alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Rahul Pendse [RPendse@trinityconsultants.com]

Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:29 PM

To: Land, Eva

Subject: RE: Lost Email

Attachments: Appendix F Drilling Scenario Revised 090513.pdf

Eva,

Please find attached the Revised Appendix F (June 2013 application addendum) per our discussion. The

revisions are highlighted in red color. The revisions are associated with correcting the annual operating

hours for wireline engines and minor calculation edits. Please confirm the receipt of this email and let

me know if I could be of help.

................................................................................................................ Rahul Pendse

Managing Consultant

Trinity Consultants

– Baton Rouge

301 Main Street, Suite 900 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

Office: 225

- 346

- 4003 | Mobile: 714

- 454

- 0518

Email: rpendse@trinityconsultants.com

From: Land, Eva [ mailto:Land.Eva@epa.gov ]

Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 7:30 AM

To: Rahul Pendse

Subj ect: RE: Lost Email

Great, thank you. I will be out of the office at the end of the week, but I will let you know as soon as I get

a chance to look through it.

Eva Land

Air Permits Section

EPA

- Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404

- 562

- 9103

From: Rahul Pendse [ mailto:RPendse@trinityconsultants.com ]

Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:58 PM

To: Land, Eva

Subject: RE: Lost Email

Hello Eva,My apologies. I am travelling until tomorrow and I should be back in the office on Thursday. I will

provide it to you as soon as I get back to the office. Please let me know if it is acceptable. Thanks!

................................................................................................................

R ahul Pendse

Managing Consultant

Trinity Consultants

– Baton Rouge

301 Main Street, Suite 900 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

Office: 225

- 346

- 4003 | Mobile: 714

- 454

- 0518

Email: rpendse@trinitycons ultants.com

From: Land, Eva [ mailto:Land.Eva@epa.gov ]

Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 4:10 PM

To: Rahul Pendse

Subject: Lost Email

Rahul,

Just to follow up from our conversation last week, I still don’t see the email that you mentioned was

sent. If you wouldn’t mind resending it I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Eva Land

Air Permits Section

EPA

- Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404

- 562

- 9103

_________________________________________________________________________

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to

which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged

material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or

taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or

entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you

Received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material

from any c omputer.

_________________________________________________________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,890
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,147
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,765
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,979
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,437
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    458
<INCOME-TAX>                                       194
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                264
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       264
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 91 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 91

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
      United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Council on 
 Environmental Quality relating to ``National Environmental Policy Act 
                 Implementing Regulations Revisions''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2022

 Mr. Graves of Louisiana (for himself, Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Scalise, Ms. 
Stefanik, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Newhouse, and 
Mr. Graves of Missouri) submitted the following joint resolution; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
      United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Council on 
 Environmental Quality relating to ``National Environmental Policy Act 
                 Implementing Regulations Revisions''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Council on Environmental Quality relating to 
``National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations 
Revisions'' (87 Fed. Reg. 23453 (April 20, 2022)), and such rule shall 
have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
J.D.R., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5525

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
HOA PROBLEM SOLUTIONS INC. as Trustee of the 2995 Centerwood Drive Land Trust, Appellant, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; Cheryll Merritt; Creekside Bend Owners Association, Inc. ; Unknown Beneficiaries of the 2955 Centerwood Drive Land Trust; Unknown Tenant #1 in Possession of the Subject Property; Unknown Tenant #2 in Possession of the Subject Property, Appellees.

No. 1D17-3533

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6098 

To terminate certain contracts relating to the construction of the border 

fence and to transfer unused border fence materials to the States along 

the southwest border of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

Mr. NEHLS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Accountability, and in addition to the Committees on 

Homeland Security, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To terminate certain contracts relating to the construction 

of the border fence and to transfer unused border fence 

materials to the States along the southwest border of 

the United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Border’s Unused Idle 

5 and Lying Dormant Inventory Transfer Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘BUILD IT Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6098 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF UNUSED BORDER FENCE MATERIAL 

2 TO BORDER STATES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi4 sion of law, not later than 90 days after the date of the 

5 enactment of this Act, the Federal Government shall de6 liver to the Governments of Arizona, of California, of New 

7 Mexico, and of Texas, upon request, any materials associ8 ated with the construction of the physical barrier along 

9 the international border between the United States and 

10 Mexico that— 

11 (1) are in the possession of the Department of 

12 Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, or 

13 any other Federal agency; or 

14 (2) have been purchased by the Federal Gov15 ernment, but remain in the possession of any con16 tractor or vendor. 

