alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

 AIR AND RADIATION

July 8, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: A bug fixed in GEM manual transmission efficiency

FROM: Houshun Zhang, OTAQ/ASD

TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-xxxx-yyyy

A bug was identified recently in calculating the manual transmission mechanical efficiency. In the 

GEM design, it is supposed that all gear mechanical efficiency should be set to 96% except the direct 

drive ratio with 1:1, which should be set to 98%. However, GEM was set 98% to gear ratio number less 

than 1, and all others are 96%. This is incorrect. Consequently, the modification on GEM was 

conducted, making sure that only gear ratio of 1:1 is set to 98% and all others are 96%. 

It should be pointed out that this bug only affects the manual transmission and it doesn’t affect all of 

other transmissions.
* Honorable Anthony A. Alaimo, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. No. 93-2069. G. Stewart McHENRY, Went For It, Inc., a Florida Corporation, John T. Blakely, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. THE FLORIDA BAR, Susan V. Bloemendaal, Defendants-Appellants. Sept. 22, 1995. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 92-370-CIV-T-17A); Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, Judge.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before BLACK, Circuit Judge, DYER, Senior Circuit Judge, and ALAIMO * , Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM: On June 21, 1995, the Supreme Court reversed this panel's opinion in McHenry v. The Florida Bar, 21 F.3d 1038 (11th Cir.1994). See Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2371, 132 L.Ed.2d 541. (U.S.Fla.1995). Pursuant to the Supreme Court's opinion, we now reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment for the plaintiff, McHenry v. The Florida Bar, 808 F.Supp. 1543 (M.D.Fla.1992), and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. REVERSED and REMANDED.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1259. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N. A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO

WASHINGTON MUTUAL, N. A. v. WILLIAM E. WHITAKER, AS

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF N. R. HINES, et al.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N. A. (“the Bank”), as the successor in interest to

Washington Mutual, N. A. filed suit against the estate of N. R. Hines and Hines’s

heirs (collectively, “the Hineses”), seeking reformation of a loan agreement and

security deed. The Hineses moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statute of

limitation had expired on the Bank’s claim for reformation. The trial court agreed and

on June 27, 2023, it entered an order granting the motion for summary judgment. On

October 27, 2023, the Bank filed a notice of appeal. The Hineses have moved to

dismiss the appeal, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction. We agree.

A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or trial

court order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). “The proper and timely filing

of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction upon an

appellate court.”Perlman v. Perlman, 318 Ga.App. 731, 739 (4) (734 SE2d 560) (2012)

(punctuation omitted). Here, the Bank’s notice of appeal was untimely, as it was filed

four months after entry of the trial court’s order.Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to

consider this appeal. Forthat reason, the Hineses’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED,

and this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

April 29, 2024
To the extent that the trial court did not provide the Bank with timely notice of

its June 27, 2023 order, the Bank’s remedy is to petition the trial court to vacate and

re-enter the order as a means of correcting the problem. Cambron v. Canal Ins. Co.,

246 Ga. 147, 148-149 (1) (269 SE2d 426)(1980), disapproved in part on other grounds

by Wright v. Young, 297 Ga. 683, 684 n. 3 (777 SE2d 475) (2015).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office,Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/29/2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

HOWARD DEMETRIUS TUCKER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 630 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0302

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
PEMCO-01252016-00005 

Date: January 24, 2016 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

RE: Petition for an Amendment to Exemption 8057 

Refererences: 

/A/ Regulatory Docket No. 2003-14587 Exemption 8057 

/B/ FAA Project No. SA15076AT-T 

Dear FAA, 

Pemco World Air Services request relief from regulations: 

1. 14 CFR 25.785(j) Amendment 25-88 

2. 14 CFR 25.855(a) Amendment 25-93 

3. 14 CFR 25.857(e) Amendment 25-93 

4. 14 CFR 25.1447(c)(1) Amendment 25-87 

5. 14 CFR 121.583(a) 

Pemco is requesting an amendment to the current exemption 8057 to permit carriage of 2 

additional non-crew persons on an all-freighter airplane. This request would change the current 

restriction of 2 non-crew members to 4 non-crew members. 

Pemco notes that precautions and instructions for the current Exemption 8057 has not changed 

for the existing 2 non-crew members. The oxygen supply and associated instructions and 

warning including signs and notifications are the same as described in Exemption 8057 for 2 

noncrew members. 

