alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7031

In Re: LINWOOD DOUGLAS THORNE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-94-453-HNM)

Submitted: September 9, 1999 Decided: September 15, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linwood Douglas Thorne, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Linwood Douglas Thorne has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from this court seeking an order instructing the Respondent

to provide him with a copy of the transcript of the grand jury

proceeding that lead to Thorne’s indictment. Mandamus is a drastic

remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v.

United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus

relief is only available when there are no other means by which the

relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826

(4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

See In re Catawba Indian Tribe of S. Carolina, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135

(4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, although we grant Thorne’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. Thorne’s motion to expedite this petition is now moot and is denied for that

reason. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
SERVED: October 6, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

DGW,Inc., d/b/a Melrose T-Top, Inti. 

DOCKET NO. FAA 2014- 0546 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ORDER ON VENUE 

DGW, Inc., (hereinafter "DGW") filed a motion for change of venue from 

Louisville, KY to Chicago. The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") 

filed an objection. 

We have a long standing tradition of setting venue convenient to the Respondent, 

herein DOW. DOW avers they are located in proximity to Chicago. 

WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. Venue shall be Chicago, IL. 

2. We do not anticipate scheduling this case until after January 1, 2015. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 1 

ONE COPY 

Richard I. Williams, Respondent',~ Counsel 

Griffin Williams LLP 

501 W. State Street, Suite 203 

Geneva, IL 60134 

TEL: 630-457-1205 

FAX: 630-262-0644 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel 

Office ofthe Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (El1-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0546 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W I 000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  DTRA Leadership             
  -  DTRA History             
  -  Mission             
  -  Strategic Initiatives             
  -  Foreign Malign Influence             
  -  Agency Overview Brief (pdf)             
  -  Agency Financial Report 
-  Careers & Opportunities    -  Your Civilian Career             
  -  Your Military Career             
  -  Welcome Aboard 
-  Business    -  DTRA Contract Award Data             
  -  Office of Small Business             
  -  Mentor Protege Program 
-  News & Media    -  Press Center 
-  Contact Us		 
-  Joint Operations Center		 

# DTRA FOIA Reading Room Archive

# FOIA Request 20-063 Fifth Interim 

##                 COVID Information            

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

## Related Links

20-063 Fifth Interim

COVID
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23
----------

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of PGI Incorporated and subsidiaries on Form S-8 (File 2-77149) of our
report dated March 12, 2002 on the consolidated statement of financial
position of PGI Incorporated and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and
2000 and the consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' deficiency
and cash flows for each of the two years ended December 31, 2001. Our report
contains an explanatory paragraph regarding uncertainty as to the ability of
the Company to continue as a going concern.



                                             /s/ BKD, LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
May 10, 2002
#### FIRST SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, v. SUNNYSLOPE HOUSING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.

No. 17-455.

Jan. 8, 2018.

Case below, 859 F.3d 637.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11394]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6075]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL138-1b; FRL-5660-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve Illinois' May 5, 1995, May 26, 
1995, and May 31, 1995, submittal of miscellaneous amendments to 
Illinois'' Volatile Organic Material (VOM) Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) rules as requested revisions to Illinois' State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. VOM, as defined by the State of 
Illinois, is identical to ``volatile organic compounds'' (VOC), as 
defined by EPA. These amendments make certain clarifications to the 
State's VOM RACT rules, and includes an exemption of certain 
polyethylene foam packaging operations from these rules. In the final 
rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving this 
action as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views 
this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. 
A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to that direct 
final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this 
proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule 
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. Any parties 
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before 
April 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18-J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State submittal are available for inspection at: 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18-J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark J. Palermo, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6082.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: November 27, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-6075 Filed 3-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
No. 11-10446.

