alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Mary A. Gade Regional Administrator, R- 19J 

USEPA, Region 5 77 West Jackson Blvd. Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Re: Infrastructure SIP Requirements for Ozone and PM 

Dear Ms Gade: 

The purpose of this letter is to certify that the State of Wisconsin has adequate funding and resources to 

provide for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the %hour ozone and PM2.5 standards as 

specified in sections 110(a)(l) and (2) of the Clean Air Act. These provisions are designed to ensure 

that a state's air management program's components (e.g., ambient air quality monitoring network, air 

quality modeling, compliance and enforcement staff) are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities 

under the Clean Air Act. The Department of Natural Resources has been developed and utilized these 

components to implement its state implementation plan responsibilities for many yem. There is 

nothing unique about the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 standards that requires us to make any statutory or rule 

changes in order to implement the Clean Air Act requirements in section 110(a)(l) and (2) for those 

standards. 

Specifically, I would note that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has the necessary. 

authority to address activities that could cause imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, 

as required by section 110(a)(2)(G). In addition, the Department will revise the particulate matter state 

implementation plan when EPA promulgates revisions to 40 CFR Part 5 1, subpart H-Prevention of Air 

Pollution Emergency Episodes to address the priority classifications and significant harm levels for 

PM2.5. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or concenb regarding this matter. 

devin ~esslkr, Director 

Bureau of Air Management 

cc : Tom Steidl - LS15 

Larry Bruss - AM/7
MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 23, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR-2013-0602

FROM: Jeremy Schreifels, EPA Office of Air and Radiation

SUBJECT: July 23, 2015, meeting with Advanced Energy Economy, Conservation Services Group,

Climate Registry, and APX on registries for the proposed Clean Power Plan for existing 

sources

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on July 23, 2015 to discuss the 

external stakeholders’ projects related to registry systems to facilitate state-level implementation of 

energy efficiency programs and, potentially, the Clean Power Plan including a possible federal plan. The 

proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the 

Federal Register on June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

External Stakeholders

Lars Kvale, APX

Matt Stanberry, Advanced Energy Economy

Patricia Stanton, Conservation Services Group

Audrey Starkebaum, Conservation Services Group

EPA

Matt Clouse, EPA HQ

Sarah Dunham, EPA HQ

Reid Harvey, EPA HQ

Jeremy Schreifels, EPA HQ

Chris Sherry, EPA HQ

Attachment: CPP Registry Projects Update PowerPoint slides
Exhibit 24.1ROBBINS & MYERS, INC.LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY          WHEREAS, Robbins & Myers, Inc. (the “Company”) intends to file with the Securities andExchange Commission its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2006:          NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned in his capacity as a director of the Company herebyappoints Peter C. Wallace his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power ofsubstitution and resubstitution, to execute in his name, place and stead, the Company’s AnnualReport on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2006, (including any amendment to such report)and any and all other instruments necessary or incidental in connection therewith, and to file thesame with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Said attorney shall have full power and authorityto do and perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in the aforesaid capacity, everyact whatsoever necessary or desirable to be done, as fully to all intents and purposes as theundersigned might or could do in person. The undersigned hereby ratifies and approves the act ofsaid attorney.          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument this 14th day of November,2006.              /s/ Thomas P. Loftis   Thomas P. Loftis               /s/Daniel W. Duval   Daniel W. Duval               /s/ David T. Gibbons   David T. Gibbons               /s/ Stephen F. Kirk   Stephen F. Kirk               /s/ William D. Manning   William D. Manning               /s/ Dale L. Medford   Dale L. Medford               /s/ Jerome F. Tatar   Jerome F. Tatar     
67
# Table 3.2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 358 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 358

   Designating December 12, 2009, as ``Wreaths Across America Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 20, 2009

    Ms. Collins (for herself and Ms. Snowe) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Designating December 12, 2009, as ``Wreaths Across America Day''.

