alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Notes from Meeting with the American Petroleum Institute ( API ) re : Environmental Integrity Project (EIP)

, et al

., Petition to add the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry to the list of facilities that must report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) pursuant to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) provisions of section 313 of the Emergency Planning and

Co mmunity Right

- to

- Know Act (EPCRA)

February 25, 2014, 3 pm, WJC Building North Rm 4304

Attendees:

Kevin Minoli, EPA/OGC Chris Kaczmarek, EPA/OGC Benjamin Wakefield, EPA/OGC Daniel Schramm, EPA/OGC Steven Knizner, EPA/TRI Ingrid Rosencrantz, EPA/TRI

Gilber t Mears, EPA/TRI Khary Cauthen, API Barbara Ehimika, API Evelyn Nackman, API Matthew Haynie, API Stephanie Meadows, API

Minutes:

Kevin Minoli welcomed everyone and introduced himself.

API thanked EPA for the meeting and explained that their interest in meeting was to learn more about EPA’s intentions for the petition and whether EPA was hearing from other stakeholders.

EPA explained that we received a supplementary letter from EIP in late January that seemed more focused on processing facilities than t he original petition, which identified both downstream processing and drilling activities. This letter is now in the public docket.

API explained that it hope d to be responsive to the petition and to EPA’s infor mational needs,

and w anted to know whether it was an appropriate time for them to provide their own information to the Agency, and whether the Agency had put out a request for information.

EPA explained that while there had not been a formal request for information, when EPA is considering a petition for rulemaking, nothing prevents anyone from submitting their own views and information on that petition. Such information would be included in the docket for the petition.

The petition docket is basically informational ; it’s not like a rulemaking docket and there is not a formal comment period that would be open (or closed).There are already two other letters in the docket for this petition , one from Washington Legal Foundation, and another from the Marcellus Shale Coalition , in addition to the submissions from

EIP.

So API should feel free to provide information , and submissions would go in to the docket.

API asked whether EPA would be revi ewing the information in the attachments to the EIP petition

.

EPA explained that we would review everything that is in the docket.

API ask e d how soon EPA needs information and whether a month would be good. API wants to

make sure its submission is timel y.

EPA said that within a month should not be a problem.

API asked whether EPA has to respond to the petition.

EPA explained that the Agency generally believes it has a fair amount of discretion in how it chooses to respond to petitions for rulemaking, but failure to respond to petitions may result in litigation.

[end meeting]
4650 John Carrell Rd. Denton Municipal Airport (KDTO) Denton, TX 76207
November 9, 2012 US Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 Dear Sir or Madam: www.longhornhelicopters.com valerie@longhornhelicopters.com

1 r.,-

J<,

.**~·-** ""'( •**~,** F

# ~~**~Longhorn** Helicopters, Inc.

Our company is requesting to extend ourexemption from sections 14 CFR part 121, appendices I&

### J. Our business office is located at 10 Hayes Court Trophy Club, TX 76262 Fax: 817-491-3636 We preferto keep both our drug and alcohol programs for Part 135 and 91.147 operations combined. We request this relief due to the fact that we are asmall business and would preferto have all employees in one program. This would benefit the public because all ofour employee pilots will be tested regularly along with our Part 135 pilots/mechanics. Ifour extension is granted for this exemption, the safety of our operations would not be affected. We will not be exercising this privilege outside of the United States ofAmerica.

## ~ar/u,

# -Jire~Mnt Longhorn Helicopters, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS                        
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   JUN-30-1999  
<PERIOD-START>                                      JUL-01-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1998  
<CASH>                                                3,080,000  
<SECURITIES>                                                  0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                         3,331,000  
<ALLOWANCES>                                            153,000  
<INVENTORY>                                                   0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      6,998,000  
<PP&E>                                                8,269,000  
<DEPRECIATION>                                        3,397,000  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       19,036,000  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 4,126,000  
<BONDS>                                                       0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0  
<PREFERRED>                                                   0  
<COMMON>                                                116,000  
<OTHER-SE>                                            6,722,000  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         19,036,000  
<SALES>                                                       0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      3,385,000  
<CGS>                                                         0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         5,533,000  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      290,000  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (2,369,000) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                             56,000  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (2,425,000) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0  
<CHANGES>                                                     0  
<NET-INCOME>                                         (2,425,000) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (0.21) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.21) 
                                       


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,


AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002.





