alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-55875; File No. SR-Amex-2006-17]

###### Department of Labor

###### Employee Benefits Security Administration

          - [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-04; Exemption Application Nos. D-11345, and D-11370]

      ( print page 35745)    

### Correction

In notice document E7-11367 beginning on page 32687 in the issue of Wednesday, June 13, 2007, make the following correction:

On page 32687, in the first column, the docket number should read as set forth above.

Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-55875; File No. SR-Amex-2006-17]

###### Department of Labor

###### Employee Benefits Security Administration

          - [Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2007-04; Exemption Application Nos. D-11345, and D-11370]

### Correction

In notice document E7-4982 beginning on page 13126 in the issue of Tuesday, March 20, 2007, make the following correction:

On page 13128, the table is being reprinted to read as follows:

[FR Doc. Z7-11367 Filed 6-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

[FR Doc. Z7-4982 Filed 6-28-07; 8:45 am]
Case 21-01155-MAM Doc 55 Filed 12/27/22 Page 1 of 2
Case 21-01155-MAM Doc 55 Filed 12/27/22 Page 2 of 2
Cecil Ray FISHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3131

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
ForestKirs t , - , _.,_,^, ^ Kirs t Aviatio n P.O.Bo x 7362 1 Fairbank s Alask a9970 7 (907)687-501 1 walksin@hotmaiI.co m Jun e 6,201 0

U. S Dept . o f

Transportatio n Docket Managemen

t Syste m 1200Ne w Jersey Ave . S E Wes t Buildin g GroundFloor,Roo mW12-14 0 Washingto n D C 2059 0 

## Exemptio n reques t

from1 4 CF

R91.14 7 Dea r sir ; I a mrequestin g a

n exemptio n t o th e requiremen t fo r separat e dru g testin g program s fo r operation s imde

r cf r 1 4 part s 91.14 7 and135 . I a mrequestin g thi s exemptio n a s I a m applyin g fo

r operatin g authorit

y unde r th e provision s o f

bot h 91.14 7 and135 . M

y PO T fo r th e 91.14 7 operatio n (Chri s Famell ) a t th e Fairbank s FSD O ha s requeste dI appl y fo r th e exemption . Thi s exemptio n woul d reduc e th e workloa da t m y loca l FSD O a s m

y dru g testin g progra mwoul d b e registere d wit h th e FA A Dru g Abatemen

t Divisio n (AAM-810 ) 800 Independenc e Ave . S W Roo m80 6 Washington . D C 20591 . Providin g m

y compan y wit h economi c relie f

fromadministerin g 2 dru g testin g program s i n asingl e pilo t

sol e proprieto r

operatio n woul dno t

adversely affec

t publi c safet

y a s all safety-sensitiv e personne l are i n arando mdru g testin g program , whic h wil l b e registere d wit h Washingto n unde

r 1 4 cf r 13 5 rules . M

y dru g testin g progra

mi s with : Fairbank s Toxicolt ^ 100 8 16Ave . #10 0 Fairbank s Alaska9970 1 (907 ) 456-482 5
Case 21-20622-PDR    Doc 52    Filed 03/08/22    Page 1 of 1
E.R., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3901

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 3 MONTHS
ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000 INCOME STATEMENT, AND THE JANUARY 31, 2000 BALANCE SHEET.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,567,757
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  404,293
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,025
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,145,592
<PP&E>                                         443,633
<DEPRECIATION>                                 170,683
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,205,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,186,191
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       202,863
<OTHER-SE>                                     321,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,205,778
<SALES>                                      1,911,844
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,911,844
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,786,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                186,051
<INCOME-TAX>                                    74,420
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            111,631
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   111,631
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6454

TILDEN PATTERSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:07-cv-00589-JLK-MFU)

Submitted: August 18, 2008 Decided: October 27, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tilden Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tilden Patterson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Patterson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


I, Royis Ward, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Ecoloclean  Industries,
Inc., ("Registrant").

(2) Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  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  with  respect to the period  covered by this annual
report;

(3)  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

(4)  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including its  consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,  particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any changes in the  registrant's  internal  control
over  financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5) The registrant's  other certifying  officers and I have disclosed,  based on
our most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting,  to
the  registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee of  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all  significant  deficiencies  and  material  weaknesses  in the  design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
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  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: April 20, 2005


By:  /s/ Royis Ward
    -----------------------
    Royis Ward
    Chief Executive Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Testing the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system using synthesized earthquake sequences      

