Energy to discuss 

coverage of computers and backup batteries. The efficiency advocates 

presented information concerning the products that DOE might cover, 

timeline for the effective date of standards, and potential state standards. 

The following individuals were present or on the telephone: 

Jeremy Dommu, DOE 

Dan Cohen, DOE 

Celia Sher, DOE 

Pierre Delforge, NRDC 

Benjamin Longstreth, NRDC 

Andrew deLaski, ASAP 

Anthony Fryer, ASAP 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Benjamin Longstreth 

Natural Resources Defense Council
**Exhibit 31.1****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification**I, Montgomery L. Bannerman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 ofVerso Technologies, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: April 2, 2007      /s/  Montgomery L. Bannerman
NUMBER 13-18-00379-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RUDY GUARTUCHE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 94th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appellant’s brief was originally due on October 12, 2018. On December 27, 2018, 

this Court granted appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time and directed appellant 

to file the brief on or before January 2, 2019. On January 7, 2019, the Clerk of the Court 

notified appellant’s counsel that the brief had not been filed and requested a response 
2

concerning the failure to file the brief within ten days. Counsel has nevertheless failed 

to file an appellate brief in this matter.

Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make 

appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether 

appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2) why appellant's counsel has failed to file a 

brief and whether counsel has effectively abandoned the appeal; (3) whether appellant 

has been denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) whether appellant's counsel should 

be removed; and (5) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to court-appointed counsel.

If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal, that 

present counsel should be removed, and that appellant is indigent and entitled to 

court-appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant 

in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, email address, 

telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an order 

appointing counsel.

The trial court shall cause its findings and recommendations, together with any 

orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental 

clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record 

of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental 

reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the 

expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.
3

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

31st day of January, 2019.
EXHIBIT P 

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 237-18 Filed: 03/02/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #:

19814
Election Results Voting Age Populations 

lOGovernor I 10 Att. General I 08 President I 06 Att. General I 06Auditor I 04 President 

District Kasich I Strickland I DeWine I Cordray I McCain I Obama I Mont. I Dann I Taylor I Sykes I Bush I Kerry PVI White I Hispanic I Black I Asian I Amlndian 

14 - Latoure tte 52.93% I 42.89% 1 49.58% I 43.82% 1 49.45% 1 49.06% 1 46.86% 1 53.14% 1 53.29% 1 46.72% 1 52.35% 1 47.18% R+3 92.98% 1 1.71% 1 3.63% 1 1.83% 1 o.12% 

County Population % of District 

Ashtabu la 101,497 14.08% 

l ake 230,041 31.90% 

Cuyahoga 104,689 14.52% 

Summit 132,043 18.31% 

Geauga 93,389 12.95% 

Portage 36,357 5.04% 

Trumbull 23,016 3.19% 

Total 721,032 

EXHIBIT 

REV_00000036 

Plaintiffs' Trial

Exhibit

P613

Case No. 1:18-cv-00357

Case: 1:18-cv-00357-TSB-KNM-MHW Doc #: 237-18 Filed: 03/02/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #:

19815
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofHF Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endedMarch 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis L. Hage, Chairman, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   |   /s/ Curtis L.  Hage      |          |
|--------|--------------------------------------|---------------|
|   | Curtis L. Hage, Chairman,  President |
|   | and Chief  Executive Officer         |
|   |                                 |
|   | Date:                                | May  12, 2006 |   |
|        |                                      |               |  |

 

----

*                                         A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to HF Financial Corp. and will beretained by HF Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 21.1
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
1.  Molecular Devices GmbH, a corporation organized under the Laws of Germany. 2.  Molecular Devices Ltd., a corporation organized under the Laws of Englandand Wales. 3.  Molecular Devices Skatron, a corporation organized under the Laws ofNorway. 4.  Nihon Molecular Devices, a corporation organized under the Laws of Japan. 5.  Cytion S.A., a corporation organized under the Laws of Switzerland. 6.  LJL BioSystems, a corporation organized under the Laws of Delaware. 7.  LJL BioSystems, Ltd., a corporation organized under the Laws of England andWales. 8.  Universal Imaging Corporation, a corporation organized under the Laws ofPennsylvania. 9.  Astros Acquisition Sub II, LLC, a limited liability company organized under theLaws of the State of California. 10.  Molecular Devices Korea, LLC, a limited liability company organized under theLaws of the Republic of Korea. 11.  Axon Research Pty. Ltd., a corporation organized under the Laws of the State ofVictoria, Australia.
Exhibit 99.1


                               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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the
"Report") of Western Feed Mills, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003, I Fred W. Raybourn, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, to my knowledge, 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: August 14, 2003

