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

RECORD OF COMMUNICATION

February 10, 2012 

To: File 

From: Erik Snyder 

 Air Planning Section (6PD-L) 

 Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division 

 

RE: Mingo Data Substitution for Organic and Elemental Carbon 

Summary of Communication 

In researching data issues raised by commenter I had discussions with Mr. Scott Copeland who 

works at CIRA and is a USDA Forest Service Air Data Analyst. Mr. Copeland worked as part of 

the IMPROVE committee that conducted the data substitution for IMPROVE monitors, when 

monitors had failed to collect data. 

The commenter raised concern about lack of data and being able to set an appropriate baseline. 

Scott forwarded three documents on the data substitution at Mingo for the baseline period. The 

monitoring inlet and piping for monitoring Organic and Elemental Carbon was plugged up by 

Wasp like insects for much of the monitoring period and therefore erroneously low data was 

collected at Mingo. This issue was discovered in 2005. 

As can be seen from the attached files, a considerable amount of work went into deciding how to 

do the substitution. A substitution was done by Warren White at UC Davis, and Cassie 

Archuleta at ARS and they yielded essentially the same result (out.pdf). 

 

Looking at the details in the RPO ppt file attached it is clear that the A module hydrogen 

measurement was a good predictor of organic carbon, which in turn was a reasonably good 

predictor of elemental carbon. It is very important to understand that the sulfate and nitrate 

measurements used were real valid observations and that the carbon species substitution was 

statistically robust. We are confident that the substituted values, either Warren’s or Cassie’s, are 

reasonable estimates of the baseline conditions and that they represent the best that could 

practically be done by the experts in this area of expertise. 

Overall the data substitution was for species that are not the species of concern for reducing 

visibility impacts at this time as NOx and SOx are the primary pollutants of concern. The data 

substitution method was conducted two ways and vetted by some of the best scientists in this 

area of expertise. The net effect of the missing data and substitution would have an extremely 

minor and inconsequential impact on the Sulfate and Nitrate data and the resultant conclusions 

on what causes visibility impairment at Mingo during the baseline period. 

 

Attachments: 

RPO Call 092805 Mingo.ppt, 58-Archuleta.pdf, Out.pdf
#### Larry James TYLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard JONES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6486

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

Larry James Tyler, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this cirpuit.

PER CURIAM:

Larry James Tyler appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Tyler v. Jones,*No. 4:17-cv-00404-MGL, 2017 WL 1177093 (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2017). We deny Tyler’s request for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma*117terials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Frank PAULY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Kelly GRINTER, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1986

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that this appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Florida is dismissed for failure to comply with this Court's orders dated August 31, 2017, and with the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ and SALTER, JJ., concur.
#### IN RE: Shapat Ahdawan NABAYA, a/k/a Norman Abbott, Petitioner.

No. 17-2018

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 1, 2017

Decided: September 1, 2017

Shapat Ahdawan Nabaya, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*171PER CURIAM:

This case comes before the court on a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Shapat Nabaya under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (“CVRA”). The CVRA affords to victims of crime the rights to reasonable protection from the accused, to notice of court proceedings, to participation in court proceedings, to confer with government counsel, to receive restitution, to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to be treated with fairness. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). These rights must be asserted in the district court and, if the district court denies relief, the mov-ant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). If such a petition is fíled, “[t]he court of appeals shall take up and decide such application forthwith within 72 hours after the petition has been filed.” *Id.*If the court of appeals denies the relief sought, “the reasons for the denial shall be clearly stated on the record in a written opinion.” *Id.*

Petitioner maintains that he is entitled to relief under the CVRA as a result of ongoing criminal proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia. He complains that the government attorneys have not taken proper oaths of office, that failure to file taxes is not a crime, that his pretrial detention violates due process and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and that the district court has failed to take action to protect his rights.