Whereas 18 years ago, the Wreaths Across America project began an annual 
        tradition, during the month of December, of donating, transporting, and 
        placing Maine balsam fir holiday wreaths on the graves of the fallen 
        heroes buried at Arlington National Cemetery;
Whereas since that tradition began, through the hard work and generosity of the 
        individuals involved in the Wreaths Across America project, hundreds of 
        thousands of wreaths have been sent to national cemeteries and veterans 
        memorials in every State and to locations overseas;
Whereas in 2008, wreaths were sent to 372 locations across the United States, as 
        well as 24 sites overseas;
Whereas in December 2009, the Patriot Guard Riders, a motorcycle and motor 
        vehicle group that is dedicated to patriotic events and includes more 
        than 177,000 members nationwide, will continue their tradition of 
        escorting a tractor-trailer filled with donated wreaths from Harrington, 
        Maine, to Arlington National Cemetery;
Whereas thousands of individuals volunteer each December to escort and lay the 
        wreaths;
Whereas, December 13, 2008, was previously designated by the Senate as ``Wreaths 
        Across America Day''; and
Whereas the Wreaths Across America project will continue its proud legacy on 
        December 12, 2009, bringing 15,000 wreaths to Arlington National 
        Cemetery on that day: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates December 12, 2009, as ``Wreaths Across 
        America Day'';
            (2) honors the Wreaths Across America project, the Patriot 
        Guard Riders, and all of the volunteers and donors involved in 
        this worthy tradition; and
            (3) recognizes the sacrifices our veterans, servicemembers, 
        and their families have made, and continue to make, for our 
        great Nation.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, B. Francis Saul II, the Trustee, Chairman of the Board of B.F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust (the Trust), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission of the Trusts Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2008 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies that:

(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 Trust.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: December 29, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/ B. FRANCIS SAUL II                           
|                        |  |  |  | B. Francis Saul II Trustee, Chairman of the Board



---



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Stephen R. Halpin, Jr., the
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of B.F. Saul Real Estate Investment Trust (the Trust), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Trusts Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2008 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies that:

(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 Trust.



|                        |  |  |  |                                                                  
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: December 29, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/ STEPHEN R. HALPIN, JR.                                       
|                        |  |  |  | Stephen R. Halpin, Jr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.2



                    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 Micronetics, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), Dennis Dow, Financial Consultant of the Company
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
his knowledge:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 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
result of operations of the Company.



February 14, 2003              /s/Dennis Dow
                               ---------------------
                               Name: Dennis Dow
                               Title: Vice President-Finance
                                      (Principal Financial Officer)


   This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by
the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended.
No. 12-5174.

#### Hormachea *v.*Florida Department of Corrections.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**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 Neonode Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
      for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), the undersigned, Mikael
      Hagman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and David W. Brunton, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our
      knowledge:





1.
            The
                report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                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 operation of the
                Company.





Dated:
      April 14, 2008




/s/
                Mikael Hagman
            
            /s/
                David W. BruntonMikael
                Hagman
            
            David
                W. BruntonChief
                Executive Officer
            
            Chief
                Financial Officer




*This
      certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed
      filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
      reference to any filing of Neonode Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as
      amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before
      of after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation
      language contained in such filing.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7406

ANTHONY MASON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusJERRY DETRICK, Eastern Regional Jail Administrator, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater, District Judge. (CA-97-64-3) Submitted: February 16, 1999 Decided: March 15, 1999 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Chad Mario Cardinal, Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not bindig precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Mason appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Mason v. Detrick , No. CA-97-64-3 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 28, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
                    25,000,000 SHARES COMMON STOCK AUTHORIZED

This                                                            CUSIP __________
certifies                                                      SEE REVERSE FOR
that                                                         CERTAIN DEFINITIONS


is the owner of

             FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF



  transferable on the books of the corporation in person or by duly authorized
attorney upon surrender of this certificate properly endorsed. This certificate
    and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of
 Nevada, and to the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation,
as now or hereafter amended. This certificate is not valid unless countersigned
  by the Transfer Agent. WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the
                   signature of its duly authorized officers.


