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

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | August 9, 2010 | By:    | /s/Darron R. Ming                                              |   |
|--------|----------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |           |   | Darron R. Ming                                                 |   |
|   |           |   | Vice President, Finance and  Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |           |   |                                                           |   |

----
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 71 ) IV-C-3

7 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:54

AM Sheet 71 of 232x<&° Sr A> 

# us e \ mfi^ 

## :t P. 2

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO NAGENC Y

WASHINGTON

, D.C . 20460 

### •3» N l > /98 I

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N

Mr . Michae l Cams , Sr . Mik eCam s For d Bo x Q Rout e1 1 Hallstead , P

A1882 2 Dea r Mr . Cams : Than k yo u fo r your comment s concerning EPA' s proposa l t o requir e onboar d refueling emissio n controls . B e assure d tha t you r comment s wil l be considere d i n the nex t phas e o f ou r rulemaking . W e wil l als o be placing the mi n th e publi c docke t fo r the Rulemaking . Than k yo u agai n fo r your concer n i n thi s matter .

Sincer D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s 

### cc : Docke t A-87-1 1 Honorabl e Arle n Specte r U.S . Senat e
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6193 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6193

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to waive the fee for a housing 
   loan guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for certain 
veterans with a service-connected disability who applied for such loan 
        before receiving a disability rating from the Secretary.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 2, 2023

 Mr. Levin (for himself and Mr. Moylan) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to waive the fee for a housing 
   loan guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for certain 
veterans with a service-connected disability who applied for such loan 
        before receiving a disability rating from the Secretary.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Assistance for Loan 
Origination Relief Act'' or the ``VALOR Act''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF HOUSING LOAN FEE FOR CERTAIN VETERANS WITH A SERVICE-
              CONNECTED DISABILITY WHO APPLIED FOR SUCH LOAN BEFORE 
              RECEIVING A DISABILITY RATING.