In
connection with the annual report of interCLICK, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael Mathews, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





1.
              The
      annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.





Date:
March 31, 2009





/s/ Michael MathewsMichael
      MathewsChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7008 

To amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating 

to judicial review of a permit issued under such section, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 17, 2024 

Mr. BURLISON (for himself and Mr. ROUZER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to judicial review of a permit issued 

under such section, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Judicial Review 

5 Timeline Clarity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL. 

7 Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

8 Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7008 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsection (t) as sub2 section (u); 

3 (2) in subsection (u), as so redesignated, by 

4 striking ‘‘Nothing in the section’’ and inserting 

5 ‘‘SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in this section’’; 

6 and 

7 (3) by inserting after subsection (s) the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(t) JUDICIAL REVIEW.— 

10 ‘‘(1) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.— 

11 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 

12 applicable provision of law relating to statutes 

13 of limitations, an action seeking judicial review 

14 of an individual or general permit issued under 

15 this section shall be filed not later than the date 

16 that is 60 days after the date on which the per17 mit was issued. 

18 ‘‘(B) SAVINGS PROVISION.—Nothing in 

19 subparagraph (A) may be construed to author20 ize an action seeking judicial review of the 

21 structure of, or authorization for, a State per22 mit program approved pursuant to this section. 

23 ‘‘(2) REMEDY.—If a court determines that the 

24 Secretary or the State, as applicable, did not comply 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7008 IH

1 with the requirements of this section in issuing an 

2 individual or general permit under this section— 

3 ‘‘(A) the court shall remand the matter to 

4 the Secretary or the State, as applicable, for 

5 further proceedings consistent with the court’s 

6 determination; and 

7 ‘‘(B) the court may not vacate, revoke, en8 join, or otherwise limit the permit, unless the 

9 court finds that activities authorized under the 

10 permit would present an imminent and substan11 tial danger to human health or the environment 

12 for which there is no other equitable remedy 

13 available under the law. 

14 ‘‘(3) TIMELINE TO ACT ON COURT ORDER.—If 

15 a court remands a matter under paragraph (2), the 

16 court shall set and enforce a reasonable schedule 

17 and deadline, which may not exceed 180 days from 

18 the date on which the court remands such matter, 

19 for the Secretary or the State, as applicable, to take 

20 such actions as the court may order.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Sabrina Renee BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1314

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Sabrina Renee Brown, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sabrina Renee Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2012) without prejudice for failure to state a claim. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because it is possible that Brown could cure the defects in her complaint through amendment, the order she seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-25, 628-30 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Brown to file an amended complaint. 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.

*819
      *DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny William COOPER, Jr., a/k/a Buck, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7542

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2017

Decided: June 13, 2017

Johnny William Cooper, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Johnny William Cooper, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) motion seeking relief from the district court’s order denying Cooper’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cooper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED **

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

|   | 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/              Matthew C.              Flemming                                       |         |         |
| Matthew                C. Flemming, Chief Financial OfficerJune                28, 2006 |              |
|                                                                                    |         |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7057 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7057

   To require the Financial Stability Oversight Council to report to 
   Congress annually on the threat illegal immigration poses to the 
    financial stability of the United States and recommendations on 
            mitigating such threat, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2024

Mr. Williams of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Financial Stability Oversight Council to report to 
   Congress annually on the threat illegal immigration poses to the 
    financial stability of the United States and recommendations on 
            mitigating such threat, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Evaluating Financial Impacts of 
Illegal Immigration Act''.

