alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Subpart W Stakeholders Conference Call April 3, 2014

ATTENDEES

EPA: Reid Rosnick, Susan Stahle (OGC), Angelique Diaz (Region 8)

Environmental Groups/Tribes: Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch ; Aaron Mentzes, Earthworks; Paul Robinson, SW Research and Information Center; Scott Clow, Mike King, Ute Mountain

Ute Tribe

Uranium Industry/Other : Jim Cain, Cotter; Scott Bakken, Cameco; Richard Bluebaugh, Powertech; Darrel Lyles, SENES; Richard Potter

UPDATE

Reid began the call with a welcome and by taking attendance. Reid had a couple of items to

share.

EPA has addressed the comments from OMB sta ff and other interagency comments successfully.

OMB staff has cleared the dr aft rulemaking and it was revi ewed by OMB management. OMB officially cleared the draft proposed rulemaki ng on January 13, 2014. The package was returned to EPA, where several housekeeping items were be addressed, and the package began its trip to the Administrator’s office for signature. After si gnature the proposed rule will be sent to the Office of the Federal Register fo r publication, probably this month.

DISCUSSION

Sarah: How long is the comment period? Reid: 90 days

Scott: Has EPA considered placing the rule (when it’s published) on the American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) portio n of EPA’s website? Reid will l ook into it. Joann Chase is a

contact in AIEO.

There was a request for a summary of what is in the proposed rule. Re id stated that that

information cannot be released until after the pro posal has been published in the Federal Register.

Question on if the proposed rule... will it include response to comments received – Reid clarified the process. The final rulemaking will include a response to all the comments in the preamble or a separate document, depending on the volume of comments. You will see some comments

received to date addressed in the rule.Sarah – Will it go on the federal rulemaking website? www.regulations.gov Reid – yes, the rulemaking will have a specific number and you can either 1. Submit a comment or 2. Read other

comments at that website.

Sarah –Any idea of schedule after comments received? Reid – it wi ll depend on the scope of the comments and if they have been addressed already or not.

Darryl – Joined late and asked fo r a process update. Reid – summar ized info stated in his update.

Next call: Thursday, July 3, 2014 at 11 AM Eastern Time.

___________________________________end____________________________________
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  Celerity  Systems,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of
the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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  operation of the
Company.

Date:    May 11, 2005                        By:    /s/ Robert Legnosky
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                 Robert Legnosky
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Interim Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document  authentications,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature
that  appears  in typed  form  within the  electronic  version  of this  written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to Celerity Systems,  Inc.
and will be retained by Celerity  Systems,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 808 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 317
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 808

                          [Report No. 104-215]

To extend the deadline for the conversion of the vessel M/V TWIN DRILL, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 16 (legislative day, May 15), 1995

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

                            January 26, 1996

              Reported by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the deadline for the conversion of the vessel M/V TWIN DRILL, 
                        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. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR CONVERSION.

    Section 601(d) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1993 (Public 
Law 103-206, 107 Stat. 2445) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``June 30, 1995'' and 
        inserting ``June 30, 1996''; and
            (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``12 months'' and 
        inserting ``24 months''.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 317

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 808

                          [Report No. 104-215]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To extend the deadline for the conversion of the vessel M/V TWIN DRILL, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 26, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
EXHIBIT 10.1












AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT












WHEREAS, Znergy, Inc. (the “Company” or “Employer”) executed an employment agreement (the “Agreement”) dated May 15, 2017 with Christopher J. Floyd to serve as its Chief Financial Officer (the “CFO”), (collectively, the “Parties”); and







WHEREAS, the Company and the CFO desire to amend the Agreement to replace language in Section 5.5 TERMINATION PAY;







NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby amend Section 5.5 (d) as follows:







Section 5.5(d) is removed and replaced with the following:







Termination by the Executive For Good Reason or by the Employer without Cause. If the Executive terminates this Agreement For Good Reason, or if the Employer terminates the Employee without Cause, the Employer will pay the Executive (i) the Executive's Salary for the remainder, if any, of the calendar month in which such termination is effective and for four (4) consecutive calendar months thereafter, (ii) the Executive's Unvested Options to purchase shares of the Company’s common stock are forfeited, and (iii) the Company will issue 3,000,000 shares of its common stock to Executive within 10 business days of termination.

















Agreed and accepted this 15th day of November, 2017


 



	
Znergy, Inc.


 


 


/s/ Dave Baker                               



Dave Baker


Chief Executive Officer



	
Employee


 


 


/s/ Christopher J. Floyd                               


Christopher J. Floyd
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,929
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (458)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,966
<PP&E>                                         623,118
<DEPRECIATION>                               (308,902)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 333,695
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,163
<BONDS>                                        130,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         31
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                     174,695
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   333,695
<SALES>                                         60,749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                61,579
<CGS>                                           43,715
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,288
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,004
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,004
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,004
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01



</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6989

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SEAN FRANCIS SCHAFFNER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:10

- cr - 00370

- RBH

- 1; 4:16

- cv - 02508

- RBH )

Submitted : December 18 , 2018 Decided: December 21, 2018

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Sean Francis Schaffner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sean Francis Schaffner seeks to appeal the dist rict 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 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 d istrict 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 motion 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 Schaf fner 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 ar gument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# EUR-Lex - 32003D0539 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32003D0539

**2003/539/EC: Council Decision of 15 July 2003 authorising the Portuguese Republic to extend until 9 April 2004 the Agreement on mutual fishery relations with the Republic of South Africa **

*
Official Journal L 185 , 24/07/2003 P. 0025 - 0025 *

Council Decision

of 15 July 2003

authorising the Portuguese Republic to extend until 9 April 2004 the Agreement on mutual fishery relations with the Republic of South Africa

(2003/539/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, and in particular Article 354(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) The Agreement on mutual fishery relations between the Government of the Portuguese Republic and the Government of the Republic of South Africa, signed on 9 April 1979, entered into force on that day for an initial period of 10 years. The Agreement remains in force for an indeterminate period if it is not denounced by the giving of 12 months' notice.