17 (b) PROHIBITION OF FEES AND DELIVERY

18 CHARGES.—The Federal Government may not charge any 

19 fee or other delivery charge to any of the States referred 

20 to in subsection (a) for the delivery of the materials de21 scribed in such subsection. 

22 (c) USE OF MATERIALS.—Any State receiving mate23 rials from the Federal Government pursuant to subsection 

24 (a) shall use such materials for the purpose of con25 structing, repairing, or reinforcing the construction of a 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6098 IH

1 barrier along the international border between such State 

2 and Mexico. 

3 (d) TERMINATION OF EXISTING CONTRACTS.—The 

4 Federal Government shall terminate, at the convenience 

5 of the Federal Government, any contract relating to the 

6 maintenance and security of the materials intended for the 

7 construction referred to in subsection (a) that— 

8 (1) is in effect on the date of the enactment of 

9 this Act; and 

10 (2) must be terminated in order to comply with 

11 subsection (a). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
WHITE-SPUNNER CONSTRUCTION, INC., and Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. J & J LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.

1150330

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4568

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEANDRE SCOTT ESTELLE, a/k/a Dre,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00020-JPB-JES-6)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 27, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric S. Black, Berkley Springs, West Virginia, for Appellant. 

William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Randolph J.

Bernard, Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States

Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Deandre Scott Estelle pled guilty, pursuant to a 

written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to distribute 

controlled substances and was sentenced to 165 months’ 

imprisonment. He appeals, challenging the reasonableness of his 

sentence.

This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under 

an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both 

the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. 

Id.; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575 (4th Cir. 

2010). In determining the procedural reasonableness of a 

sentence, we consider whether the district court properly 

calculated the defendant’s Guidelines range, treated the 

Guidelines as advisory, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

(2012) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, 

and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Gall, 552 

U.S. at 51. A sentence imposed within the properly calculated 

Guidelines range is presumed reasonable by this court. See Rita 

v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. 

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 217 (4th Cir. 2010). 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by 

the parties and find that Estelle’s sentence is both 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. Therefore we affirm. 
3

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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Christopher A. WOODY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Robert STEVENSON, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6258

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 31, 2017

Decided: October 31, 2017

Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Caroline M, Scrantom, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*274"Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher A. Woody seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.1 The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” *Id.*§ 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 petition 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 Woody has not made the requisite showing.2 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*

1

. Although Woody’s notice of appeal identifies both the district court’s opinion and order granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and the court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, Woody’s informal brief challenges only the court’s reasoning in the opinion and order granting summary judgment. Accordingly, we limit our review to that opinion and order. *See*4th Cir, R. 34(b).

2

, With respect to Woody's claim that his trial counsel failed to introduce certain documents at a pretrial suppression hearing, we conclude that Woody has waived appellate review of the claim by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation on that claim after receiving proper notice. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).
Alan PATE, Appellant, v. Gary BORDERS, Lake County Sheriff and Warden S. Cumbie, Lake Correctional Institutional, Appellees.

Case No. 5D17-1938

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed January 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

May 8, 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Documentation of Changes from EO 12866 Review

FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0102

This memorandum documents the docket entries which describe the changes due to the EO 

12866 Review of the Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle, and Nonroad Technical Amendment 

Direct Final Rule and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The corresponding entries in Docket 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0102 are the following:

Documents Submitted to Initiate E.O. 12866 Review: 

o EO12866 HD and NR Technical Amendment NPRM_20130304.pdf

o EO12866 HD and NR Technical Amendment DFR and Final Rule_20130304.pdf

Documentation of Changes Made During OMB Review under E.O. 128666:

