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

1100 E. 55th St. 

Chicago, IL 60615 

So, I've been here before. Not here, here, but here testifying in front of the EPA 

regarding coal power-plant related pollution. On September 16, 2010 I testified at the Hilton for 

stronger regulations on coal ash. On May 24th' 2011 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, I testified for 

stronger regulations on mercury and other air toxics. I imagine many of you were also at those 

hearings. Now, again, I testify before you, EPA, and ask that you adopt and enforce your 

proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants. 

I understand that public participation is an integral part of the 1990 Clean Air Act, sol 

appreciate you taking listening to me three times, as non-expert, average citizen. I'm not a 

scientist, but we all know that carbon is causing global climate disruption. I'm not an economist, 

but we all know this regulation would make it cost-prohibitive to build new coal-fired power 

plants. I'm not a psychic, but we can all foresee a future where our energy comes from 

renewable sources that don't pollute and throw our global climate system into life-altering chaos. 

So what I am is concerned. I'm not having a panic attack, but I could be. I'm concerned 

about coal power, this 19th century energy source that we're still relying on here in the 21st 

century, despite all its terrible costs. I'm concerned about the mountains of Appalachia, like 

Kayford Mountain in West Virginia, where I witnessed a sheer drop at Larry Gibson's property 

line several hundred feet down to the surface that was being blasted away to obtain coal 

"efficiently." I am concerned about coal dust coming off train cars and piles of coal, of which 

there are many in south Chicago's Lake Calumet area. I'm concerned about the combustion of 

this fossil fuel and the associated emissions oftoxic gases, particulate matter, and carbon and the 

ensuing damage to human health. 

But in spite of my concern, I'm hopeful. I hope that you will do the right thing and adopt 

and enforce your proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants. I hope you will not 

let politics get in the way of what should be an easy decision. 1 hope you will put the health and 

welfare of Americans and people around the world first by saying no to new coal. I hope we can 

have a cleaner, healthier future where fewer new regulations are required in order for us to get 

electricity that doesn't come from harmful sources. I'm willing to come back and testify again to 

stop coal and get clean power, but l hope it won't be necessary; I'm hopeful that you'll do the 

right thing. Thank you.
---

EXHIBIT 31.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

|I, R. Douglas Orr, certify that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|1.                              
|                                
|2.                              
|                                
|3.                              
|                                
|4.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|5.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                



Date:  March 12, 2008

/s/ R. Douglas Orr	R. Douglas Orr
	Chief Financial Officer
\ 

/ 

SERVED: December 17,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0620 

AMENDED PROCEDURAL ORDER 

Our previous Procedural Order is amended as follows. 

WHEREFORE, the parties be and are hereby ORDERED to adhere to the 

following procedural schedule: 

1. Unless otherwise amended the original Procedural Order remains in effect. 

2. On or before March 7, 2014, the parties shall conclude all discovery including, 

but not limited to, depositions, document production, responses to production 

requests and/or interrogatories. If the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute 

they shall submit the dispute to the undersigned for resolution in a timely manner; 

3. The parties shall be prepared to present this case at a hearing on or after March 

7, 2014 1

, subject to the availability of courtroom facilities. The specific date and 

time for the hearing will be forthcoming in a separate Order. 

1. All documents are to be submitted to the undersigned as follows: 

HON. Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1 14 C.P.R.§ 13.221 states: "The administrative law judge shall give each party at least 60 days notice of 

the date, time and location of the hearing." 

1 
( 

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

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Attn: Patricia Matthews 

Administrative matters should be directed to Patricia Matthews, Staff Assistant 

(202) 366-5121 at (Patricia.Matthews@dot.gov). The Judge's email is 

(Richard.Goodwin@dot.govi. 

All other matters should be addressed in writing/email to Judge Goodwin. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

2 Mr. Leibowitz retired September 30, 2013. 

2 
( 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Kate Barber, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Great Lakes Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

ONE COPY 

Martin A. Blumenthal, Respondent's Counsel 

Attorney 

One Northfield Plaza, Suite 300 

Northfield, IL 60093 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. F AA-2013-0620 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

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

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

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

3
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 NuVim,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the "Report"), I, Richard
P.  Kundrat,  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, to the best of my knowledge:

     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: August 14, 2007

/s/Richard P. Kundrat
-----------------------
Richard P. Kundrat
Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20274 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE RAFAEL PARDO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-405-1