    (a) Waiver.--Subsection (c)(2)(A) of section 3729 of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by striking ``rating'' and inserting 
``examination or review, as defined by the Secretary,''.
    (b) Refund to Veteran.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
refund any fee collected under such section before the date of the 
enactment of this Act from a veteran--
            (1) who requests such a refund; and
            (2) whom the Secretary determines, pursuant to evidence 
        submitted by the veteran, would have been eligible for a waiver 
        of such fee pursuant to the amendment made by subsection (a) if 
        the veteran obtained the housing loan after such date.
    (c) Funding Fee Refund.--The Secretary may pay to a lender, loan 
servicer, or loan holder the amount of a fee refunded under subsection 
(b) if the loan for which such fee was collected was active on the date 
on which the refund was provided. The Secretary shall require that any 
amount paid under this subsection shall be applied to the loan as a 
principal balance reduction.
                                 <all>
```
Tamara WORLEY, individually; and as mother and natural guardian of Rockwell Worley, a minor child; as mother and natural guardian of Macryder Worley, a minor child; and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ransom Worley, Deceased, Appellants, v. GALLAGHER & HAGOPIAN, P.L.; Robert Elliott, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Laurence B. Worley, Deceased; G. Logan Elliott, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Merritt H. Duryea, Deceased; Valerie A. Duryea; and Party On, Inc. d/b/a Gecko's Grill & Pub SR. 70, Appellees.

Case Nos. 2D16-3251 2D16-3702

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Jonnie B. GARRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2244

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Matthew Funderburk, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kaylee D. Tatman, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deante DRAKE, a/k/a Panama, a/k/a Shawn, a/k/a Papa Bear, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6086

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 9, 2017

Decided: May 19, 2017

Deante Drake, Appellant Pro Se. Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*220PER CURIAM:

Deante Drake seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 3, 2016. The notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on January 18, 2017.* Because Drake failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We deny Drake’s motions for clarification and for collateral review. 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*

*

 A pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is considered filed at the moment it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Drake dated his notice of appeal January 17, 2017.
June 7, 2012
Aloha Ley Office ofAviation Analysis 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE, W86-310 Washington, DC 20590 Re: Abilene Regional Airport
Dear Ms. Ley: The City ofAbilene needs to improve its air service at Abilene Regional Airport. ABI is an under served airport and it is my understanding that funding is available to subsidize new service. Just yesterday, American Airlines, which is the only carrier at ABI announced that it is eliminating more flights. AA is already unreliable and not the least interested in providing good customer service. Perhaps competition might be helpful to the citizens ofthe Big Country in many ways. My husband travels regularly by air for his work. I request and would appreciate favorable action for ABI's grant application. Very truly yours,

102B CR 146 Ovalo, TX 79541

·.: '**~** , ... ;**~** :. . .. ..- •.! • '.**~ ~**  > '. :· •• ' • • • {**~** ••**~** •

-,: ! -:·

-,**~"-.:•** :**-~** 

### - - .**~ ~**  ' ..
Rene GUTIERREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3720

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 99


           REVIEW REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Catalina Marketing Corporation:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Catalina Marketing Corporation (a Delaware corporation) and subsidiaries as of
June 30, 1999, and the related condensed consolidated statements of income and
cash flows for the three-month periods ended June 30, 1999 and 1998. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken
as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Catalina Marketing Corporation and
subsidiaries as of March 31, 1999, and the related consolidated statements of
income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented separately herein), and, in our report dated April 29, 1999, we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements. In our opinion,
the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheet as of March 31, 1999, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Tampa, Florida,
      July 13, 1999
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6184 

To conduct or support further comprehensive research for the creation of 

a universal influenza vaccine or preventative. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2023 

Ms. DELAURO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To conduct or support further comprehensive research for 

the creation of a universal influenza vaccine or preventative. 

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 TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flu Vaccine Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. RESEARCH FOR THE CREATION OF A UNIVERSAL 

6 INFLUENZA VACCINE OR PREVENTATIVE. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National In8 stitute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases shall conduct or 

9 support comprehensive research for the creation of a uni10 versal influenza vaccine or preventative. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6184 IH

1 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—To carry 

2 out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated 

3 $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2024 through 2029. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Final Rule: Confidential Determinations for Part 98 Data 

Meeting Documentation: National Association of Clean Air Agencies

Date Staff Contact Information 

(Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all 

attendees names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., 

applicability, reporting 

requirements, etc.)

Written Comments 

Provided? 

Did they also 

submit to Docket? 

Date sent to EPACCD 

8/3 Jennifer Bohman

bohman.jennifer@epa.gov

202-343-9548 

National Association of Clean Air 

Administrators – Emissions & 

Modeling Committee

EPA gave a brief 

presentation of the 

proposed CBI rule. See 

attached slides. 

No. NA
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1038 

CA 12-00609 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND CARNI, JJ. 

 

 

HAMILTON EQUITY GROUP, LLC, AS ASSIGNEE OF 

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

JUAN E. IRENE, PLLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, 

AND JUAN E. IRENE, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING 

BUSINESS AS THE LAW OFFICE OF JUAN E. 

IRENE, ESQ., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

HARRIS BEACH PLLC, BUFFALO (RICHARD T. SULLIVAN OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

RUPP, BAASE, PFALZGRAF, CUNNINGHAM & COPPOLA LLC, BUFFALO (CHARLES

D.J. CASE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John A.

Michalek, J.), entered May 31, 2011. The order, insofar as appealed

from, granted that part of plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment

against defendant Juan E. Irene, individually and doing business as

The Law Office of Juan E. Irene, Esq., in the amount of $124,984.37,

plus interest, costs, disbursements and attorneys’ fees.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988;

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567; see

also 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: December 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7887

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TROY LAMAR MORTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (CR-02-242; CA-05-470)

Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 23, 2006

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Troy Lamar Morton, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Troy Lamar Morton, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), which the district court construed as a

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability

will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the

district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Morton

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

Additionally, we construe Morton’s notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v.

Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain
- 3 -

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must

assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional

law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court

to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence

that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the

petitioner guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Morton’s claims do not satisfy either of these conditions.

We therefore deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Daniel H. ALEXANDER and Jacqueline P. Alexander, Appellants, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellee.

No. 3D16-2228

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus MESA-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 16-10276, 16-10278

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Gordon Davenport, III, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Darla Jean Mondou, Esquire, Attorney, Mondou Law Office, Maraña, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Jesus Mesa-Soto challenges the three-year term *258of supervised release imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of- a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mesa-Soto contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain adequately the three-year term of supervised release. Because Mesa-Soto failed to raise this alleged procedural error below, we review for plain error. *See United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). After hearing arguments regarding Mesa-Soto’s criminal history and prior removal from the United States, the district court specifically considered U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(c) and determined that a term of supervised release would provide added deterrence. The record as a whole reflects the basis for the district court’s determination, and the district court did not plainly err in its explanation. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“[Ajdequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the record as a whole.”).

Mesa-Soto further contends that the term of supervised release is substantively unreasonable in light of his intent to reunite with his family in Mexico following his release from custody and his lack of family ties in the United States. The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factor's and the totality of the circumstances, including Mesa-Soto’s criminal history and multiple prior removal from the United States. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also United States v. Valdavinos-Torres,*704 F.3d 679, 693 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*258ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier Zapata TOVAR, also known as Texas, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11430 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Javier Zapata Tovar, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Javier Zapata Tovar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Tovar has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42,2.

*

 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.
Terrance Bernard GRAHAM, DOC #Y37057, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4155

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Annual Report of Terra Energy & Resource Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the “Report”), I, Dmitry Vilbaum, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.





Date:  April 15, 2011





/s/ Dmitry VilbaumDmitry VilbaumChief Executive Officer
Jose A. HEREDIA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2451

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 6, 2017

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Johnson v. State*, 60 So. 3d 1045 (Fla. 2011) ; *Kirby v. State*, 198 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) ; *Hughes v. State*, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; *Pratte v. State*, 946 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; *Steward v. State*, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; *Shortridge v. State*, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; *Brown v. State*, 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.