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

2014 Minor Updates to 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard SIPs 

Planning Area: Coachella Valley and Western Mojave Desert Ozone Nonattainment Areas

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V –

Criteria for Determining the Completeness 

of Plan Submissions

Enclosed Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's 

Designee YES See letter from Richard Corey, 

ARB Executive Officer.

2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption YES See enclosed ARB Resolution 14-29.

2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation YES See ARB Resolution 14-29.

2.1(d) Copy of :

a. Attainment Plan for ozone

c. Contingency measures, 

d. Transportation control conformity budgets 

c. Vehicle Miles Traveled offset demonstration

d. Reasonably Available Control Measure

analysis

YES

See ARB Staff Report analysis, 

2007 South Coast and Coachella 

Valley AQMP, and 2008 Western 

Mojave Desert Attainment Plan.

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's 

Procedural Requirements YES See ARB Resolution 14-29.

2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 

40 CFR part 51.102 YES

See public notice and proof 

of publication in the ARB public

notice published to web on 

September 22, 2014 at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/rss/displa

ypost.php?pno=7940

2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in 

Accordance with Notice YES See ARB Resolution 14-29.

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and 

Responses NO There were no public comments for the 

ARB Board adoption. 

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant YES See ARB Staff Report analysis.

2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status YES See ARB Staff Report analysis.

2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on Emissions YES See attainment demonstration in 

Appendix B of ARB Staff Report.

2.2(d) Demonstration that Plan 

Approval/Implementation Protects NAAQS YES See attainment demonstration in 

Appendix B of ARB Staff Report.

2.2(e) Modeling Support NO Not applicable. 

2.2(f)- Compliance/Enforcement and 

2.2(i) Justification NO Not applicable.

X:\2014 SIP updates for CV and MD\USEPA Submittal Package\SIP Submittal CompletenessChecklist.doc
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10378

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

Adam McMeen Flake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Anthony P. Sgro, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Patt, Sgro and Lewis, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Terry Davis appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 requesting that the court amend the judgment and record regarding his violation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

In his Rule 36 motion, Davis asked the district eourt to amend the record to clari*fy*that, while he admitted to violating the condition of his supervised release requiring him to maintain lawful employment, he did not admit to all the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Petition for Summons for Offender under Supervision concerning that violation. Davis conceded, however, that he “did not present this distinction to the [district court] in such a way that the [c]ourt was able to note this in the record.” Furthermore, the judgment itself correctly states that Davis admitted to violating the “maintain employment” condition of his supervised release; it does not contain particular facts that formed the basis of that admission. Under these circumstances, the district court did not clearly err by finding that Davis’s requested amendment to the record did not involve a clerical error or error arising from oversight or omission correctable by a Rule 36 motion. *See United States v. Dickie,*752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985) (denial of Rule 36 motion reviewed for clear error); *United States v. Kaye,*739 F.2d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 1984) (Rule 36 applies to clerical errors only).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### The People *ex rel.*Jos. C. Higgins, App’lt, v. Hugh J. Grant, Mayor, etc., Board of Record, Resp’ts.

*James F. Higgins,*for app’lt; *David J. Dean,*for resp’ts.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 37 N. Y. State Rep., 629.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6105

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARD ASHBAUGH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (3:05-cr-00060-JPB-RWT-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2018 Decided: September 7, 2018

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

Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Valena E. Beety, Christopher W. Maidona, Third-Year Law Student, Victoria G. Bittorf, 

Third-Year Law Student, Morgantown, West Virginia, Thomas J. Gillooly, West Virginia 

Innocence Project, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, Charleston, 

West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Powell, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Tara Tighe, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Ashbaugh seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b) motion to reconsider the denial of his motion to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

case. We have reviewed the record on appeal and conclude that Ashbaugh’s Rule 60(b) 

motion was actually a second or successive habeas motion because he sought, in essence, 

to collaterally attack his sentence and the district court adjudicated his first § 2255 motion 

on the merits. Ashbaugh did not obtain prefiling authorization from this court to file a 

second or successive § 2255 motion, and, thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to 

consider Ashbaugh’s motion for reconsideration. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 

205 (4th Cir. 2003). As a result, we must “vacate the order denying [Ashbaugh’s] motion 

for reconsideration and remand to the district court with instructions to dismiss the 

motion.” Id. at 208.

Next, following Winestock, we “construe [Ashbaugh’s] notice of appeal and his 

appellate brief as a motion for authorization to file a successive application.” 340 F.3d at 

208. To obtain permission to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion, a movant must 

show that his claim: (1) “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to 

cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable” or (2) 

relies on newly discovered facts that tend to establish the movant’s innocence. 28 U.S.C. § 

2255(h). We conclude that Ashbaugh’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order and remand with instructions to 

dismiss Ashbaugh’s motion for lack of jurisdiction, and we deny authorization to file a 

second or successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York

1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Tel: 703.336.8800

mckennalong.com

Northern Virginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

Mark E. McKinnon

703.336.8708

Matthew J. Clark

703.336.8714

Email Address

mmckinnon@mckennalong.com

mclark@mckennalong.com

September 20, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Delivery of Operating Documents (Docket No. FAA-2015-3167)

To Whom it May Concern:

As you are aware, this office represents University of Iowa regarding the above-referenced 

Petition for Exemption, in which University of Iowa seeks regulatory relief to allow commercial 

operation of small unmanned aircraft system. Please accept this letter as confirmation that 

University of Iowa operating documents were submitted electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. 