Petitioner is not a crime victim under the CVRA. He was indicted on January 1, 2017 by a grand jury. A superseding indictment in the Eastern District of Virginia was filed on April 4, 2017, charging Nabaya with (1) retaliating against a federal officer by false claim and (2) false statement in bankruptcy. In proceedings held on August 18, 2017 in the district court, Nabaya was found competent to stand trial and trial was set for October 18-20, 2017. Nabaya’s pending motions were denied. In proceedings held on August 25, 2017, the magistrate judge revoked Nabaya’s conditions of release for cause. Nabaya’s motion to reconsider the revocation is pending in the district court.

The CVRA defines a “crime victim” as a “person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A). Na-baya clearly does not come within the statutory definition. The CVRA also provides that “[a] person accused of the crime may not obtain any form of relief under this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(Z).

Accordingly, the court dismisses the petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DISMISSED
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of

JONATHON CLYDE WOODS

,

Petitioner. No. 55858

- 1

- II

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

M AXA

, J.

– Jonathon Clyde Woods seeks relief from perso nal restraint imposed following

his 1989 conviction for aggravated first degree murder, for which he was sentenced to life

imprisonment without possibility of parole . He committed that crime when he was 18 years old.

He now seeks resentencing under In re Pers onal Restraint of Monschke , 197 Wn.2d 305, 329,

482 P.3d 276 (2021), for the trial court to take into account his yout h at the time of the crime.

The State concedes that Woods is entitled to be resentenced under Monschke

.

We accept the St at e’s concession and remand Woods ’s judgment and sentence to the trial

court for resentencing

. The certificate of finality will be is sued as soon as possible.

A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the

Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

M AXA , J.

We concur:

WORSWICK , P.J.

V ELJACIC , J. Filed

Washington State

Court of Appeals

Division Two

November 2, 2021
Alphonso ABRAHAM v. STATE

CR-15-0923

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 2017 Reh. denied March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Joseph Jamal WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 4D16-3994 4D16-4161 4D16-4253

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 16, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and J. Woodson Isom, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ilana Mitzner, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm the convictions and sentences in all respects. We remand to the circuit court for correction of the written revocation order to conform to the court's oral pronouncement. The written order contains a violation for failing to undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation; in its oral pronouncement, the court ruled that violation had not been established. The written order also contains a violation for committing the offense of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon; however, the state nolle prossed that count at sentencing after the court's oral pronouncement.

*Affirmed and remanded for correction* .

Warner, Gross and Levine, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder, 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.

 May 10, 2017

d0503

Order 

Clerk

May 10, 2017

155130

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155130

COA: 328323

Washtenaw CC: 13-000157-FC

AVANTIS DOMINIQUE PARKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 22, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

WILDER, J., took no part in the decision of this case.
Robert L. DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4829

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 189 (Friday, September 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59701-59702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23891]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8045]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Florence at the Dawn of Renaissance: Painting and 
Illumination''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of

[[Page 59702]]

Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the 
objects to be included in the exhibition ``Florence at the Dawn of 
Renaissance: Painting and Illumination,'' imported from abroad for 
temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with 
the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition 
or display of the exhibit objects at The J. Paul Getty Museum in Los 
Angeles, California from on or about November 13, 2012 until on or 
about February 10, 2013, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6473). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: September 24, 2012.
J. Adam Ereli,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-23891 Filed 9-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
EX PARTE Kevin PRINCE

CR-15-0830

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Annual Report of Salon Media Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Talbot, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); and

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


                                            /s/ David Talbot
June 22, 2004                               David Talbot
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TRAVIS EDWARD WALKER, 

Defendant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Case No. 3:18-cr-00075 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

DETENTION ORDER 

This case came on for hearing on May 15, 2018, on Motion of the United States 

for pretrial detention. 

