alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12690]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL-OW-6013-4]
RIN-2040-AC65


Water Quality Standards for Alabama

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed Rule; Re-opening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is re-opening the public comment period on the proposed 
water quality standards that would be applicable to certain waters of 
the United States in the State of Alabama.

DATES: EPA will now accept public comments on this proposed rulemaking 
until June 3, 1998. Comments postmarked after this date may not be 
considered.

ADDRESSES: An original plus 2 copies, and if possible an electronic 
version of comments either in WordPerfect or ASCII format, should be 
addressed to Fritz Wagener, Water Quality Standards Coordinator, U.S. 
EPA Region 4, Water Management Division, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 
Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303-3104. The administrative 
record for this proposed rule is available for public inspection at 
U.S. EPA Region 4, Water Management Division, 15th Floor, Atlanta 
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303-3104, 
between 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Copies of all or portions of the record 
will be made available for a charge of 20 cents per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fritz Wagener, Water Quality Standards 
Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region 4, Water Management Division, Atlanta 
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta, Georgia, 30303-3104 
(telephone: 404-562-9267).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule appeared in the Federal 
Register on March 5, 1998 (63 FR 10799) and provided for a public 
comment period of 60 days which closed on May 4, 1998. EPA has received 
requests from several interested parties for additional time to 
comment. These parties cited difficulty in obtaining and reviewing 
certain documents referenced in the administrative record within the 
comment period provided by EPA.

    Dated: May 7, 1998.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 98-12690 Filed 5-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
No. 12-6953.

#### Dembry *v.*Oliver, Warden.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

To the Trustees

MESABI TRUST

New York, New York

 

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed balance sheet of MESABITRUST as of October 31, 2005, and the related condensed statements ofincome and cash flows for the three-month and nine-month periods ended October 31,2005 and 2004, respectively.  Thesefinancial statements are the responsibility of the Trust’s Trustees.

 

We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board (United States).  A review of interim financial informationconsists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries ofpersons responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than anaudit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is theexpression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such anopinion.

 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modificationsthat should be made to the accompanying interim financial statements for themto be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the UnitedStates of America.

 

Wehave previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards of the PublicCompany Accounting Oversight Board, the balance sheet of MESABI TRUST as of January 31,2005, and the related statements of income and cash flows for the year thenended (not presented herein); and in our report dated March 9, 2005, weexpressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.  In our opinion, the information set forth inthe accompanying condensed balance sheet as of January 31, 2005, is fairlystated, in all material respects, in relation to the balance sheet from whichit has been derived.

 

 

GORDON, HUGHES & BANKS, LLP

 

Golden, Colorado

 

December 7, 2005

 

----
No. 12-6867.

#### Dwyer *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, the Corporate Trustee of Mesabi Trust, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of MesabiTrust on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2003 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations of MesabiTrust.

 
| /s/ Rodney  Gaughan                  |   | December 15, 2003 |
|--------------------------------------|--------|-------------------|
| Rodney Gaughan*                      |
| Assistant Vice President             |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas |
|                                 |

 

----

* There are no principal executive officers or principal financialofficers of the registrant.

 

----
|                                                                                 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                 
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                   
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                                    
|                                                                                 
|U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Activity-Net   (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 
|                                                                                 
|U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Activity-Net   (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                 

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0   | Year-1     | Year-2  | Year-3   | Year-4   | Year-5   | Year-6   | Year-7  | Year-8   | Year-9  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------- | ---------- | ------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | -------- | ------- | -------- | --------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |          |            |         |          | -268,751 | 402,800  | 18,357   | 17,583  | -504,459 | 174,595 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 789,720  | -1,108,085 | 462,952 | -167,008 | -136,407 | 88,771   | -412,451 | 172,092 | 76,017   | -292,710
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 41,286   | -255,148   | 12,249  | 517,136  | -171,068 | -482,369 | 316,471  | 203,471 | 327,240  | -476,106
|2020's                                                                                                                            | -163,938 | 95,069     | 200,449 | -476,917 |          |          |          |         |          |         
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
EXHIBIT 21