-------------------- April 10, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Rafael Pardo appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy and aiding and abetting to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 & 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Pardo argues that, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional. Pardo acknowledges that this court has rejected his argument and asserts that he raises the issue solely to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. As Pardo concedes, the constitutionality of 21 U.S.C.No. 01-20274 -2- § 841 has been upheld by this court. See United States v. Slaughter , 238 F.3d 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 532 U.S. 1045 (2001). Pardo also argues that this court should remand his case to the district court with instructions to “correct” the judgment to reflect the district court’s post-sentence remission of the $200 special assessment. The district court’s post-sentence order remitting the special assessment effectively revised the judgment of sentence. The entry of a revised judgment to reflect the post-sentence order is therefore unnecessary and does not require this court’s intervention.
AFFIRMED.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James L. CANADA, Appellant.

WD 80362

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: October 2, 2018

Nathan J. Aquino, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Irene C. Karns, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt, Judge and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

**ORDER**

Per curiam:

*135James L. Canada, Jr. ("Canada"), appeals his convictions of four counts of first degree statutory sodomy, section 566.062; two counts of first degree statutory rape, section 566.032; six counts of incest, section 568.020; and two counts of child molestation in the first degree, section 566.067. Following a jury trial, the court sentenced Canada to a total of 75 years' imprisonment. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).
Eric L. OLIVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80611

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: October 16, 2018

S. Kate Webber, Kansas City, for appellant.

Richard A. Starnes, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before Division Three: Anthony Rex Gabbert, P.J., and Victor C. Howard and Alok Ahuja, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Eric Oliver was convicted of the sale of a controlled substance following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County. We affirmed his conviction on direct appeal. Oliver then sought post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 29.15. The circuit court denied relief following an evidentiary hearing. Oliver appeals. He argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to endorse and call Oliver's mother as a witness, to refute a prosecution witness' testimony as to the location in Oliver's basement from which he allegedly retrieved the drugs he sold. Oliver also argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce photographs of the basement. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).
www.lewistownnews.com

April 12, 2013

To whom it may concern:
I amwriting onbehalfofthe Lewistown News-Argus to express our'concems about the potential termination ofEssentialAir Service to Lewistown, Montana. Our newspaper has covered this issue very closely and we have spoken with many people and business owners who share our concerns, and believe that the loss the Essential Air Service would be very detrimental to ourcommunity. Lewistown serves as the medical and business hub for the Central Montana region, yet the nearest airport with commercial passenger service is morethan 100miles away. With no bus, train orother forms ofpublic transportation coming into orout ofour community, Lewistown is the exactly type ofcommunity for which the BAS program was designed. We are well aware ofthe fact that the number ofpassengers flying in and out of Lewistown has been very low in the pastfew years. We feel that is a direct result ofthe move from flying to Billings rather than Denver. Lewistown had met BAS eligibility requirements in the past andwe believe that we would continue to meetrequirements if the schedule and destination were changed to better accommodate local travelers. For the reasons mentioned above, we ask that Lewistown's eligibility in the BAS program not be terminated. Given sufficient time, we are confident that a plan can be developed which will increase our number of travelers andjustify our position in the BAS program.
Sincerely,

# ~~ Lewistown News-Argus
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection
with the Report of Mewbourne Energy Partners 03-A, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned hereby certifies, in the capacity as indicated below and 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, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                   |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | --------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                        |  |                                   |  | /s/ Curtis W. Mewbourne
|                        |  | Name:                             |  | Curtis W. Mewbourne    
|Date: November 14, 2007 |  | Title:                            |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                        | 
|                        |  | Mewbourne Development Corporation
Exhibit 10.32








Exhibit 10.32






The following executive officers have a percentage benefit multiplier under the Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan (the “Plan” of 2.4% or 2.0%, as indicated below, in lieu of the 1.6% of
final average monthly remuneration benefit multiplier described in the Plan:



	 	 	 	 	 
	2.4%

	 	2.0%
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Blake W. Krueger

	 	Donald T. Grimes

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Pamela L. Linton

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Michael F. McBreen

	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	James D. Zwiers
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIX PALENCIA, AKA Felix Palencia

Marroquin,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 14-70105

Agency No. A091-786-082

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 14, 2016** 

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Felix Palencia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reconsider the

BIA’s order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) discretionary

denial of cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

JUN 24 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and review

de novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th

Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process in denying

Palencia’s motion to reconsider, where the BIA’s decision on reconsideration

corrected the factual error that Palencia had sought to correct in his motion to

reconsider, and the BIA determined that the error did not materially affect the

outcome of Palencia’s proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C) (a motion to

reconsider specifies “errors of law or fact in the previous order”); Lata v. INS, 204

F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (to prevail on a due process challenge, an alien

must show error and prejudice). Specifically, the BIA acknowledged that

Palencia’s 1998 conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5 had been vacated,

that he had been subsequently convicted under California Penal Code § 243(e) for

the same offense, and that the prior orders of the BIA and the IJ had misstated the

statute under which Palencia was convicted.

