alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Byron Burrows Comments to EPA ’s Proposed Transport Rule Chicago, IL, Hearing on 8/19/2020

My name is Byron Burrows, Manager of Air Programs with Tampa Electric Company (TEC). Tampa Electric is a mid-sized utility located in Florida

with a balanced fuel mix of half coal and half natural gas. TEC has just completed a $1.2 billion initiative to reduce emissions. We have reduced system-wide SO2 and NOx emissions eac h by 90% from 1998 levels.

TEC supports EPA’s preferred approach, which allows limited interstate trading among power plants but assures that each state will meet its pollution control obligations. We be lieve this approach results in a reasonable approach to me eting reduction goals and minimizes the cost increase for power - unle ss the allocations are too restrictive to allow market dynamics to occur.

o The 1 st alternative, “ intra -state trading only” is unfavorable for

our customers because it unneces sarily limits the trading market and the ability to achieve the lowest cost reductions and would cause unnecessary increases in the cost of electricity at

a time when we can least afford it.

o The 2 nd alternative is even more detrimental because it further reduces compliance flexibility and ignores the highly successful market-based system of emission reduction. This option intuitively results in higher overall compliance costs without guaranteeing any additional environmental benefit.

The proposed allocation method penalizes companies like TEC that made early commitments to reduce emissions . TEC has been a leader in making emission reductions (making a 90% s ystem-wide reduction in SO2 & NOx over 1998 levels), yet th e proposal does not provide TEC with sufficient SO2 allowances to even operate with in our current permit limits. It is important for EPA to avoid penalizi ng early action. TEC will propose options to accomplish this in our written comments (which may include

some of the alternatives identified in EPA’s proposal). Good faith efforts like TEC’s, to reduce emissions be yond minimum requirements have been ignored by EPA in the default propos al, setting a troubling precedent.

We encourage EPA to consider allocati on methods that do not penalize those who have made early emission reductions.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rodney FORD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20344 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 2, 2017

Paula Camille Offenhauser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Winifred Akins Pastorini, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Rodney Ford pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and two counts of aiding and abetting the carrying and brandishing of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The district court sentenced him to 572 months of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release.

Ford contends on appeal that: (1) the district court erred in considering juvenile criminal conduct as relevant conduct in the determination of his sentence; (2) § 942(c) is unconstitutionally vague; and (3) his sentence violates his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The government asks this court to enforce the appeal waiver.

First, Ford knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. The district court confirmed at rearraignment that he was waiving the right, and the plea agreement reflects that Ford reviewed the plea agreement with his attorney and understood its terms. *See United States v. McKinney,*406 F.3d 744, 746 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005). Second, because we afford the language of the appeal waiver its plain meaning, it applies to the circumstances in this case, as Ford reserved only the right to bring a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. *See United States v. Bond,*414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005).

Ford argues that the appeal waiver should not be enforced because this court should recognize a miscarriage of justice exception as it applies to criminal conduct by juveniles. However, we have not adopted such an exception to the enforcement of appeal waivers and have ruled that claims waived in an enforceable appeal waiver need not be considered. *See, e.g., United States v. De Cay,*359 Fed. Appx. 514, 516 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing *Bond,*414 F.3d at 546). He also argues that his appeal waiver should not be enforced in regard to his constitutional challenges to § 924(c) and the length of his sentence because constitutional defects in a statute may not be waived. However, these claims may be waived by a valid appeal waiver. *310
      *See United States v. Portillo-Munoz,*643 F.3d 437, 442 (5th Cir. 2011).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether
made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q ), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing.
 Date: November 8, 2006
    
    /s/ John L. HigginsJohn L. HigginsChief Financial Officer;Executive Vice President, Financeand Corporate Development
Exhibit 32.2

TIBCO SOFTWARE INC.

CERTIFICATION

I, Sydney L. Carey, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of TIBCO Software Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:



| | (a) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                        |  |  |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: January 27, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Sydney L. Carey                              
|                        |  |  |  | Sydney L. Carey                                  
|                        |  |  |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, for the Use and Benefit of TAYKINSWELL, INC., a body corporate, Appellant, v. BENCON CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., a corporation, and The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, a body corporate, Appellees.