For the 2 additional non-crew members in the vestibule, the associated instructions and 

warnings are identical to the B737-300. Oxygen supply in case of depressurization is ensured 

by portable oxygen bottles installed directly adjacent to the double flight attendant seat 

(supernumerary). Portable oxygen mask are connected to the high pressure outlet. When 

oxygen masks need to be used, occupants are notified by a chime and by lighted signs located 

within view. Activation of signs have not changed. 

The original Supporting Argument of Exemption 8057 also applies to the this petition for 

amendment. 

Sin rely, . 

&Z~— vy' 

Victor Burnett 

Director of Engineering 

Pemco World Air Services, Inc 

4102 N. Westshore Blvd. 

Tampa, FL 33614 

Phone: 813-322-9637 

Mobile: 334-791-9601 

Email: victor.burnett@pemcoair.com 

PAGE 1 OF 1 

4102 N. WESTSHORE BLVD ® TAMPA, FL 33614 ® PHONE (813) 322-9600
Matthew ANTHONY, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 3D17-1892

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.

Dismissed.
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, 2005 (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 7, 2005 |  | /s/ Robert L. Recchia  
|                        |  | Robert L. Recchia      
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer



25
Antwoine Gerard NOLAND, DOC #122053, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5466

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Jason WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6692

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Amended: October 30, 2017

Christopher Jason Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*243PER CURIAM:

Christopher Jason Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
H. R. 1281 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic 

in Gaylord, Michigan, as the ‘‘Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews Department of 

Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC, GAYLORD, 

MICHIGAN. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic located at 2782 S. Otsego Avenue, Gaylord, Michigan, 

shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews Department 

of Veterans Affairs Health Care Clinic’’. Any reference to such 

clinic in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper 

of the United States shall be considered to be a reference to the 

Navy Corpsman Steve Andrews Department of Veterans Affairs 

Health Care Clinic. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permit issued.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Polly Penhale, ACA Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-292-8030; email:                         *ACApermits@nsf.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On January 6, 2022, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a permit application received. The permit was issued on February 7, 2022, to:                

## Permit No. 2022-027

1. Richard Bailey, Deneb US LLC 

Erika N. Davis,

Program Specialist, Office of Polar Programs.

[FR Doc. 2022-02880 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Lester ROSS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-1368

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02787]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis 
Panel; G08 Applications.
    Date: March 18, 2022.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Video Assisted Meeting.
    Contact Person: Jan Li, M.D., Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, NIH, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Suite 500, Bethesda, MD 20892-7968, 301-496-3114, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#93fffaf9a1a2d3fef2faffbdfdfafbbdf4fce5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="117d787b2320517c70787d3f7f78793f767e67">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, 
Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 4, 2022.
Miguelina Perez,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02787 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lovell Carver, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 755]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered October 31, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence adduced at the trial was legally insufficient to establish that he possessed crack cocaine is unpreserved for appellate review, because he did not specify that ground in his motion to- dismiss at the trial *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10 [1995]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To the extent that the defendant’s argument relies on alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the police detectives, we note that the minor discrepancies do not render the challenged testimony incredible as a matter of law *(see People v Harris,*262 AD2d 657 [1999]). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Garafolo,*44 AD 2d 86, 88 [1974]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against *504the weight of the evidence *(see*CPL 470.15 [5]). Smith, J.P., Luciano, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
#### Ronald MCCLARY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Belquis HOPKINS, Lead Nurse; David Mitchell; Anthony Searles, Defendants-Appellees, and Eaves, Nurse, Defendant.

No. 16-7063

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Ronald McClary, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald McClary seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by *830filing an amended complaint, we conclude that the order McClary seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow McClary to amend his complaint. Goode, 807 F.3d at 630. 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.

DISMISSED AND REMANDED
EXHIBIT 12

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
            COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                          AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                             (Dollars in Thousands)


                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                              March 31,
                                                         -------------------
                                                           1998       1997
                                                         --------   --------
   Income before income  taxes and preferred dividends   $ 65,578   $ 52,811
   Add fixed charges:
    Interest expense                                      110,572     97,172
    One-third rentals                                         926        694
                                                         --------   --------
      Total combined fixed charges                        111,498     97,866
                                                         --------   --------
   Income as adjusted                                    $177,076   $150,677
                                                         --------   --------
   Ratio of income to fixed charges                          1.59       1.54
                                                         ========   ========

   Preferred stock dividends on a pre-tax basis          $  1,581   $  1,932
   Total combined fixed charges and preferred stock
   dividends                                             $113,079   $ 99,798
                                                         --------   --------
   Ratio of income to combined fixed charges and
   preferred stock dividends                                 1.57       1.51
                                                         ========   ========
                                       13