alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0306[1]

From: Bradley Nelson [nelson.brad@ecrweb.com]

Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:30 AM

To: King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: 'Tanya Parise'; fitzsimons.graham@ecrweb.com

Subject: Urban/Rural Designations for 2002 NEI Engines

Attachments: RICE U1U2.xls

Melanie,

I have attached a spreadsheet that provides the counts for the U1/U2/Rural designations for the reciprocating 

internal combustion engines extracted from the 2002 NEI database by fuel type. The designations are based 

on the following U.S. Bureau of Census definitions and were obtained from the EPA TTN Air Toxics website 

http://www.epa.gov/airtoxics/urban/pop1u_r.pdf . 

• Urban-1 (U1) counties that include a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) with a population greater than 

250,000; 

• Urban-2 (U2) counties that do not include a MSA with a population greater than 250,000, but the Bureau of 

Census designates more than 50 percent of the county population as urban; and 

• Rural (R) counties that do not include a MSA with a population greater than 250,000, and the Bureau of 

Census designates more than 50 percent of the county population as rural.

The engine inventory data was extracted from the 2002 NEI database by querying the database using 

SCC codes for reciprocating internal combustion engines (e.g., 201-XX-XXX, 202-XX-XXX, 203-XX-XXX). 

The query provided data for the following fields from the 2002 NEI database: FIPS code, State Facility 

ID, NEI ID, Facility Name, Site Description, SCC code, NAICS code, SIC code, Latitude, Longitude, Unit 

ID, Capacity Information, Control Device Description, and Emission Release Point ID. Of the 44,088 

records that were extracted from the 2002 NEI database, only 39,235 were unique engines that 

provided both latitude and longitude information. A subset of the unique engine data containing the 

following fields: NEI ID, Unit ID, SCC code, latitude, and longitude fields was extracted from the NEI 

query information and input into ArcGIS. The ArcGIS program mapped the engines using the 

latitude/longitude information onto a shape file of the U.S. county designations for U1, U2, and Rural. 

 The ArcGIS designation results were then sorted by fuel type and U1/U2/Rural designations to obtain 

a count of the engines in each of the categories. The attached spreadsheet provides the total 

inventory of unique engines from the 2002 NEI database that were designated U1/U2/Rural and a 

summary of the U1/U2/Rural designations by fuel type. 

Bradley W. Nelson

EC/R Incorporated

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 250

Chapel Hill, NC 27514

(919) 484-0222 x323

Fax: 919-484-0122 

nelson.brad@ecrweb.com

http://www.ecrweb.com/

Page 1
EXHIBIT 23





                [LETTERHEAD OF ADDISON, ROBERTS & LUDWIG, P.C.]




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT


We hereby  consent to the use of our report dated  November 6, 1998,  related to
the consolidated financial statements of Wavetech  International,  Inc. included
in  or  made  a  part  of  this  Form  10-KSB,  and  further  its  inclusion  by
incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration  Statement  on Form S-3 (File
Number 333-65135),  and to the reference to our Firm under the caption "Experts"
in the Prospectus.


                                        /s/ Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, P.C.

                                        Addison, Roberts & Ludwig, P.C.



Tucson, Arizona
November 25, 1998
Exhibit 32.2  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 of SED International Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lyle Dickler, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.  Dated: September 21, 2010   /s/ Lyle Dickler Lyle Dickler Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1999
<CASH>                                           1,539
<SECURITIES>                                    22,538
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,017
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,842
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,352
<PP&E>                                          89,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                (33,470)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  97,949
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,511
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    97,949
<SALES>                                         12,623
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,623
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,483
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,884)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,292)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,592)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,592)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.87)
        

</TABLE>
David MCSWAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3433

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 15, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                  5

       
<S>                                    <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997    
<CASH>                                     2,103,679
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              2,255,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                       0 
<INVENTORY>                                  881,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           5,672,818
<PP&E>                                     2,147,403
<DEPRECIATION>                             2,376,104 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            11,355,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      3,850,577
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      28,461
<OTHER-SE>                                 4,455,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              11,355,030
<SALES>                                   16,984,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          16,984,123
<CGS>                                     11,304,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             11,304,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (350,281)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (2,822,057)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (482,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (3,304,057)
<DISCONTINUED>                                68,741
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (3,235,316)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
 
