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

## ....

# _ ---

BEFORE THE WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRO TECTION DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY

45CSR30 -Requirements for Operating Permits

Transcript o f proceedings had at a public hearing in the above-styled matter taken at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, Conference R oom, 601 57th Street, S.E. Charleston, West Virginia, commencing at 6 :08 p.m., on the 7th day of July, 2014, pursuant to notice .

MISSY L. YOUNG, C.C.R. POST OFFICE BOX 13622 CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25360 304-539-6192Proceedings 1 

### PRO C E E DIN G S 2 MR. MASON: This public hearing will now come to 3 order on this 7th day of July 2014, at the West Virginia 4 Department of Environmental Protection Headquarters. 5 Comments and testimony will be accepted until the close of 6 this hearing and will be made part of the rulemaking 7 record. Any relevant question regarding revisions to the 8 rules will be included with your comments, and any such 9 question w ill be addressed as part of the response to 10 comments in the rulemaking record. 11 The purpose of this public hearing is to satisfy 12 state rulemaking requirements by accepting comments on 13 proposed revisions to rule 45CSR30
- Requirements for 14 Operating Permits. This rule establishes a comprehensive 15 air quality operating permits program consistent with the 16 requirements of Title V of the federal Clean Air Act. 17 Revisions to the rule implement an increase in Title V 18 operating fees from $18 per ton to $28 per ton. The 19 increase in fees will correct a downward trend in fee 20 collection, and will keep the Title V Operating Permit 2

21 Program s olvent in accordance with the Clean Air Act. Upon 22 authorization and promulgation of 45CSR30, the rule will be 23 submitted to the EPA as a revision to the West Virginia MISSY L. YOUNG, C.C.R. 304-539-6192

### Proceedings 1 Operating Permit Program un det Title V of the federal 2 Clean Air Act . 3 The floor is now open for comments. 3



### 4 There being nothing further, this public hearing 5 for proposed rule 45CSR30 is concluded. 6 (WHEREUPON, the hearing was 7 concluded at 6:17 p.m.) 8 9 10 

### 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MISSY L. YOUNG, C.C,R. 304-539-6192Proceedings 4 STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF KANAWHA, to-wit:

I, the undersigned, Missy L. Young, a Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of West V irginia, duly commissioned and qualified, do hereby c ertify that the foregoing, was taken to the best of my skill and ability, a true and accurate transcript of all the proceedings had in the aforementioned matter. Given under my hand and offi c ial seal this 1 4th day of July 2014.

N

otary Virginia My commission expires April 15, 2018 .

JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUlIIIIIIUIllIlIfIIIIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL ;: OFFICIALSEAL 

### = 

# EO Notary Public, State OfWestVirginia 

# E ::" MISSYLYOUNG CCA :: E• PO Box 13622 

### E ;:**~**_ Sissonville,WV 25360 :: :: MrCommissionExplre.AprIJ15,2018 E '111I1I1I11I1II11II1I11I11I11II1I11II1II1U1I1I1II1I11I1II1I1I1I11-

MISSY L. YOUNG, C.C,R. 304-539-6192
_____________ No. 96-3313SI

_____________ In re: Terry M. Svejda * *

____________________ * * Terry M. Svejda, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern Appellant, * District of Iowa. * v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Farmers’ Cooperative Business * Association, Shelby, Nebraska, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: March 10, 1997 Filed: March 17, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, HEANEY, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. TerryM. Svejda appeals the district court’s grant of summar y judgment to Farmers’ Cooperative Business Association. Having reviewed th e record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that an extensive discussion is not warranted. We believe the district court’s decision was correct, and we affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

I, EricJ. Boden, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofHireRight, Inc.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Quarterly Report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this Report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this QuarterlyReport;

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), for the registrantand we have:

(a)           designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisQuarterly Report is being prepared;

(b)           evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this QuarterlyReport our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(c)           disclosed in this Quarterly Reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

(a)           all significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

(b)           any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: September 13, 2007 | By:      | /s/ Eric J. Boden         |
|--------------------------|----------|---------------------------|
|                     |     | Eric J. Boden             |
| * *                 | * * | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
Docket Number FAA-2014-0584
STATE v. Cedric Theodis HOBBS, Jr.

263PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 10, 2019

John Keating Wiles, Attorney at Law, Raleigh.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Sterling P. Rozear, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hobbs, Cedric Theodis (Jr.).

Cedric Theodis Hobbs, Jr., for Hobbs, Cedric Theodis (Jr.).

Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality.

David Weiss, Attorney at Law, for Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates.

Elizabeth Hambourger, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Coalition of State and National Criminal Justice and Civil Rights Advocates.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the amended motion filed on the 8th of July 2019 by Amicus Curiae to admit Taki V. Flevaris Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of July 2019."
STATE v. Donna Helms LEDBETTER

402PA15-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Meghan Adelle Jones, Attorney at Law, for Ledbetter, Donna Helms.

Christopher W. Brooks, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of October 2018 by State of NC to Dismiss Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
No. 09-628.

#### Richard Vezina, Petitioner v. Florida.

559 U.S. 1067, 130 S. Ct. 2091,

176 L. Ed. 2d 722,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3335.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 17 So. 3d 1226.
Timothy SHIPMAN, Employee, Plaintiff, v. MURPHY BROWN, LLC, Employer, and ACE/ESIS, Carrier, Defendants.

No. COA18-1243

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 3, 2019

AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134197 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

TRINGA GOJCAJ, Personal Representative of Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. the Estate of Gjon Gojcaj, Deceased, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 134197 

 COA: 267929 
 Wayne CC: 02-231976-NO

JENKINS CONSTRUCTION, INC. and 

APOSTOLOS GROUP, INC., d/b/a THOMARIOS, 

Defendant, 

and 

HUBER, HUNT & NICHOLS, INC.,

 Defendant,

 Cross-Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

BROCKMAN E. LEASING, INC.,

 Defendant,

Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 8, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 05, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 05, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19I0250. NASIR ANDREWS v. MARIA ALEXANDER.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

STSV2018000989
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5127 

To prohibit the Department of Energy from obligating funds for appropriation 

earmarks in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2006 

Mr. BEAUPREZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Department of Energy from obligating funds 

for appropriation earmarks in the Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OBLIGATION OF FUNDS FOR 

4 CERTAIN APPROPRIATIONS EARMARKS. 

5 The Department of Energy may not obligate any 

6 funds made available in an appropriation Act to imple7 ment an earmark for any entity other than a Department 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5127 IH 

1 of Energy laboratory with respect to the Energy Efficiency 

2 and Renewable Energy program. 

3 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

4 This Act shall apply to appropriations Acts for fiscal 

5 year 2007 or any subsequent fiscal year. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PATSY JOY PIERCE,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00150

- CR

Appeal from

355th District Court

of Hood County, Texas

(TC # CR11911)

O R D E R

The Court has determined that it is necessary to review two original exhibits, State’s

Exhibit 3 (a CD or DVD) and State’s Exhibit 5 (a DVD) admitted during trial in cause number

CR11911, styled The State of Texas v. Patsy Joy Pierce . The court reporter o f the 355th District

Court is therefore directed to prepare a supplemental reporter’s record containing State’s

Exhibits 3 and 5 and file it with this Court no later than February 28, 2013. The exhibits will be

returned to the official court reporter afte r the appeal is concluded.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
No. 09-9672.

#### Kevin Harris, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1083, 130 S. Ct. 2129,

176 L. Ed. 2d 750,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3146.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 358 Fed. Appx. 493.
ex10_26.htm









Exhibit 10.26







 


September 16, 2010







Google Inc.


Attn:  Lease Administration


1600 Amphitheater Parkway


Mountain View, CA  94043







Re:           Lease Agreement dated as of February 1, 2007, by and between Google, Inc.


successor in interest to DoubleClick, Inc. and Epsilon Data Management, LLC (“Lease”)












Dear Sir/Madam:







Pursuant to Article 29 of the Lease, Tenant hereby requests an extension of the Lease.  Article 29 suggests that the extension shall be for thirty (30) months; however, Tenant understands that Landlord wants the Tenant to move out of the Premises.  As a compromise, Tenant only seeks an extension for eighteen (18) months.  Such time will enable Tenant to prepare a suitable replacement site and execute a move out of the Thornton facility.







Please confirm your agreement to this extension below.