#### Ross *v.*New York State Board of Parole.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10580.

#### Boone *v.*Texas.

Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio-rari denied.
<PAGE>   

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                                                           EXHIBIT 12(A)
 
                    PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY
 
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 
                                                      YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
                                     1991         1992         1993         1994        1995
                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
                                                      (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
<S>                               <C>          <C>           <C>         <C>         <C>
Net Income....................... $  545,479   $  475,936   $  614,868   $  659,406   $  616,964
Plus Income Taxes (A)............    261,912      223,782      307,414      301,447      325,737
                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
Income Before Income Taxes.......    807,391      699,718      922,282      960,853      942,701
                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
Fixed Charges
  Interest Charges (B)...........    358,517      401,902      389,956      395,925      406,869
  Interest Factor in Rentals.....      9,311        9,591       11,090       12,120       11,956
                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
          Total..................    367,828      411,493      401,046      408,045      418,825
                                  ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------   ----------
Earnings Before Fixed Charges.... $1,175,219   $1,111,211   $1,323,328   $1,368,898   $1,361,526
                                  ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========   ==========

Ratio............................       3.20         2.70         3.30         3.35         3.25
                                        ====         ====         ====         ====         ====
 
(A)  Includes state income taxes and federal income taxes for other income.

(B)  Excludes 1991 and 1992 interest expense on decommissioning costs of $6,956 and $5,208,
     respectively.  Effective January 1, 1992, accounting was changed to follow Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission guidelines.
</TABLE>
----- Forwarded by Nicole Law/R9/USEPA/US on 11/25/2009 02:28 PM -----

From: "Joven Nazareno" <joven.nazareno@valleyair.org>

To: Nicole Law/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "George Heinen" <george.heinen@valleyair.org>, "Errol Villegas" <errol.villegas@valleyair.org>

Date: 07/23/2009 02:35 PM

Subject: RE: Rule 4603 AND 4612

Hi Nicole,

Based on our permit database there are about 300 permitted sources subject to R 4603. I reviewed the 

latest annual inspection reports and found that only one facility out of 300 is using extreme performance 

coating. The facility ( Guntert & Zimmerman: Permit No. N-380) uses 884.76 gallons per year of Sherwin 

Williams topcoat which is an extreme performance coating and the facility is Air-dried operation. Its 

VOC limit is 3.38 lb/gal which is below the 3.5 lb/gal limit for air-dried extreme performance coating. 

Please note that the 2008 CTG for miscellaneous metal and plastic parts and products recommended 

limit for air-dried is also 3.5 lb/gal. We do not have any baked extreme performance coating operation 

that would be subject to the CTG limit of 3.0 lb/gal limit. Nonetheless, our current rulemaking to 

incorporate the 2008 CTG will lower the existing baked extreme performance coating limit from 3.5 to 3.0 

lb/gal. In addition, we are also proposing to remove the existing exemption for touch and repair coating 

and set the same limit as the CTG at 3.0 for baked and 3.5 for air dried. Hope this helps in answering the 

comments submitted to EPA by EarthJustice. 

Regards

Joe

Joven R. Nazareno

Senior Air Quality Engineer

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

1990 E. Gettysburg Ave., Fresno, CA 93726

Phone: (559) 230-6100

From: Law.Nicole@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Law.Nicole@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:29 PM

To: Joven Nazareno

Subject: Rule 4603 AND 4612

Hello Joe,

As you know, I am responding to comments from EarthJustice regarding my recent proposed approval on 

rules 4603, 4604, and 4612. I wanted to see if you could provide me with a little bit more information on 

the category of extreme performance coatings. I know you told me that inspection reports indicated only 

one facility uses these coatings. Do those reports also give you an idea of how much of this coating is 

used? I know you said you'd check this, and can recall doing actual emission calculations. Those would 

be great as well. 

Moving onto rule 4612, I would like to get some information regarding the usage of precoat category and 

the topcoat-metallic/iridescent category. I am not sure if you are the contact person for this rule, but if 

you are, I would be interested in getting an idea of how large these categories are compared to the other 
categories in the rule. Thank you very much Joe!

-Nicole

Nicole Law

Rulemaking Office, Air Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, 94105

Office: (415) 947-4126

Fax: (415) 947-3579
pedo_ex1057.htm


EXHIBIT 10.57


 



 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT







This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement (“Amendment”), effective as of January 11, 2013, is entered into by and between PEDEVCO Corp., as successor-in-interest to Pacific Energy Development Corp. (herein referred to as the “Company”), and Frank C. Ingriselli.







WITNESSETH:







WHEREAS, the Company and you have entered into an employment agreement, dated June 10, 2011 (the “Agreement”), concerning the employment of you as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company; and







WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Agreement to revise the termination and severance terms as set forth therein;







NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:








	
1.  