(2) Article 354(2) of the Act of Accession lays down that the rights and obligations resulting from the fisheries agreements concluded by the Portuguese Republic with third countries shall not be affected during the period for which the provisions of such agreements are provisionally maintained.

(3) Pursuant to Article 354(3) of the said Act, the Council is to adopt, before the expiry of the fisheries agreements concluded by the Portuguese Republic with third countries, decisions appropriate for the continuation of fishing activities resulting therefrom, including the possibility of prolonging for periods not exceeding one year. The abovementioned Agreement has been extended until 9 April 2003(1).

(4) It appears appropriate to authorise the Portuguese Republic to renew the Agreement in question until 9 April 2004,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Portuguese Republic is hereby authorised to extend until 9 April 2004 the Agreement on mutual fishery relations with the Republic of South Africa which entered into force on 9 April 1979.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Portuguese Republic.

Done at Brussels, 15 July 2003.

For the Council

The President

G. Tremonti

(1) OJ L 116, 3.5.2002, p. 32.
#### Felipe Sanchez LUIS, AKA Felipe Sanchez Luis, AKA Felipe Sanchez, AKA Luis Felipe Sanchez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71739

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 21, 2017

Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Mario Acosta, Jr., Los Ange-les, CA, for Petitioner

OIL, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esquire, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, . Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*605MEMORANDUM **

Felipe Sanchez Luis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Sanchez Luis’ testimony and written declaration as to the past harm he suffered in Mexico and omissions about his injuries and hospitalization. *See id,*at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Sanchez Luis’ explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Sanchez Luis’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Sanchez Luis’ CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Sanchez Luis does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. *Id.*at 1156-57.

We lack jurisdiction to review Sanchez Luis’ contentions regarding his membership in a particular social group because it was not raised to the agency. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*858 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tracy Neil TRUELOVE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11453 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 21, 2017

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

Kevin Joel Page, Lauren Anita Woods, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX,' for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Tracy Neil Truelove appeals the 77-month sentence he received following his guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He contends that the district court erred in assessing a base offense level of 24, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K1.2(a)(2), based on the determination that he committed the instant offense after two felony convictions for crimes of violence, as defined by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a) (2014). Truelove asserts that his prior Texas convictions for robbery and aggravated robbery are crimes of violence only under the residual clause of former § 4B1.2(a) and accompanying commentary, which is invalid and void for vagueness following *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance in light of *Beckles v. United States,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 886, 892, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Summary affirmance is proper where, among other things, “the position of one of *282the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). In *Beckles,*137 S.Ct. at 892, the Supreme Court declined to extend *Johnson*and held that “the Guidelines are not subject to a vagueness challenge under the Due Process Clause.” Texas robbery and aggravated robbery qualify as enumerated crimes of violence under the former commentary to § 4B1.2. *See United States v. Flores-Vasquez,*641 F.3d 667, 670 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011); *United States v. Santiesteban-Hernandez,*469 F.3d 376, 380-81 (5th Cir. 2006), *overruled on other grounds by United States v. Rodriguez,*711 F.3d 541, 547-63 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc); *United States v. Sanchez-Lopez,*493 Fed.Appx. 557, 558 (5th Cir. 2012). Thus, Truelove’s appellate argument is foreclosed.

The motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED,1 The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 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.

1

. Because summary affirmance is appropriate, this court pretermits the question whether the appeal is barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in the written plea agreement. *See United States*v. *Story,*439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006)
EXHIBIT 32



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 Qualsec. (the "Company") on Form  10-K for the  period  ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report"),  I, Joel  Hand, Chief Executive and 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, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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/ Joel Hand

By: Joel Hand

Chief Executive and Financial Officer

April 6, 2009
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 137

To provide for the deposit of funds for the Senate page residence.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 20 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To provide for the deposit of funds for the Senate page

residence.

1 Resolved, That effective on and after June 18, 1995,

2 amounts withheld by the Secretary of the Senate under

3 section 902 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1983

4 (2 U.S.C. 88b–6) shall be deposited in the revolving fund,

5 within the contingent fund of the Senate, for the Daniel

6 Webster Senate Page Residence, as established by section

7 4 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1995 (2

8 U.S.C. 88b–7).

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNDER SEAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7020

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 22, 2018

Under Seal, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine Dietz Cowherd, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Under Seal,*No. 8:97-cr-00193-PWG-10 (D. Md. July 7, 2017). We deny. Appellant’s motions for the production of transcripts at government expense and for reconsideration of our prior order deferring ruling on this motion. 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*