No. 10607.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 1, 1966.

Decided Nov. 29, 1966.

Warren E. Magee, Washington, D. C. (Hans A. Nathan, Thomas G. Laughlin, Washington, D. C., and John W. Marcuse, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellant.

Alexander M. Heron, Washington, D. C. (William A. Fisher, Jr., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BRYAN and WINTER, Circuit Judges.

*406PER CURIAM:

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons appearing in the opinion of the District Court. United States for Use of Taykinswell, Inc. v. Bencon Construction Co., D.Md., 248 F.Supp. 502.

Affirmed.
#### PILI and FAGA, Plaintiffs v. MAIAVA and SULUGA, Defendants

No. 42-1914

High Court of American Samoa [Land: “Tutu”] Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division

January 21, 1922

SYDNEY D. HALL, *Associate Judge of the High Court*

JUDGMENT

This cause coming on to be heard before Sydney D. Hall, Associate Judge of the High Court of American Samoa, and being heard and it appearing to the court that the matters in controversy had been amicably settled between the parties Plaintiff and Defendant, through the acknowledgment by the Defendants that the Plaintiff’s claim was justified, it is therefore ordered, considered and adjudged that this action be dismissed and “Tutu” shall be considered the Property of the Plaintiff Faga, it being proven that the Plaintiff Pili is now dead.

It is further ordered, considered and adjudged by the court that the Plaintiff shall be assessed his filing fee in this action to cover costs of court.

Given under my hand and seal of the High Court of American Samoa this 21st day of January, A.D., 1922.
(LOGO) HOMESIDE LENDING, INC.
June 15, 2000

Mr. Erik F. Grooms
Contracts & Compliance Administrator
Norwest Bank Minnesota
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562

Re:      Officer's Certificate

Dear Mr. Grooms:

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

*    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 this Officer's 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.
*    I have  confirmed  that the Servicer is currently an approved FNMA or FHLMC
     servicer in good standing.
*    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.
*    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, 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.
*    All Custodial Accounts have been reconciled and are properly funded.
*    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.

Finally,  the Servicer  Information  profile is enclosed.  The annual  financial
statement  and  evidence  of  insurance  have  previously  been sent to  various
employees at Norwest.  However,  additional  copies will be provided to Ms. Joan
Merrill.  Should you need  anything  further  please  contact Lynda M. Pohwat at
(904)281-4705 or Impohwat@homeside.com.

Sincerely,

Karen Bryan
Vice President

lp
encs.

 Post Office Box 44090, Jacksonville, FL 32231-4090 *  904-281-3000
Eibe Damorro SCOTT v. STATE

CR-16-0275

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnnie Lee LUCAS, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7526

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 28, 2017

Decided: May 3, 2017

Johnnie Lee Lucas, III, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer E. Wells, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Johnnie Lee Lucas, III, 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, 164 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 *192denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lucas has not made the requisite showing. His challenge to the career offender enhancement applied to his sentence, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.2(a)(2), is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), and his § 2255 motion is precluded by the waiver provision in his plea agreement. Accordingly, we deny Lucas’s motion for 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*
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7985** 
SALRAMON GONZALES, a/k/a Alex Ramirez , P etitioner

- Appellant ,
v. ENNIS OATES , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. James C. Dever , III , Chief District Judge. ( 5 :1 2

- hc

- 0 2045

- D )

Submitted : April 1 8, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY , and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Salramon Gonzales , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Salramon Gonzales seeks to appeal the district court’s order den ying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substanti al showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. 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 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gonzales has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

TO NY E. DORAN and CHARLOTTE DORAN

, Appellant s

,

v.

PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 3181

[ November 1, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Robert E. Belanger , Judge; L.T. Case No. 56 2011 CA

002813 AXXXHC

.

Thomas Eross, Jr., and Brittani S. Gross of The Ticktin Law Group,

P.L.L.C., Deerfield, for appellant.

