alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for Meeting the 

Requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Division 

of Air Quality will conduct a public hearing on a proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision for meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The purpose of the SIP 

revision is to supplement a SIP revision that was previously submitted to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) on September 17, 2009, State Implementation Plan for Meeting the 

Infrastructure Requirements of the Clean Air Act for Fine Particulate Matter. That 2009 SIP 

revision was submitted to the EPA to satisfy the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Fine Particles 

(PM2.5) promulgated by the EPA on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61224).

Delaware’s September 17, 2009 SIP revision explained, among other things, how Delaware has 

satisfied the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for interstate transport. This SIP revision 

supplements the September 17, 2009 SIP revision by adding a technical analysis that explains 

and demonstrates in detail how Delaware has satisfied the requirements of CAA

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). 

On December 8, 2010 pursuant to the provisions of 40CFR Part 51 Appendix v at 2.3.1, DNREC 

submitted this supplemental technical analysis to the EPA, and requested that EPA process it in 

parallel with any proposed rulemaking on its September 17, 2009 SIP submission while DNREC

completes the public participation procedures necessary to make a formal SIP revision request. 

This was done to enable EPA to consider this technical analysis in any rulemaking it takes on 

Delaware’s September 17, 2009 submittal between now and the date the complete formal 

submittal of this SIP supplement is made by DNREC to EPA. 

A public hearing on this proposed SIP revision will be held February 1, 2011, beginning at 6:00 

p.m. in the DNREC’s Auditorium, R & R Building, 89 Kings Hwy, Dover, DE 19901. The 

proposed SIP revision may be inspected at the Department’s offices located at Division of Air 

Quality at the Blue Hen Corporate Center, 655 S. Bay Road, Suite 5N and 715 Grantham Lane, 

New Castle, or viewed on DNREC’s website: http://www.awm.delaware.gov/Info/Regs/Pages/ 

AQMPlansRegs.aspx, or by contacting Jack Sipple at (302) 739-9402 or john.sipple@state.de.us.

Interested parties may submit comments in writing on this proposed SIP revision prior to the 

public hearing, and/or comments may be presented either orally or in writing at the public 

hearing. If you are unable to attend the public hearing or wish to submit your comments in 

advance of the public hearing, please address your comments to:

Jack Sipple

Division of Air Quality

Blue Hen Corporate Center
655 S. Bay Road Dover, DE 19901

THIS IS THE ONLY TIME THIS NOTICE WILL APPEAR
<PAGE>   1






                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                             For the Quarter
                                                                                   Ended


                                                              March 31, 1997               March 31, 1996
                                                       ---------------------------    -------------------
<S>                                                      <C>                         <C>
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                                  7,478,312                   3,507,936

Net Loss                                               $           (2,525,053)        $         (1,039,260)
                                                       ---------------------------    -----------------------

Primary Loss Per Share                                                 ($0.34)                      ($0.30)
                                                       ===========================    ========================
</TABLE>





                                      15
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ian MACKIE Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4535

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 13, 2017

Filed: October 3, 2017

Colleen Lang, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Missouri, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ian Mackie, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ian Mackie directly appeals the sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pled guilty to enticement of a minor and receipt of child pornography. Mackie’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, *891and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. Upon careful review, we conclude that Mackie’s sentence, which was imposed within his Sentencing Guidelines range, is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions; if sentence is within Guidelines range, appellate court may, but is not required to, apply presumption of reasonableness).

Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

, The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
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 Quarterly Report of ioWorldMedia, Incorporated, a Florida corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Thomas Bean, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 (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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Thomas BeanThomas BeanChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)Date:  August 12, 2011
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Alexis ESTEVEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40536 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 8, 2017

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

Alexis Estevez, Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON,' Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alexis Estevez, federal prisoner # 71905-079, appeals the district court’s grant of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. Estevez argues that the district court erred in reducing his sentence on the possession-with-intent-to-distribute-marijuana count to 97 months rather than to 87 months. He asserts that his total original sentence of 130 months was in the middle of the guidelines range and that the district court was obligated to give him a reduction that resulted in a total sentence in the middle of the amended range. We review the district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Evans, 587*F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

A district court abuses its discretion by making a legal error, basing its decision on a clearly erroneous assessment of evidence, or by failing to consider factors that it is required by law to examine. *United States v. Larry,*632 F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011). The record reflects that the district court considered the policy statement of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Estevez cannot show that the district court abused its discretion by not granting him a greater reduction in sentence. *United States v. Whitebird,*55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Ahadi Abu-al MUHAMMAD, AKA Onofre Tommy Serrano, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55730

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 17, 2017

Ahadi Abu-Al Muhammad, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ahadi Abu-al Muhammad, a.k.a Onofre Tommy Serrano, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims stemming from his arrest and detainment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We reverse and remand.