To the extent Palencia challenges the BIA’s conclusion that the agency’s

misstatement of the statute under which he was convicted did not affect the

balancing of factors in denying cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion,

we lack jurisdiction to review that discretionary determination. See 8 U.S.C. 

2 14-70105
§ 1252(a)(2)(B),(D). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 14-70105
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J UV ENI LE M ALE, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 08- 30354 D . C. N o . 0 8 - CR- 0 0 0 5 9 - RFC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont ana R i c ha r d F . C e bul l , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , L E A V Y , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R . C . , a j uv eni l e m al e, appeal s f rom an order i n w hi ch the di stri ctcourt a dj udge d hi m t o be aj uve ni l e de l i nque nta nd s e nt e nc e d hi m t o f i ve y e ar s de t e nt i on b a s e do n v io la tio n s o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 2 ( 2 ) ( B ) ( s e x u a l ab u s e ) a n d1 8 U .S .C . § 1153( a ) ( of

f e ns e c om m i tt e d w i thi n I ndi an c ountry ) . P ur s uantt o A nder s v . 

# FI LED MA R 14 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 30354 2 Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), R . C . ’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there ar e n o g r o u n d s f

o rr e lie f , a lo n g w ith am o tio n to w ith d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . W e have prov i ded the appel l antw i th the op po rtun i ty t o fi l e apro se s up pl em ent al br i e f . N o pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f ora ns w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s GR AN T E D, and the di stri ctcourt ’ s order i s AF F I RME D.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5504 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5504

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, Kansas, as the ``Larry Winn, Jr. 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2006

 Mr. Moore of Kansas (for himself, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, and 
Mr. Moran of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, Kansas, as the ``Larry Winn, Jr. 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LARRY WINN, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, Kansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Larry 
Winn, Jr. Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
OMB Support Statement Student Messaging in GEAR UP

Abt Associates Inc. Appendix E. Student Survey Email Reminder ▌ pg E-1

Appendix E. Student Survey Email Reminder
OMB Support Statement Student Messaging in GEAR UP

Abt Associates Inc. Appendix E. Student Survey Email Reminder ▌ pg E-2

Dear [RESPONDENT NAME],

As you may be aware, your high school is participating in the Study of Student Messaging in GEAR 

UP. The goal of the study is to better understand what strategies work best to increase the number of 

students who enroll in and persist at college. 

You have been selected to participate in the survey that will be part of this study!

The U.S. Department of Education would like to know about your experiences preparing for college

and your college plans. Your answers will help improve college transition support services provided 

to students like you. 

Please follow the link below to begin and complete the survey.

http://www.XXXXX.com

Login ID: XXXX

Password: XXXXXXXX

Your participation in the survey is voluntary and you may choose not to answer a question or to stop 

at any point. You can take part in Upward Bound even if you do not take the survey. 

The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete. 

We know your time is valuable and thank you in advance for completing this survey! 

Sincerely,

Alina Martinez, Ed.D.

Study Project Director

Study Contacts

Study Website: www.XXXXX.com

Study Email: XXXXX@abtassoc.com

Study Toll-Free Number: 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX

Protecting your privacy is very important to us. The study reports will not include your name or the name of your high school. We will not 

share information that identifies your to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law.

If you have any questions about participating in the study, please call 1-855-489-0480, or email UBDemo@abtassociates.com. If you have 

any questions about subjects’ rights, please contact Abt’s Institutional Review Board Administrator, Katie Speanburg, by phone at 1-(877) 

520-6835 [toll-free number]. If you have questions about the UB program, please contact your school directly.

Per the policies and procedures required by the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183, responses to this data 

collection will be used only for statistical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings across the sample and will 

not associate responses with a specific program, district, or individual. Any willful disclosure of such information for nonstatistical 

purposes, except as required by law, is a class E felony.