William L. Grimsley, N. Mark New, II and Kimberly Held I srael of

McGlinchey Stafford, Jacksonville, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

M AY

, L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
Internet Capital Group, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
333-34736) on Form S-8 of Internet Capital Group, Inc. and subsidiaries of our
reports dated February 20, 2003 with respect to the Consolidated Balance Sheets
of Internet Capital Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and
2001, and the related Consolidated Statements of Operations, Cash Flows,
Stockholders' Equity (Deficit) and Comprehensive Loss for each of the years in
the three-year period ended December 31, 2002 and related schedule, which
reports appear in the December 31, 2002 annual report on Form 10-K of Internet
Capital Group, Inc.

Our report dated February 20, 2003 contains an explanatory paragraph that
describes Internet Capital Group, Inc.'s change in its method of accounting for
goodwill, discontinued operations, accounting for an investment, accounting for
notes receivable from stockholders and reporting gains on extinguishment of debt
in 2002 and derivatives in 2001.

/s/ KPMG LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 31, 2003
Sammie SMITH v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

2160495

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Rita LYNAR, Appellant, v. ASBURY ARMS NORTH, INC., Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-2894

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.4 Debt Purchase Agreement


Exhibit 10.4




DEBT PURCHASE AGREEMENT




This Debt Purchase Agreement (“Debt Purchase Agreement”) is made and entered into effective as of May 2, 2012 by and among Gary B. Wolff (“GBW”), First Trust Management, (“FT”) and Creative Edge Nutrition, Inc. (“Creative”).




WHEREAS, the parties to this Debt Purchase Agreement desire to modify that a certain promissory note dated May 2, 2012 (the “Promissory Note”) executed between GBW and Creative by selling, assigning, transferring and conveying the rights and interests to partial payment of the Promissory Note in the amount of Forty Three Thousand Three Hundred Eighty Four ($43,384) Dollars from GBW to FT.




NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:




1.

Transfer and Assignment. As permitted by Creative, GBW hereby sells, assigns, transfers, and conveys unto FT its rights and interests to receive payments in the amount of $20,000 under the Promissory Note. The remaining rights and interests in the balance of the Debt, if any, will remain with GBW.




2.

Consideration. Consideration to be paid to GBW shall be a total of $20,000.




3.

Agreement to be bound. Creative agrees to be bound by all the terms and conditions applicable to GBW under the Debt.




4.

Entire Agreement. This Debt Purchase Agreement embodies the entire agreement between GBW and FT and supersedes any prior agreements, whether written or oral with respect to the subject matter thereof.




5.

Successors. This Debt Purchase Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of each of the parties to this Debt Purchase Agreement and each of their respective successors and assigns.




6.

Counterparts. This Debt Purchase Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original as against any party whose signature appears thereon and all of which together shall constitute one instrument.




(Remainder of page intentionally left blank: signature page to follow)














IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Debt Purchase Agreement to be duly executed and delivered as of the date first written above.




		
	 
	 

	Gary B. Wolff, P.C.


	 


	/s/ Gary B. Wolff

	 


	Name: Gary B. Wolff


	Its: President and Sole Owner


	 


	First Trust Management


	 


	/s/ John Zukowski

	 


	Name: John Zukowski


	 


	 


	ACCEPTED, ACKNOWLEDGED AND APPROVED


	


Creative Edge Nutrition, Inc.


	 


	/s/ Bill Chaaban

	 


	Name: Bill Chaaban


	Its: President, CEO, Director 


















2
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.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-94181A; File No. SR-NYSE-2021-74]

# AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Securities and Exchange Commission published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         on February 14, 2022, concerning a Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Provisions of Rule 7.35B. The document contained a typographical error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Naomi P. Lewis, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, (202) 551-5400.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 14, 2022, in FR Doc. 2022-03018, on page 8305, in the first column, on the 47th line, on the first line under the heading “SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION” correct the reference to “Release No. 94181” instead to “Release No. 34-94181.”                    

Dated: February 15, 2022.

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-03552 Filed 2-17-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P