alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Louis D. Van Mullem, Jr. • Air Pollution Control Officer

260 North San Antonio Road, Suite A • Santa Barbara, CA • 93110 • 805.961.8800
OurAir.org • twitter.com/OurAirSBC July 2, 2014

VIA E-MAIL TO PATRICK AU

Mr. Michael Guzzetta, Manager

Rule Evaluation Section

Emissions Assessment Branch Stationary Source Division

Air Resources Board

P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: Submittal of Recently Adopte d Rule 323.1, Architectural Coatings

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

On June 19, 2014, the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors held a Public Hearing on adopting Rule 323.1, Architectural Coatings. After the Public Hearing, the Board adopted the rule. Transmitted with this letter is the adopted rule for inclusion into the California State Implementation Plan.

The District based Rule 323.1 on the 2007 California Air Resources Board Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings. Our existing Rule 323 will be ph ased out on December 31, 2017. Included with this submittal is the Project Description Summary of the Effects of New Rule 323.1, Architectural Coatings (Attachment 7). Attachments C and D to the Project Description Summary provide details on where we have differed from the 2007 SCM guidelines.

The following is provided to clarify our responses to the SIP Completeness Checklist and the associated material we are submitting:

1. Referenced Checklist Item 2, Underline and Strikeout Copy of the Rule While not technically an amended rule, Rule 323.1 represents the next phase of control strategies for architectural coating requirements. The District prepared a strikeout and underlined version of Rule 323 to show the changes that would be needed to it to create Rule 323.1. Attachment 7 to this SIP submittal is a Project Description Summary of the Effects of New Rule 323.1, Architect ural Coatings. Attachment B to the Project Description Summary is a marked up Rule 323 reflecting Rule 323.1 text.

2. Reference Checklist Item 3, Complete Copy of the Re ferenced Rule(s) The only rule referenced in Rule 323.1 is Rule 323. The District submitted Rule 323 for inclusion into the SIP on November 26, 2001 and EPA incorporated the rule into the SIP (with limited approval limited disapproval) on January 2, 2004. Per the statement in Checklist Item 3, the District is not required to submit Rule 323 with this package because it has already been submitted to EPA as part of a previous SIP submittal.

3. Reference Checklist Item 6, Public Comments and Responses Public comments and our responses are provided within Attachment 6 to this SIP submittal. This attachment is the Board of Directors Agenda Packet from the June 19, 2014 Adoption Hearing. A ttachment 3 to this Board Packet includes the public comments and our responses.
No. 09-9284.

#### Sandra Kay Cabell, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1044, 130 S. Ct. 2079,

176 L. Ed. 2d 427,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2864.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 351 Fed. Appx. 799.
Exhibit 35.17  LOGO 2017 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance (Item 1123) Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the Pooling and Servicing Agreement) dated as of August 1, 2017 by and among Citigroup
Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee, Citibank, N.A., as Certificate
Administrator, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer relating to the CD 2017-CD5 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2017-CD5 (CD 2017-CD5) The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the Special Servicer) herein certifies to the
following:  1.
All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.  2.
A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of August 15, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period) in accordance with the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.  3.
To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects for the Reporting Period and
if there has been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.  Certified by:

/s/ Adam Singer





Date: March 1, 2018Adam Singer, Managing Director
No. 09-742.

#### Steven Rosenberg, Petitioner v. Hualapai Indian Nation.

559 U.S. 1036, 130 S. Ct. 2061,

176 L. Ed. 2d 413,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2893.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, denied.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A1 59 7 . J OHNSON v . THE STATE.

Ap p el l an t h as fai led t o fi l e a b ri ef an d en u m erat i o n o f e r r o rs w i t hi n 2 0 day s aft er t h e ap p eal was d o ck et ed as req u i re d b y C o urt o f Ap p eal s Ru l e 2 3 (a) an d as

n o t i fi ed in t h e No t ice o f Do ck et i n g

. As Ap pel l an t h as ab an d on ed t h e ap p eal
, t h e
ap p eal i s h ereb y

DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## April 15, 2019

04/15/2019
Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, -vs- ARISTA MARIE ANDERSON, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-12-033

Done in open Court this 8th day of April, 2016.

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2016.

DECISION

On November 19, 2015, the Defendant’s deferred sentence was revoked for violations of conditions and she was sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a commitment of five (5) years to run concurrent to DC-12-195 and consecutive to DC-12-203, with recommended placement on ISP. The Court ordered that the Defendant be required to comply with all requirements imposed by the Court’s Judgment of June 6, 2013, as conditions of parole. The Defendant was given credit for seventy-three (73) days served in custody pending final disposition in the matter. Defendant was not to receive credit for time otherwise served on probation.

On April 8, 2016, the Defendant’s Application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court (hereafter “the Division”).

The Defendant was present and was represented by Peter Ohman of the Office of the State Public Defender. The State was not represented.

Before hearing the Application, the Defendant was advised that the Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The Defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Division. The Defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 12, Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana, provides that, “The sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct. The sentence shall not be reduced or increased unless it is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.” (Section 46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is clearly inadequate or clearly excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Division that the sentence is AFFIRMED.

*21Hon. Brenda Gilbert, Chairperson, Hon. Kathy Seeley, Member and Hon. Brad Newman, Member.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4656 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4656

To increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency for carrying out the national flood insurance program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2006

  Mr. Jindal introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency for carrying out the national flood insurance program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Flood Insurance Program 
Enhanced Borrowing Authority Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN BORROWING AUTHORITY.