 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), a defendant shall be detained pending trial if, after a 

hearing, the judicial officer finds that no condition or set of conditions will reasonably 

assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the 

community. The factors to be considered in determining whether to release a defendant 

pending trial are set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and include: (1) the nature and 

circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 

(3) the history and characteristics of the person; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the 

danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release. 
 In considering the history and characteristics of the person, the judicial officer 

should consider the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties, 

employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, 

past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record 

concerning appearance at court proceedings; and whether, at the time of the current 

offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending 

trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or 

local law. 

 Based upon the evidence presented and for the reasons stated on the record in open 

court, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination 

of conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c) will reasonably assure the appearance of 

the Defendant as required and the safety of the community. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1) the Defendant be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of 

the United States for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the 

extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held 

in custody pending appeal; 

2) the Defendant be afforded reasonable opportunity for private 

consultation with counsel; 

3) on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney 

for the United States, the person in charge of the facility in which the 

Defendant is confined deliver the Defendant to a United States Marshal or 

his deputy for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court 

proceeding; and, 

4) in the event that Defendant seeks to appeal to the District Judge from 

this order, counsel must request a transcript of the detention hearing from the 

court reporter at the same time the appeal is filed. 
May 31, 2018 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington 

 United States Magistrate Judge
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50250

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CYNTHIA REYES MARROQUIN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:08-CR-391-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Cynthia Reyes Marroquin appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed

for her conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute

five kilograms or more of cocaine and her concurrent 60-month sentences

imposed for her convictions of two counts of aiding and abetting the possession

with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. She argues that the

district court clearly erred by finding that she had not met her burden of

showing that she qualified for a safety valve adjustment pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 6, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-50250 Document: 00511436823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2011
No. 10-50250

§ 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. See United States v. Flanagan, 80 F.3d 143, 145-

47 (5th Cir. 1996).

Setting aside that Marroquin cites no authority holding that the

Government was bound by representations made during plea negotiations when

no plea agreement was ever reached, her argument that the Government had

agreed prior to trial that the safety valve adjustment was warranted ignores

that the applicability of the adjustment was a matter for the district court to

decide and was not subject to the Government’s discretion. See § 5C1.2(a)

(noting that the district court shall grant a safety valve adjustment “if the court

finds” that the defendant satisfies the applicable criteria). Contrary to her

assertion, the denial of the adjustment was not premised solely upon the

credibility determinations of the interviewing detective; rather, the district court

determined, based upon evidence adduced during trial and at sentencing, that

Marroquin had not truthfully provided all information and evidence known to

her during her pretrial debriefing. See § 3553(f)(5); § 5C1.2(a)(5). This court has

rejected the proposition that a defendant whose sentencing hearing has

commenced may cure her failure to fully debrief for safety valve purposes by

doing so during a suspension of the proceedings. See United States v. Brenes,

250 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 10-50250 Document: 00511436823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2011
#### Juliet ARVAKHI, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Craig CLEMMENSEN, Acting Secretary, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, * Defendant-Appellee.

No. 15-56923

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 **

Filed February 23, 2017

Juliet Arvakhi, Pro Se

Russell William Chittenden, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 Craig Clemmensen has been substituted for his predecessor, Julian Castro, as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Juliet Arvakhi appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her Title VII action alleging hostile work environment and retaliation claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We *547review de novo. *Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles,*349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Arvakhi’s hostile work environment claim because Arvakhi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s alleged conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment. *See Manatt v. Bank of Am.,*339 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of a Title VII hostile work environment claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Arvakhi’s retaliation claim because Arvakhi failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether she suffered an adverse action as a result of engaging in protected activity. *See Vasquez,*349 F.3d at 646 (elements of a Title VII retaliation claim).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Sheldon MINTZBERG, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Carmele MCGEARY, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D16-2918

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1 – CEO Certification**

 

**HEARTLAND, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO**

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

 

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Trent Sommerville, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

/s/ Trent Sommerville

Trent Sommerville, CEO

And Chairman of the Board of Directors

 

March 20, 2007

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Heartland, Inc., and will be retained by Heartland, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Danny K. DECK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-676

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.