SUBSIDIARIES



|Name of Subsidiary                                                               | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization | Percentage of Ownership
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------- | -----------------------
|China Public Security Holdings Limited (CPSH)                                  | British Virgin Islands                        | 100%                   
|Information Security Technology (China) Co., Ltd. (IST)                        | PRC                                           | 100% by CPSH           
|Public Security Technology (China) Company Limited                               | Hong Kong                                     | 100% by CPSH           
|Information Security Software Investment Limited (ISSI)                        | Hong Kong                                     | 100% by CPSH           
|Information Security Software (China) Co., Ltd. (ISS)                          | PRC                                           | 100% by ISSI           
|Information Security International Investment and Development Limited. (ISIID) | Hong Kong                                     | 100% by CPSH           
|Shenzhen Bocom Multimedia Display Technology Co. Ltd.                            | PRC                                           | 100% by ISIID          
|iASPEC Software Company Limited (iASPEC)                                       | PRC                                           | VIE Entity             
|Wuda Geoinformatics Co., Ltd.                                                    | PRC                                           | 57% by iASPEC          
|Kwong Tai International Technology Ltd. (Kwong Tai)                            | Hong Kong                                     | 100% by CPSH           
|Shenzhen Zhongtian Technology Development Company Ltd.                           | PRC                                           | 100% by Kwong Tai      



---
MET-PRO CORPORATION

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended July
31, 2002 of Met-Pro Corporation (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  William L. Kacin,
Chief Executive 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 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/ William L. Kacin
   -----------------------------------
   William L. Kacin
   Chief Executive Officer
   September 9, 2002
084P17

#### In the Matter of S.C.H. and J.A.H., Jr.

Respondent-Father’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

Denied
Exhibit 31
                                  ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION


         I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
         on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
         respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
         report, of CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2005-85CB;

         2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as
         a whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
         omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
         in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
         not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
         annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
         required to be provided to the trustee by the master servicer under
         the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in
         these reports is included in these reports;

         4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
         master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
         agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
         review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
         reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that
         agreement; and

         5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
         master servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards
         based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant,
         after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single
         Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set
         forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is
         included in these reports.

         In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
         information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
         Bank of New York, as Trustee.


         Date: March 27, 2006


                                        /s/ Steve Bailey
                                        ----------------
                                        Steve Bailey
                                        Senior Managing Director
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7535** 

JIMMY REID , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. DONALD MOBLEY , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. T homas D
. Sc hroe der , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 00029

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : March 31, 2015 Decided: April 16, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jimmy Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy Reid seeks to appeal the district court ’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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 dem onstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Reid has no t made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Reid’s motion for leave to conduct discovery, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal . We dispense with oral argument because t he facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1



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



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Miller Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2017 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc Napolitano, Principal
Executive Officer and Principal 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 to the best of my 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated:  June 5, 2017             | 
|-------------------------------- | 
|                                 | 
|/s/  Marc Napolitano             | 
|Marc Napolitano                  | 
|Principal  Executive Officer and | 
|Principal Financial Officer      | 



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 or other document authenticating, 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 Miller Industries, Inc.
and will be returned by Miller Industries, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.24


   MOBIUS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. 1998 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN AMENDMENT


              Pursuant  to Section 15 of the Mobius  Management  Systems,  Inc.
1998 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the "Plan"),  and as approved by the Board of
Directors of Mobius Management  Systems,  Inc. (the "Company") and in accordance
with the  resolutions of the  stockholders  of the Company adopted on January 7,
2000, Section 4.1 of the Plan is amended to read as follows:

         4.1 The total  number of shares  of common  stock of the  Company,  par
         value  $.01  per  share  ("Common  Stock"),  which  may be  transferred
         pursuant  to the Plan  shall be  650,000  shares.  Such  shares  may be
         authorized  but unissued  Common Stock or authorized  and issued Common
         Stock held in the Company's treasury or acquired by the Company for the
         purpose of the Plan.  Shares  subject  to any lapsed or expired  option
         shall again become  available for transfer  pursuant to options granted
         or to be granted under the Plan.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39647

STATE OF IDAHO
,

Plaintiff-Respondent
,

v.

NATHAN WAYNE HUNT
,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 596

Filed: August 17, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Benjamin R. Simpson , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eighteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of eight years , for robbery

, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defende r; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Nathan Wayne Hunt pled guilty to rob bery . Idaho Code § 18

- 6501 . The district court

sentenced Hunt to a unified term of eighteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of

eight years

. Hunt appeals contending that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an

excessive sentence

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be c onsidered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing2 the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Hunt ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40458

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SALOMON MENDOZA-ALVINO, also known as Nico Mendoza

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-1343-1

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Salomon Mendoza-Alvino

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedStates, 523

U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision

and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d

624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug. 28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 3, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20230

2

appellant's motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.