SEC. 2. ANNUAL REPORTING ON THE THREAT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION TO 
              FINANCIAL STABILITY.

    Section 112(a)(2)(N) of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 (12 
U.S.C. 5322(a)(2)(N)) is amended--
            (1) in clause (iii), by inserting ``, including illegal 
        immigration'' before the semicolon; and
            (2) in clause (vi)--
                    (A) in subclause (II), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in subclause (III), by striking the period at 
                the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                                    ``(IV) to mitigate the financial 
                                challenges associated with illegal 
                                immigration.''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6948 

To authorize affordable housing construction as an eligible activity under 

the Community Development Block Grant Program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 10, 2024 

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

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To authorize affordable housing construction as an eligible 

activity under the Community Development Block Grant 

Program, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Strengthening Housing 

5 Supply Act of 2024’’. 

2 

•HR 6948 IH

1 SEC. 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION AS ELIGI2 BLE ACTIVITY UNDER COMMUNITY DEVELOP3 MENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. 

4 (a) ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY.—Subsection (a) of section 

5 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 

6 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (25)(D), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

8 the end; 

9 (2) in paragraph (26), by striking the period at 

10 the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(27) the new construction of affordable hous14 ing, within the meaning given such term under sec15 tion 215 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Afford16 able Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12745).’’. 

17 (b) LOW AND MODERATE INCOME REQUIREMENT.— 

18 Paragraph (3) of section 105(c) of the Housing and Com19 munity Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(c)(3)) 

20 is amended by striking ‘‘or rehabilitation’’ and inserting 

21 ‘‘, rehabilitation, or new construction’’. 

22 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The amendments made by this 

23 section shall apply with respect only to amounts appro24 priated after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-10103

 SUMMARY CALENDAR

CHARLES MCCLURE; JEANNIE MCCLURE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

SECURITY NATIONAL BANK OF MIDLAND,

 Defendant,

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION in its CORPORATE CAPACITY .

Movant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:93-MC-92-H)

December 3, 1997

Before DUHÉ, DEMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles and Jeannie McClure appeal the granting of FDICCorporate’s motion to correct an abstract of judgment filed by the

McClures showing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in its

Corporate Capacity (FDIC-Corporate)as a judgment debtor.

In December 1986, a jury found Security Pacific Bank of
Midland, Texas (Security) liable to the McClures for violations of

the Bank Holding Company Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1971-1978. In

accordance with the treble damage provisions of 12 U.S.C. § 1975,

the court entered judgment against Security in the amount of

$2,250,000 on December 31, 1986. The FDIC as receiver was

substituted as defendant to the action on February 13, 1987. On

November 20, 1987, an amendment to the December 31, 1986 judgment

deleted the treble damages portion of the award. The November 20,

1987 order was re-entered on March 31, 1988. The McClures argue

that by virtue of language inserted in a January 29, 1993 order

dismissing their motion to have the November 20, 1987 order, as reentered on March 31, 1988, declared void that FDIC-Corporate was

also a party to the 1987 order. 

 The district court, adopting the magistrate’s report and

recommendations, found the abstract of judgment erroneous as the

underlying judgment was not entered against FDIC-Corporate. In

addition, the district court concluded the filing of the abstract

of judgment violated 12 U.S.C. §§ 1825(b)(2) and 1823(d)(3)(A).

The district court thus ordered the abstract of judgment stricken.

After carefully reviewing the briefs and the relevant portions

of the record, we conclude the McClures’ arguments have no merit.

We affirm substantially for the reasons stated in the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation adopted by the district court in

its December 31, 1996 order. AFFIRMED.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 22, 2022

NO. 03

- 22

- 00252

- CR

Charles Raymond Lee, Jr. , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES G OODW IN, BAKER AND TRIANA
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal relating to the 2005 judgments of conviction rende red by the district cour t

.

Having rev iewed the record, it app ears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal

.

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent

and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.