                                     /s/ Fred W. Raybourn
                                     Fred W. Raybourn
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                     Western Feed Mills, Inc.
```

[Federal Register: November 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 222)]
[Notices]               
[Page 70712-70713]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18no10-56]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0039]

 
General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement 
Plan; Reestablishment

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of reestablishment.

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

SUMMARY: We are giving notice that the Secretary of Agriculture has 
reestablished the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry 
Improvement Plan (Committee) for a 2-year period. The Secretary of 
Agriculture has determined that the Committee is necessary and in the 
public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior 
Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, USDA, Suite 
101, 1498 Klondike Road, Conyers, GA 30094; (770) 922-3496.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the General Conference 
Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (Committee) is to

[[Page 70713]]

maintain and ensure industry involvement in Federal administration of 
matters pertaining to poultry health.
    The Committee Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson shall be elected 
by the Committee from among its members. There are seven members on the 
Committee. This committee differs somewhat from other advisory 
committees in the selection process and composition of its membership. 
The poultry industry elects the members of the Committee. The members 
represent six geographic areas with one member-at-large. The membership 
is not subject to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's review.
    A formal request for nominations for membership is generally 
published in the Federal Register. However, the Committee is making no 
changes to its membership at this time.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of November 2010.
Pearlie S. Reed,
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010-29104 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7848
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD E. WALKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (2:01-cr-00103; 2:03-2193) Submitted: May 23, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald E. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Lou Haines, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Huntington, West Virginia; Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Samuel David Marsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ronald E. Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The notice of appeal was received in the district court shortly after expiration of the appeal period. Because Walker is incarcerated, the notice is considered filed as of the date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The record does not reveal when Walker gave the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information from the parties and to determine whether the filing was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack . The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
#### Hicks *v.*State.

Opinion delivered April 7, 1930.

*Harney McGehee,*for appellant.

*Hal L. Norwood,*Attorney General, for appellee.

Pee Curiam.

Tom Hicks prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction for the crime of uttering a forg'ed instrument. There is no bill of exceptions, and the sole reliance for a reversal of the judgment is that the court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment. Under our statute, a judgment can only be arrested on the ground that the facts alleged in the indictment did not constitute a public offense within the jurisdiction of the court. *Dover*v. *State,*165 Ark. 496, 265 S. W. 76; and *Lewis*v. *State,*169 Ark. 340, 275 S. W. 663.

The indictment contains the essential elements of the crime charged as defined in *Ferrel*v. *State,*165 Ark. 541, 265 S. W. 62. There is no error upon the face of the record, and the judgment will be affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America

v. 2:18-cr-118

Judge Marbley

Rony Javier Romero-Contreras 

ORDER

There being no objections, the court hereby adopts the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 24) that the

defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The Court accepts the

defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Information, and he is

hereby adjudged guilty on this count. The Court will defer the

decision of whether to accept the plea agreement until the

sentencing hearing.

Date: October 12, 2018 s\Algenon L. Marbley 

 Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge
[Cite as State ex rel. Beck v. Indus. Comm., 122 Ohio St.3d 33, 2009-Ohio-2365.] 

THE STATE EX REL. BECK ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. INDUSTRIAL 

COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Beck v. Indus. Comm., 

 122 Ohio St.3d 33, 2009-Ohio-2365.] 

Appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

(No. 2008-0707 — Submitted April 21, 2009 — Decided May 27, 2009.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 04AP-1094. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} Appellants appeal from a judgment of the court of appeals denying 

a request for a status conference for a purported class. 

{¶ 2} Appellants filed an original action in the Tenth District Court of 

Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus and certification of the case as a class 

action. On December 19, 2006, the court of appeals granted the writ but denied 

appellants’ request to certify the class. State ex rel. Beck v. Indus. Comm., 

Franklin App. No. 04AP-1094, 2006-Ohio-6730. Appellants did not file an 

appeal from the ruling denying certification of the class. 

{¶ 3} In February 2008, appellants filed in the court of appeals a motion 

for a status conference to review appellees’ actions with regard to all of the 

individuals who would have been in the class had the class been certified. Noting 

that it had not upheld the request for class certification, the court of appeals 

denied the motion for status conference on February 29, 2008. This appeal 

followed. 

{¶ 4} Appellants seek essentially through their appeal to now have the 

class certified. But the time for consideration of that matter expired in early 2007, 

when appellants failed to timely appeal from the court of appeals’ denial of class 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

certification, and this appeal is simply an attempt to circumvent the finality of that 

previous ruling. 

{¶ 5} Accordingly, as this court has no jurisdiction to now consider class 

certification, this cause is dismissed. 

 MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Equal Justice Foundation and Judith B. Goldstein, for appellants. 

 Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Elise Porter and Andrew J. Alatis, 

Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees Industrial Commission of Ohio and 

Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. 

__________________
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

Inconnection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Genta Incorporated(the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September  30,  2006 (the‘‘Report’’), I, Raymond P. Warrell, Jr.,M.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|  |           |                                                                                                            |
|--|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (1)  | The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |           |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)  | The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of theCompany. |

Date:    November  7,2006

|                                                                                     |  |  |        |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--------|
| /s/RAYMOND P. WARRELL, JR.,M.D.*                                                    |  |  |   |
| Name:    Raymond P. Warrell, Jr.,M.D.                           |  |  |   |
| Title:       Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer |  |  |   |
|                                                                                     |

* A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Genta Incorporated and will be retained by GentaIncorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

----
H. R. 4275 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To designate the annex building under construction for the Elbert P. Tuttle United 

States Court of Appeals Building in Atlanta, Georgia, as the ‘‘John C. Godbold 

Federal Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The annex building under construction for the United States 

courthouse located at 56 Forsyth Street in Atlanta, Georgia, known 

as the Elbert P. Tuttle United States Court of Appeals Building, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘John C. Godbold Federal 

Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the annex building referred 

to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘John 

C. Godbold Federal Building’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27-1 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 760
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27-1 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 761
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27-1 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 762
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27-1 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 763
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27-1 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 764
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27-1 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 765
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27-1 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 766
Case: 1:18-mc-00010-SJD-SKB Doc #: 27-1 Filed: 10/05/18 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 767