Dismissal of Muhammad’s action was premature because the allegations that Muhammad was stopped and arrested based on Muhammad’s race, liberally construed, are “sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” *Wilhelm v. Rotman,*680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012). We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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

The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period April 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                                                                                     
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
|Name:                 |  | Kenneth A. Shewer                                                                                                                   
|Title:                |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)Preferred Investment Solutions Corp.,Managing Owner ofFutures Strategic Trust
|                      | 
|Date:                 |  | August 12, 2008
EXHIBIT 11

INNOVATIVE MEDICAL SERVICES
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 3O, 1997 AND 1998



                                             For the Nine Months Ended
                                                     April 30,
                                           ----------------------------
                                               1998             1997
                                           ----------------------------

Shares outstanding                           3,832,851        3,520,851 
                                            ==========       ========== 

Weighted average shares outstanding          3,713,071        3,231,111 
Stock Options                                  406,250          576,250 
Warrants                                     1,798,125        1,765,417 
                                            ----------       ---------- 
     Total weighted average
      shares outstanding                     5,917,446        5,572,778 
                                            ==========       ========== 


Net Income (Loss)                          $(1,885,981)      $ (909,716)
                                            ==========       ========== 


Net Earnings (Loss) per share               $    (0.32)      $    (0.16)
                                            ==========       ==========
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 802 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
                                 S. 802

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
  documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel ROYAL 
                                AFFAIRE.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 U.S.C. App. 883), the 
Act of June 19, 1886 (46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 12106, 12107, 
and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with a 
coastwise endorsement for the vessel ROYAL AFFAIRE, United States 
official number 649292.

            Passed the Senate July 29, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 802

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
  documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for the vessel ROYAL 
                               AFFAIRE .
```
DENIED and Opinion Filed August 19, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00902-CV 

IN RE KRISTOPHER GENE GUILLAUME, ALAN E. DEVOE, AND 

SYLVIA J. GUILLAUME, Relators 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-24-00774-B 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III 

In their July 31, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus, relators contend the 

judgment in the underlying case is void for various reasons. 

Upon review, relators’ petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re 

Backusy, No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 

14, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.3(a), 

52.3(d), 52.3(e), 52.3(g), 52.3(h), 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1), 52.7(a)(2). For 

example, the person filing the petition failed to certify that he or she has reviewed 

the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported 
 –2– 

by competent evidence included in the appendix or record, as required by rule 

52.3(j). See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Stewart, No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 

401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) 

(explaining that our precedent requires “exceptionally strict compliance” with rule 

52.3(j)). Additionally, the documents included in the appendix and record are not 

properly certified or sworn copies. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); 

In re Leonard, No. 05-23-00546-CV, 2023 WL 3944376, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

June 12, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining how to obtain properly 

certified or sworn copies). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

240902F.P05 

/Bill Pedersen, III/

BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C SECTIONS 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I Ronald E.
Badke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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


BY: /S/ RONALD E. BADKE
    ------------------
    RONALD E. BADKE
    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
    AUGUST 9, 2006
# EUR-Lex - 32001R2015 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R2015

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 2015/2001 of 12 October 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000 as regards the period of application of certain provisions of Regulations (EC) No 1839/95 and (EC) No 1249/96 **

*
Official Journal L 272 , 13/10/2001 P. 0031 - 0031 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2015/2001

of 12 October 2001

amending Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000 as regards the period of application of certain provisions of Regulations (EC) No 1839/95 and (EC) No 1249/96

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/2000(2), and in particular Article 10(4) and Article 12(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1839/95 of 26 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of tariff quotas for imports of maize and sorghum into Spain and imports of maize into Portugal(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000(4), lays down provisions on the administration of the imports concerned.

(2) Article 2(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 of 28 June 1996 on rules of application (cereal sector import duties) for Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92(5), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000, provides, on certain conditions, for a reduction of EUR 24 per tonne in the import duty on flint maize. In view of the movement of the price for flint maize on the world market, Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000 increases the reduction in the duty originally provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1249/96. The level of the securities provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1249/96 was adjusted accordingly.

(3) The measures provided for by Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000 were adopted for a trial period of one year with a view to resolving the problems encountered in administering the quotas referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1839/95. Given that those problems have been resolved to the satisfaction of the various parties involved during the trial period, the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000 should be applied on a permanent basis.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The second paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 2235/2000 is deleted.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 October 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.

(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 177, 28.7.1995, p. 4.

(4) OJ L 256, 10.10.2000, p. 13.

(5) OJ L 161, 29.6.1996, p. 125.
#### Robert Lewis BANZER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 21088.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Oct. 18, 1966.

Certiorari Denied Jan. 9, 1967.

See 87 S.Ct. 715.

*866Stanley J. Mitchell, Mitchell & O’Leary, Oregon City, Or., for appellant.

Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., Norman Sepenuk, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for appellee.

Before MERRILL and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges, and MATHES, Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the judgment' imposed following appellant’s conviction by jury verdict of the six offenses charged in the indictment, all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2314.

Inasmuch as no error affecting the substantial rights of appellant appears in connection with his conviction on the second count of the indictment [Fed.R. Crim.P. 52(a)], and the sentences on all counts were imposed to commence and run concurrently, we need not reach the point of decision as to the remaining five counts. [See: United States v. Romano, 382 U.S. 136, 138, 86 S.Ct. 279, 15 L.Ed. 2d 210 (1965) ; United States v. Gainey, 380 U.S. 63, 65, 85 S.Ct. 754, 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1965); Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 359, 78 S.Ct. 311, 2 L.Ed.2d 321 (1958); Emspak v. United States, 349 U.S. 190, 195, 75 S.Ct. 687, 99 L.Ed. 997 (1955); Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 85, 63 S.Ct. 1375, 87 L.Ed. 1774 (1943); Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 49 S.Ct. 268, 73 L.Ed. 692 (1929).]

Affirmed.