DATED

                                     [SEAL]    ______________



                                                 PRESIDENT/
                                                 SECRETARY


<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 15475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8144]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER97-2018-000]


South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; Notice of Filing

March 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on March 10, 1997, South Carolina Electric & Gas 
Company tendered for filing its report for quarters ending September 
30, 1996 and December 31, 1996 summarizing transactions under 
Negotiated Market Sales Tariffs for short-term service.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before April 3, 1997. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-8144 Filed 3-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# Table 10.2

# RSE 10.2

# Microsoft_Word_Document1.docx

# image1.emf

# Microsoft_Word_Document2.docx

# image2.emf
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 6634

RICHARD MANIGAULT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ALBERT HOUSEY, Lieutenant , Defendant

- Appellee , and RYAN GRANT, Corporal; DUSTIN CROSBY, Officer; GARY EICHELBERGER, Major; VALERIE JACKSON, Captain/Disciplinary Hearing Officer; LEVERN COHEN, Warden , Defendants

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 0:15

- cv
- 04647

- JFA )

Submitted : March 15, 2018 Decided: March 30, 2018

Before MOTZ , AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed and r emanded w ith i nstructions by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Richard Manigault , Appellant Pro Se. Otto Edworth Liipfert, III , GRIFFITH, FREEMAN & LIIPFERT, LLC , Beaufort , South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Richard Manigault seeks to appeal the district court’s judgment entered in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The judgment was entered in accordance with the jury’s verdict in favor of Defendant Housey following a trial, the district court’s March 24, 2017, order gr anting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Grant and Crobsy, and the
district court’s March 1, 2016, order dismissing the action without prejudice as against
Defendants Eichelberger, Jackson, and Cohen for failure to state a cognizable claim against
th em
. This court may exercise jurisdic tion only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

– 47 (1949).
“An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final order under § 1291 if the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y , Inc. , 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotatio n marks omitted). Where the district court dismisses an action for failure to plead sufficient facts in the complaint, we lack appellate jurisdiction because the plaintiff could amend the complaint to cure the pleading deficiency. Id. at 623

– 25

. The j udgment Manigault seeks to appeal is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and
remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Manigault leave to amend
his complaint as against Defendants Eichelberger, Jackson, and Cohen

. We deny Manigault ’s motions to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts4 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
#### State v. Brown

107,724

08/23/13

Denied

Unpublished
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

748 

CA 11-01132 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ALEX G. SCHMIDT, 

ALSO KNOWN AS ALEXANDER GEORGE SCHMIDT, 

DECEASED. 

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

ANN L. MCLAUGHLIN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT; 

 ORDER

THOMAS E. WEBB, JR., AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE 

OF ALEX G. SCHMIDT, ALSO KNOWN AS ALEXANDER 

GEORGE SCHMIDT, DECEASED, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, 

ET AL., RESPONDENTS. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (GREGORY ZINI OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

JOSEPH G. MAKOWSKI, BUFFALO (MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Erie County

(Barbara Howe, S.), entered March 15, 2011. The order, insofar as

appealed from, granted in part the motion of petitioner to dismiss

various affirmative defenses. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

by the Surrogate.

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
S95A1148.

#### ROBERTS v. THE STATE.

(460 SE2d 794)

Hunstein, Justice.

Comaster Roberts was found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court merged the lesser counts into the malice murder and sentenced Roberts to life imprisonment. He appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial. 1

1. The evidence at trial established that appellant started an argument with Gloria Priest in front of Priest’s two sons, aged eleven and eight. The older son testified that he saw Priest hit appellant in the head with a trophy and that appellant hit driest 20 times with a ball bat. The older son heard his mother screaming after the boys had left the room in response to threats made by appellant. Several hours *671later, the older son crept out of the residence and telephoned for help. A police officer found appellant resting on a bed with Priest’s body on the floor. Expert testimony established that Priest died as a result of multiple extensive blunt force trauma to her head and lower body. Both Priest and appellant had high levels of alcohol in their blood.

Decided September 11, 1995.

*Juwayn Hadad,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, John M. Turner, Carl P. Greenberg, Assistant District Attorneys, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Marla-Deen Brooks, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find appellant guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt under the standard in *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. We have carefully reviewed and find without merit appellant’s remaining enumerations, in which he asserts the trial court erred in admitting certain photographs, in charging the jury on a matter relating to aggravated assault, and in denying three motions for mistrial relating to matters that purportedly placed appellant’s character in issue.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The homicide occurred on June 13, 1993. Roberts was indicted January 28, 1994 in Fulton County. He was found guilty on February 23, 1994, and was sentenced the same day, with the sentence filed March 3, 1994. His motion for new trial, filed March 23, 1994 and amended February 3, 1995, was denied on February 17, 1995. A notice of appeal was filed March 10, 1995. The appeal was docketed on April 14, 1995. This appeal was submitted for decision without oral argument on June 5, 1995.