o EPA and NHTSA Technical Amendments Briefing for OMB 03_26_2013.pdf

o EO12866_EPA-NHTSA joint HD_NR_Technical Amendment_DFR4_12_2013.pdf

o EO12866_EPA-NHTSA joint HD_NR_Technical Amendment_DFR and Final 

Rule_RESPONSE 20130423.pdf

o EO12866_EPA-NHTSA joint HD_NR_Technical Amendment_DFR and Final 

Rule 4_24_2013.pdf

o Email: 52 EPANHTSA Response pertaining to Heavy-Duty Technical 

Amendments RIN 2060-AR48.pdf

o File: EO12866_EPA-NHTSA joint HD_NR_Technical Amendment 2060-AR48 

DFR and Final Rule FRN_20130502.pdf

o File: EO12866_EPA-NHTSA joint HD_NR_Technical Amendment 2060-AR48 

DFR and Final Rule FRN_20130507.pdf

Documentation to Conclude E.O. 12866 Review:

o File: EO12866_ HD_NR_Technical Amendment 2060-AR48 DFR_ Final_Rule 

_20130508.pdf
2

o File: EO12866_ HD_NR_Technical Amendment 2060-AR48 NPRM 

_20130508.pdf
EXHIBIT 99.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of NetIQ Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), Charles M. Boesenberg, Chief Executive Office and James A. Barth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certifies pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that:





1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/    CHARLES M.
BOESENBERGCharles M. Boesenberg Chief
Executive Officer


September 26, 2002





/s/    JAMES A.
BARTHJames A. Barth Chief Financial
Officer


September 26, 2002
Peter J. ROSATO, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4367

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 11, 2018.

Peter J. Rosato, Jr., pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### Manual Louis ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 17-50130

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 17, 2017

Manual Louis Robinson, Pro Se

Elizabeth Alisse Goettert, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Manual Louis Robinson, Texas prisoner # 1655982, moves for a certificate of ap-pealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for capital murder, which resulted in a life sentence. Robinson asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. In order to obtain a COA, Robinson must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

*317This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Robinson’s notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days from the entry of the final judgment denying his § 2254 petition; therefore, it is untimely. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (c)(1). As a federal habeas proceeding is civil in nature, *see Archer v. Lynaugh,*821 F.2d 1094, 1096 (5th Cir. 1987), a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Because Robinson’s notice of appeal was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to address his COA motion.

Accordingly, Robinson’s appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction, and his request for a COA is DENIED as MOOT.

*

 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.
(LOGO) Cascade Bank

July 13, 2000

Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562
Attention: Master Servicing


RE: Officer's Certificate

Dear Master Servicer:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the 1999 fiscal year:

(A) I have reviewed the  activities and  performance of the Servicer  during the
    preceding  fiscal  year under the terms of the  Servicing  Agreement,  Trust
    Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or Seller/Servicer Guide and
    to the best of these Officers' knowledge,  the Servicer has fulfilled all of
    its  duties,   responsibilities   or  obligations   under  these  Agreements
    throughout  such  year,  or if there has been a default  or  failure  of the
    servicer to perform any of such duties,  responsibilities or obligations,  a
    description of each default or failure and the nature and status thereof has
    been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(B) I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved  FNMA or FHLMC
    servicer in good standing;

(C) I have confirmed that the Fidelity Bond, the Errors and Omissions  Insurance
    Policy  and any  other  bonds  required  under  the  terms of the  Servicing
    Agreement,   Trust  Agreement,   Pooling  and  Servicing   Agreement  and/or
    Seller/Servicer Guide
    are in full force and effect;

(D) All premiums for each Hazard  Insurance  Policy,  Flood Insurance Policy (if
    applicable) and Primary  Mortgage  Insurance  Policy (if  applicable),  with
    respect  to each  Mortgaged  Property,  have  been  paid  and  that all such
    insurance policies are in full force and effect;

(E) All real  estate  taxes,  governmental  assessments  and any other  expenses
    accrued and due, that if not paid could result in a lien or  encumbrance  on
    any  Mortgaged  Property,  have been paid,  or if any such costs or expenses
    have not been paid with respect to any  Mortgaged  Property,  the reason for
    the non-payment has been reported to Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.;

(F) All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded; and

(G) All annual  reports of  Foreclosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgage  Property
    required per section  6050H,  6050J and 6050P of the Internal  Revenue Code,
    respectively, have been prepared and filed.


Certified By:
Officer  April Selanders
V.P.,Loan Administration Manager
Title
7/13/00
Date

425-339-5500
800-326-8787

2828  Colby  Avenue *  Everett,  Washington  98201  www.cascadebank.com
D.T.W., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-9

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.