If you have any questions or require any additional information to process the University of 

Iowa Petition, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

Very truly yours,

Mark E. McKinnon

Counsel for University of Iowa.
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Kenneth W. Bell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pacific WebWorks, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: March 20, 2007 /s/ Kenneth W. Bell Kenneth W. Bell Principal Financial Officer
#### Hamid MAHJOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.; Brock & Scott, PLLC; Trustee Services of Virginia, LLC; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; FFC Properties, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1782

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 23, 2017

Hamid R. Mahjor, Appellant Pro Se. Syed Mohsin Reza, TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP, Tysons Corner, Virginia; John E. Rinaldi, WALSH COLUCCI LUBE-LEY & WALSH, PC, Prince William, Virginia; Robert Anthony Oliveri, Jr., BROCK & SCOTT PLLC, Warrenton, Virginia; Stephen Christenson, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hamid Mahjor appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action asserting numerous claims arising out of a foreclosure sale of his home. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Mahjor v, Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc.,*No. 1:17-cv-00498-LMB-IDD, 2017 WL 2728033 (E.D. Va. June 23, 2017). We deny Mahjor’s motions for appointment of counsel. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





In
      connection with the Annual Report of RFG Acquisition I Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
      F. Beston, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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/
                Richard F. Beston, Jr.
              Richard
                F. Beston, Jr.
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              February
                20, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 11432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04205]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate 
Receivership

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for the institution listed 
below intends to terminate its receivership for said institution.

                                   Notice of Intent To Terminate Receivership
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Date of
             Fund                  Receivership name               City                State      appointment of
                                                                                                     receiver
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10488........................  First National Bank.....  Edinburg...............  TX                  09/13/2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The liquidation of the assets for the receivership has been 
completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance 
with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to 
proven creditors.
    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the 
continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. 
Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be 
terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date 
of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the 
termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing, 
identify the receivership to which the comment pertains, and sent 
within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, 
Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, 
Dallas, TX 75201.
    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be 
considered which are not sent within this time frame.

(Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1819)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

    Dated at Washington, DC, on February 23, 2022.
James P. Sheesley,
Assistant Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04205 Filed 2-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Certifications Pursuant to Section 302 

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

 

I, James R. Lavelle, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Cotelligent, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others with those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors: 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2005 

 

 

/s/ James R.Lavelle                            

James R. Lavelle 

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### Perkins *vs.*Spalding & Jones.

November 11,

Error to the Lawrence Circuit; Silas W, Robbins, Judge,,

*Appeals to Circuit Court. Breaches. Bonds.*Conditions„

Debt;, Caso 6..

statement,

Chief Justice Boyle

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This was an action of debt on a bond executed by Spalding, and Jones as his security, on an-appeal taken to the circuit court of Floyd, from a judgment for §41 66 cents debt, besides costs, obtained by Perkins against Spalding, before a justice of the peace.

*12Condition of (ie" o ,uet upon.

Aasigumpnt *mi*breach.

lodgment of ■ be Circuit Court against the declaration.

The condition of an appeal bond to prosecute the appeal with good effect, and pay all costs and damages awarded against him, in case the judgment should be affirmed, is not brolren by non payment of the judgment rendered by the Circuit Court against appellant, for all the costs in both tribu- ' nals, an attorney’s fee excepted.

*Triplett*for plaintiff; *Monroe*for defendants,

The condition of the bond is, that *"*Spalding “should prosecute said appeal with good effect, and all costs and damages awarded against him, “ *in case the judgment aforesaid should be affirmed..”'*

And, for breach of the condition, the declaration a]jCgUSi }n substance, that Spalding did not prose-cu(e the appeal with good effect, but that, at the duly term, 1821, of the Floyd circuit court, said appeal came on to be heard, and by consent of the parties,, it was considered by the court, that the appellee recover of the appellant, all the costs before that time expended in said appeal by the appellee, except an attorney’s fee, together with his costs expended before the justice of the peace; and it is then avered that the costs aforesaid amount to Bll 15 cents, and that neither Spalding nor Jones had paid said costs.

On a demurrer to the *declaration, the*circuit court gave judgment for the defendants; to which the plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.

The amount iu controversy in this case is evidently too insignificant to justify the expenses of the parties, necessarily incurred in bringing it to this court, even if the judgment of the circuit court- had been erroneous; but the judgment of that court is clearly correct. The breach alleged in the condition of the bond is manifestly insufficient to shew a forfeiture of the penalty, and of course is insufficient to maintain the action. The condition of the bond having only required Spalding to prosecute the appeal with good effect, and pay all costs and damages awarded against him, in case the judgment should be affirmed. The judgment, by consent of the parties, for a part of the costs only, shews clearly that the appeal was prosecuted with good effect, and of course that the first part of the condition was complied with, and as the judgment of the justice was not affirmed, the non payment of tiie costs could be no breach of the latter part of the condition.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.