        





</TABLE>
Joyce FERRANTE, Appellant, v. Marguerite HODGE, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5704

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## SERVE D MA Y 14 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I N TH EMATTERO F COMLU X AVIATIO NSERVICE S LL C FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10GL000 3 (Civi l Penalty Action ) FAANO.FAA-2010-031 7 

### DEPTOFTRANSPORWi i

Aifl . !. ) L

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofor e designate da s Cas e No . EI R2009-GL- l 1-0044 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Isaa c D . Benkin . Al l futur e pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do nth e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r

person s name di nth e attache dServic e List .

Roimi e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e

<^. ^

Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFAA DOCKE T NO . CP10GL000 3 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Mar k A . Nelson , Vic e Presiden t Comlu x Aviatio nServices , LLC , Responden t Formerly , Comlu x Completio nUS A 264 0 S . Carg o Driv e Indianapolis , IN4624 1 TEL : 317-472-737 0 FAX : 317-472-738 9 Chri s G . Zurales , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Great Lake s Regio n Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n 230 0 Eas t Devo nAvenu e De s Plaines , I L60018-469 6 TEL : 847-294-771 3 FAX : 847-294-749 8 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r

202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo r servic e inperso no r

b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa l Aviatio nAdministration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .
Exhibit 10.6

                                    AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                           CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT
                                     BETWEEN
                            ANTHONY F. BISCEGLIO AND
                       SIMSBURY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, INC.

     WHEREAS, Anthony F. Bisceglio (the "Executive") and Simsbury Bank & Trust
Company, Inc. (the "Bank") previously entered into a Change of Control Agreement
dated as of July 30, 1999 (the "Change of Control Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS, the Executive and the Bank wish to amend the Change of Control
Agreement as of December 31, 2008 in order to cause that agreement to fully
comply with the requirements of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended;

     NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed that the Change of Control Agreement is
amended as of December 31, 2008 as follows, and that all other terms and
conditions of the Change of Control Agreement remain unchanged:

          1. Section 1(a)(iii) of the Change of Control Agreement is amended by
          deleting the last two sentences thereof and replacing them with the
          following:

               "The amount shall be paid in a lump sum cash payment upon
               termination; and"

          2. Section 1(e) of the Change of Control Agreement is amended by
          adding the following to the end thereof:

               "The Indemnification Amount shall be paid to the Executive on or
               before the due date for the Executive's federal income tax return
               (determined without extensions) on which the excess parachute
               payment must be reported."


<PAGE>

          3. The Change of Control Agreement is amended by adding the following
          new Section 6A, following the end of Section 6 thereof:

               "6A. Section 409A Delay. Notwithstanding anything else herein to
               the contrary, any payments due hereunder as a result of the
               termination of the Executive's employment may be delayed until a
               date no later than six months following such termination of
               employment, if such delay is determined by the Bank to be
               necessary in order to comply with the requirements of Section
               409A of the Internal Revenue Code. In the event that any payments
               are so delayed, the Bank shall credit simple interest of 5% on
               such delayed payments."


Simsbury Bank and Trust Company                         Anthony F. Bisceglio

_/S/____________________________                        __/S/___________________
By:  Martin J. Geitz
Glenn SPRADLEY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Julie JONES, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1974

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2017

Following review of the petition for writ of mandamus and the response thereto, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

LAGOA, SCALES and LUCK, JJ., concur.
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT
C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N (C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2
, SU B P ART B

. SE0 4360A167
##### 



Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date:  November 6, 2007
    /s/  Gary ZuiderveenGary ZuiderveenVice President and
Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
ROBERT COTA, Jr.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 50094