Sincerely,


Epsilon Data Management, LLC







/s/ Jeanette Fitzgerald


Jeanette Fitzgerald


Vice President and Assistant General Counsel







ACCEPTANCE:







Google, Inc. agrees to extend the Lease for eighteen (18) additional months until July 31, 2013.







GOOGLE, INC.







/s/ James Braun







cc:           James Braun


12396 Grant Street


Thornton, CO  80241
**Exhibit 32**

AMANASU TECHNO HOLDINGS CORPORATION**Certification of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer			Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,			As Adopted Pursuant to			Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

		  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of          the registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant's          Quarterly Report on Form 10Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the "Form          10Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form          10Q, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition          and results of operations of the registrant.		

 Dated: November 23, 2009
			 By: /s/ Atsushi Maki					Atsushi Maki					Chairman & Chief Executive Officer			 By: /s/ Lina Lei					Lina Lei					Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit
      32**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Seasons Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, who
      are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively,
      of
      the Company, hereby each certify as follows:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





/s/
                William L. SuttonWilliam
                L. Sutton, Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)/s/
                Nita ElliottNita
                Elliott, Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)May
                12, 2006




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 23

- 3366

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
Kyrell Deshawn Wells

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Western

____________
Submitted: May 6, 2024 Filed: August 12, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kyrell Deshawn Wells sold 500 to 1,000 fentanyl pills a day in Omaha, Nebraska, from December 2021 until his arrest in August 2022. He pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 400 grams or more of a fentanyl mixture or 100 grams or more of a fentanyl

- analogue mixture , 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846

.-2- The district court 1 varied down from a Guidelines sentence of life in prison and imposed a 360

- month sentence. Wells appeals, challeng ing the substantive
reasonableness of his sentence.

We review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion. United States v. Cullar, 104 F.4th 686, 690 (8th Cir. 2024). A district court abuses
its discretion when it “fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the appropriate factors.” Id. (citation omitted) . We presume that a below

- Guidelines sentence is reasonable. United
States v. Bar raza , 982 F.3d 1106, 1116 (8th Cir. 2020).

Wells has not overcome that presumption. He argues that the district court gave too much weight to his “frivolous” challenges to the drug

- quantity and leadership

- role findings, his decision to not cooperate with the Government, and his obstructive conduct while in jail , while not giving enough weight to his personal
characteristics

. The district court explained that Wells’s failure to accept responsibility and his obstructive conduct led to a higher offense level

, see U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1, 3C1.1

, and distinguished Wells from his codefendants who had received
shorter sentences. The record also shows that the district court considered Wells’s relative youth

— he was only twenty at sentencing

— and his upbringing, which was filled with substance abuse, physical and emotional abuse, and gun violence. What
drove Wells’s sentence was his lengthy criminal history and his “horrifyingly high guideline range,” not any clear error in judgment in weighing the sentencing factors.

We affirm the district court’s judgment . Defense counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 27B(b).

______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
EXHIBIT 32


                    CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                    ss. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-Q of  Mission  West
Properties, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  each of Carl E.  Berg,  Chairman  of the Board  and Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company, Raymond V. Marino, President and Chief Operating Officer
of the Company and Wayne N. Pham,  Vice  President of Finance and  Controller of
the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to the best of his  knowledge,
that:

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

/s/ Carl E. Berg
------------------------------------------
Carl E. Berg
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
August 8, 2006

/s/ Raymond V. Marino
------------------------------------------
Raymond V. Marino
President and Chief Operating Officer
August 8, 2006

/s/ Wayne N. Pham
------------------------------------------
Wayne N. Pham
Vice President of Finance and Controller
August 8, 2006

This  certification   accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  or  otherwise  required,  be  deemed  filed by the
Company  for  purposes  of ss. 18 of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  as
amended.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jerome Cannon MCCOY, Defendant.

No. COA19-85

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

DISMISSED.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

CONTEMPORARY DISPLAY LLC,

Appellant

v.

DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1663

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-

01168.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DAVID R. BENNETT, Direction IP Law, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant.

 NATHAN K. KELLEY, Perkins Coie, LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by LORI ANN 

GORDON. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 21-1663 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 04/11/2022
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, MAYER, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 April 11, 2022

 Date 

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-1663 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 04/11/2022