    The first sentence of subsection (a) of section 1309 of the 
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)), as amended by 
section 2 of the National Flood Insurance Program Further Enhanced 
Borrowing Authority Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-106; 119 Stat. 2288), 
is amended by striking ``$18,500,000,000'' and inserting 
``$24,100,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Todd W. Carter, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Panda Ethanol, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.     August 20, 2007 /s/ Todd W. Carter Todd W. Carter    Chief Executive Officer and President
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 New England Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, David J. O'Connor,
President, Chief Executive Officer and chief financial officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                        /s/ David J. O'Connor
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        David J. O'Connor
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Director
                                        August 11, 2004


<PAGE>

                            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 New England Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Scott D. Nogles, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                        /s/ Scott D. Nogles
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Scott D. Nogles
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        August 11, 2004
406 P.2d 244

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Charles ANDERS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 45.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Oct. 1, 1965.

*43Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., by Gary Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

James P. Boyle, Jr., Prescott, for appellant.

CAMERON, Judge.

Charles Anders appeals from the sentence imposed upon him by the court below on a charge of grand theft.

Appellant’s conviction has been previously considered by this Court and upheld in the matter of State v. Anders, 1 Ariz.App. 181, 400 P.2d 852 (1965). The matter was remanded to the trial court for sentencing only to the crime of grand theft (13-663, A.R.S.) without prior conviction as provided in 13-1649 and 13-1650, A.R.S.

Appellant was represented by counsel and the court imposed sentence as follows:

> “No legal cause being shown by you, it is the judgment and sentence of this court that you be confined in the Arizona State Prison at Florence, Arizona, for a period of not less than nine nor more then ten years, the date of your imprisonment to begin as of the date of your original incarceration in the Arizona State Prison at Florence, Arizona. You will be given credit for time served.” ...

Counsel was appointed to represent appellant on appeal.

A.R.S. 13-671 subsec. A provides as follows :

> “Grand theft is a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than one nor more than ten years.”

Where the statute fixing punishment for an offense is constitutional, then a sentence within the statutory limit is proper and in the absence of some showing as to why we should do so, we will not disturb the sentence of the court below. State v. Castino, 89 Ariz. 231, 360 P.2d 479 (1961), State v. Louden, 1 Ariz.App. 123, 400 P.2d 131 (1965).

We have searched the record and can find no error. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

STEVENS, C. J., and DONOFRIO, ■ J.» concur.
Exhibit 32.1

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

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 quarterlyreport (the “Report”) of TCI Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof, I, Victor Hamilton, Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 
| Date: November 18, 2005 | By: | /s/ Victor Hamilton |  
 

Victor Hamilton

 
 

Acting Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

 

  |
|-------------------------|-----|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
No. 09-8331.

#### Martha Ritter, Petitioner v. E. Kerfoot Ritter, Jr.

559 U.S. 993, 130 S. Ct. 1738,

176 L. Ed. 2d 215,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2211,

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.

Same case below, 165 Md. App. 747, 905 A.2d 843.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 42 (Thursday, March 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 9694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4664]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel (Including the 
States of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and 
Texas)

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 14, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 
414-231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Area 5 Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held 
Tuesday, April 14, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Patricia Robb. 
For more information please contact Ms. Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 414-
231-2360, or write TAP Office Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, 
Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: February 26, 2009.
Shawn F. Collins,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E9-4664 Filed 3-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 10.34 AMERICAN STANDARD COMPANIES INC.
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE
February 2, 2005 Annual and Long Term Incentive Goals for Officers 2005 Incentive Goals  
    1.5% of 2005 segment income will determine the 2005 annual incentive pool for Officers.  
    2.0% of 2007 segment income will determine the 2005-2007 long-term incentive pool for
Officers.  
    Allocation of awards:  
    Each incentive pool will be allocated 20% to the CEO and the remainder divided equally
among the other Officers.
    The Committee will apply negative discretion to each allocation to determine the final
individual annual and long-term incentive awards for Officers.
    Individual awards are limited by Omnibus Plan incentive plan maximums of $3.0M for AIP
awards and $4.5M for LTIP awards.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4916 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4916

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2006

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize United States participation in, and appropriations for, 
   the United States contribution to the first replenishment of the 
 resources of the Enterprise for the Americas Multilateral Investment 
                                 Fund.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FIRST REPLENISHMENT OF THE RESOURCES OF THE ENTERPRISE FOR 
              THE AMERICAS MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT FUND.

    The Inter-American Development Bank Act (22 U.S.C. 283 et seq.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 39. FIRST REPLENISHMENT OF THE RESOURCES OF THE ENTERPRISE FOR 
              THE AMERICAS MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT FUND.

    ``(a) Contribution Authority.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury may 
        contribute on behalf of the United States $150,000,000 to the 
        first replenishment of the resources of the Enterprise for the 
        Americas Multilateral Investment Fund.
            ``(2) Subject to appropriations.--The authority provided by 
        paragraph (1) may be exercised only to the extent and in the 
        amounts provided for in advance in appropriations Acts.
    ``(b) Limitations on Authorization of Appropriations.--For the 
United States contribution authorized by subsection (a), there are 
authorized to be appropriated not more than $150,000,000, without 
fiscal year limitation, for payment by the Secretary of the 
Treasury.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 25, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```