D.C. Nos. 3:11

- cr
- 04153

- WQH

- 10 3:11

- cr
- 04153

- WQH

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 10, 2023 * * Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Robert Cota, Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence
reduction and subsequent motion for reconsideration. This Court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and r eviews for a buse of discretion. United States v. Aruda , 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021); Do Sung Uhm v. Humana, Inc. , 620 F.3d 1134,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 16 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

1140 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

1. When a party “raises a specific, nonfrivolous argument tethered to a
relevant § 3553(a) factor[,] then the judge should normally explain why he accepts
or rejects the party’s position.” United States v. Trujillo , 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th
Cir. 2013) (clean ed up). The district court adequately did s o here. The court
acknowledged Cota’s arguments in favor of reduction , and concluded that “in light
of the significant departure applied by the Court at the time of sentencing, the
seriousness of the offenses,” and Cota’s history and characteristics, reducing the
“sentence to time served would fail to protect the public, and fail to afford adequate

deterrence to criminal conduct.” See Chavez

- Meza v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 1959,

1965

– 67 (2018) (upholding use o f form order); United States v. Wilson , 8 F.4th 970,
977 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (finding “minimal explanation” adequate). Having
evaluated Cota’s arguments under the § 3553(a) factors in both its original order
denying sentence reduction and in its order denying reconsideration, the court was
not required to explicitly reject every argument. See United States v. Plascencia

Orozco , 852 F.3d 910, 928 (9th Cir. 2017) (hol ding that the district court’s failure to

“dire c tly address” two factors was not an abuse of discretion where other factors
sufficiently supported the sentence imposed).

2. Because the district court’s evaluation of the § 3553(a) factors
independently justifi ed denying sentence reduction, we need not consider whether3

Cota established the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” also required under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i)

. See United States v. Wright , 46 F.4th 938, 945

– 4 8 (9th
Cir. 2022).

AFFIRMED

.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00162-CR

Rick Ephran Jimenez

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

451st Judicial District Court of Kendall County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 6221

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 10, 2020
Bryan DIXON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3127

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shelley Ann VANCE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6241

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed February 9, 2017

■ Mark A. Yancey, Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Shelley Ann Vanee, Pro Se

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

Ms. Shelley Ann Vance pleaded guilty to robbing four banks and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to one of the robberies. Ms. Vance was sentenced to 205 months of imprisonment. In district court, she challenged her sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The court rejected this challenge based on timeliness, and Ms. Vance wants to appeal. To do so, she seeks a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012) (certificate of appealability); *id,*§ 1915(a)(1) (leave to proceed in forma pauperis). But through a plea agreement, Ms. Vance waived her right to seek relief under § 2255. In light of this waiver, we (1) decline to issue a certificate of appeala-bility, (2) dismiss the appeal, and (3) deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

We need not address the issue of timeliness because the plea agreement contained an enforceable waiver of the right to seek collateral relief under § 2255. *See Davis v. Roberts,*425 F.3d 830, 834 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e may deny a [certificate of appeala-bility] if there is a plain procedural bar to habeas relief, even though the- district court did not rely on that bar.”). We previously relied on this waiver when we dismissed Ms. Vance’s direct appeal. *United States v. Vance,*182 Fed.Appx. 817 (10th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). The waiver precluded not only a direct appeal but also a *486collateral challenge to the way that the sentence is imposed if the sentence fell within the guideline range found by the district court. Ms. Vance was sentenced within the guideline range, and we have already held that the appeal waiver is enforceable. Thus, Ms. Vance could not obtain relief under § 2255 even if her motion were timely.

In these circumstances, we (1) decline to issue a certificate of appealability and (2) dismiss the appeal. In the absence of a reasonably debatable appeal point, we also deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (2012); *Rolland v. Primesource Staffing, L.L.C.,*497 F.3d 1077, 1079 (10th Cir. 2007).
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: November 8, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert L. Recchia  
|                        |  |  |  | Robert L. Recchia      
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.2****Certification of Chief Financial Officer**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of CytRx Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that:(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date: March 31, 2007 /s/ MATTHEW NATALIZIO   Matthew Natalizio   Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statementrequired by Section 906, has been provided to CytRx Corporation and will be retained by CytRxCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anExhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.