	
Section 5(c)(2) of the Agreement is amended and restated in full to read as follows:












“5(c)(2) If my employment terminates under this Section 5(c), the Company shall pay me or, if I die, my estate, all compensation and benefits with respect to my employment, which have accrued due and those which may be provided to me pursuant to a group disability and insurance policies or the Company’s 401(k), profit sharing plan and pension plan will be paid, and I or, if I die, my estate, shall receive all the compensation and benefits set forth under Section 8(a) as if my employment had been terminated other than for Cause.”








	
2.  

	
Except to the extent modified hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.













	
3.  

	
This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns.






















[Signature Page Follows]


 


 




  





1











  






 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Amendment to be executed as of the date and year first referenced above.












 





	“The Company” 	PEDEVCO Corp.	 
	 	 	 	 
	
Date: January 11, 2013

	
By: 

	/s/ Michael L. Peterson	 
	 	 	
Michael L. Peterson 

	 
	 	 	
Chief Financial Officer

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Date:  January 11, 2013	 	/s/  Frank C. Ingriselli	 
	 	 	Frank C. Ingriselli	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 







 




 


2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael NEWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-2883

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted March 9, 2018 ***

Decided March 12, 2018

Brian L. Reitz, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Indianapolis, IN, Lauren Wheatley, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Evansville, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Michael A. Newell, Pro Se

Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge, WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

ORDER

Michael Newell participated in a drug-dealing operation to bring large amounts of marijuana into Indiana. After being arrested, he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and to conspiring to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). As part of his plea agreement, he entered into a broad appeal waiver. The district court sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment and eight years’ supervised release.

. Fourteen months later, Newell filed a motion seeking a declaratory judgment that marijuana was not a Schedule I illegal controlled substance at the time of his conviction in 2015. He also moved to vacate his criminal judgment because he contended that marijuana’s status as a legal substance made his conviction for conspiring to possess and distribute this drug void. The district court denied his motion, explaining with reference to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(vii), and (b)(l)(B)(vii), that at both the current time and the time of his conviction, marijuana was an unlawful controlled substance under federal law.

On appeal Newell maintains that marijuana is not a Schedule I controlled substance and alternatively argues that this drug should be declared “lawful.” Even though he styled his motion as seeking a declaratory judgment, he is trying to attack his conviction collaterally. See *Curry v. United States,*507 F.3d 603, 604 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[I]t does not matter how the prisoner labels his pleading.... It is substance that controls.”). But in his plea agreement, he waived the right to bring such a challenge, and so we cannot consider it:

> Defendant expressly waives his right to appeal the conviction and any sentence imposed on any ground, including the right to appeal conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Additionally, he also expressly agrees not to contest his conviction or sentence or seek to modify his sentence *599or the manner in which it was determined in any type of proceedings, including, but not limited to, an action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

See *United States v. Worthen,*842 F.3d 552, 554-55 (7th Cir. 2016) (emphasizing the enforceability of appeal waivers). No exception to the appeal waiver is suggested by the record in this case. See *Dowell v. United States,*694 F.3d 898, 902 (7th Cir. 2012). We therefore DISMISS the appeal.
# C_2022303EN.01001001.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/10

---

Appeal brought on 3 January 2022 by Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 October 2021 in Case T-22/21, Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case C-3/22 P)

(2022/C 303/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL (represented by: D. Luff, avocat, and by R. Sciaudone, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 27 June 2022, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior SL shall bear its own costs.

---
EX-10.5(a)



 Exhibit 10.5(a) 

June 1, 2013 
 Aspect Capital Ltd. 

Nations House – 8th Floor 

103 Wigmore Street 
 London W1U 1QS, U.K. 

Attention: Mr. Anthony Todd, CEO 
  

	 	Re:	Management Agreement Renewals 

 Dear Mr. Todd: 

We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management
Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2014 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged. 

 

	 	•	 	Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	CMF Aspect Master Fund L.P. 

  

	 	•	 	Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P 

  

	 	•	 	Global Futures Fund Ltd 

 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter
and returning it to the attention of Mr. Damian George at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any questions I can be reached at 212-296-1292. 
  

					
	Very truly yours,
	
	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Damian George

		 	Damian George
		 	Chief Financial Officer & Director

  

					
	ASPECT CAPITAL LTD.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kenneth Hope



					
		
	Print Name:	 	 Kenneth Hope

	DG/sr