      September 22, 2022    

We test the behavior of the United States (US) West Coast ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system during temporally close earthquake pairs to understand current performance and limitations. We consider performance metrics based on source parameter and ground‐motion forecast accuracy, as well as on alerting timeliness. We generate ground‐motion times series for synthesized earthquake sequences from real data by combining the signals from pairs of well‐recorded earthquakes (⁠4.4≤M≤7.1⁠) using time shifts ranging from −60 to +180 s. We examine fore‐ and aftershock sequences, near‐simultaneous events in different source regions, and simulated out‐of‐network and offshore earthquakes. We find that the operational ShakeAlert algorithms Earthquake Point‐source Integrated Code (EPIC) and Finite‐Fault Rupture Detector (FinDer) and the Propagation of Local Undamped Motion (PLUM) method perform largely as expected: EPIC provides the best source location estimates and is often fastest but can underestimate magnitudes or, in extreme cases, miss large earthquakes; FinDer provides real‐time line‐source models and unsaturated magnitude estimates for large earthquakes but currently cannot process concurrent events and may mislocate offshore earthquakes; PLUM identifies pockets of strong ground motion, but can overestimate alert areas. Implications for system performance are: (1) spatially and temporally close events are difficult to identify separately; (2) challenging scenarios with foreshocks that are close in space and time can lead to missed alerts for large earthquakes; and (3) in these situations the algorithms can often estimate ground motion better than source parameters. To improve EEW, our work suggests revisiting the current algorithm weighting in ShakeAlert, to continue developments that focus on using ground‐motion data to aggregate alerts from multiple algorithms, and to investigate methods to optimally leverage algorithm ground‐motion estimates. For testing and certification of EEW performance in ShakeAlert and other EEW systems where applicable, we also suggest that 25 of our 73 scenarios become part of the baseline data set.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Jeffrey Joseph McGuire

##### Research Geophysicist

Earthquake Hazards Program

jmcguire@usgs.gov

650-329-5153

## Related Content

#### Jeffrey Joseph McGuire

##### Research Geophysicist

Earthquake Hazards Program

jmcguire@usgs.gov

650-329-5153

### Study Area

### Contact

####               Earthquake Science Center          

350 N. Akron RoadMoffett Field, CA94035United States

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - california

View All **
Exhibit 99.3

               Statement Under Oath of Principal Executive Officer
       Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings

I, Gaylen M. Brotherson, state and attest that:

     (1)  To the  best of my  knowledge,  based  upon a  review  of the  covered
          reports  of  M.B.A.  Holdings,  Inc.,  and,  except  as  corrected  or
          supplemented in a subsequent covered report:

          o    no covered  report  contained  an untrue  statement of a material
               fact as of the end of the period  covered  by such  report (or in
               the case of a report on Form 8-K or definitive  proxy  materials,
               as of the date on which it was filed); and

          o    no covered  report  omitted to state a material fact necessary to
               make  the  statements  in the  covered  report,  in  light of the
               circumstances  under which they were made,  not  misleading as of
               the end of the period covered by such report (or in the case of a
               report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials,  as of the date
               on which it was filed).

     (2)  I have  reviewed the  contents of this  statement  with the  Company's
          Audit Committee.

     (3)  In this statement  under oath,  each of the following,  if filed on or
          before the date of this statement, is a "covered report":

          o    Annual Report on Form 10-K of M.B.A. Holdings,  Inc. for the year
               ended  October 31, 2003 filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
               Commission, File Number 1-9183,

          o    all  reports  on Form  10-Q,  all  reports  on  Form  8-K and all
               definitive  proxy materials of M.B.A.  Holdings,  Inc. filed with
               the  Commission  subsequent  to  the  filing  of  the  Form  10-K
               identified above; and

          o    any amendments to any of the foregoing.

By: /s/ Gaylen M. Brotherson
-------------------------------
Gaylen M. Brotherson
September 14, 2004
                                            Subscribed and sworn to before me
                                            This 14th day of September 2004.

                                            /s/ Marjorie Smith
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Notary Public
                                            My Commission Expires:
                                            March 18, 2008
Exhibit 99.1


                   Nova Star Innovations, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

     I, Mark S. Clayton, Principal Executive and Financial Officer of Nova
Star Innovations, Inc. certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1)     the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2002, 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                    /s/ Mark S. Clayton
Date: March 26, 2003               ____________________________________
                                   Mark S. Clayton
                                   Principal Executive and Financial Officer
Barry J. DORF, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Natalie DORF, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0406

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 03, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.

Granted. Remanded.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Transtensional deformation and structural control of contiguous but independent magmatic systems: Mono-Inyo Craters, Mammoth Mountain, and Long Valley Caldera, California      

      July 1, 2012    

The Long Valley region of eastern California (United States) is the site of abundant late Tertiary–present magmatism, including three geochemically distinct stages of magmatism since ca. 3 Ma: Mammoth Mountain, the Mono-Inyo volcanic chain, and Long Valley Caldera. We propose two tectonic models, one explaining the Mammoth Mountain–Mono-Inyo magmatism and the other explaining the presence of Long Valley Caldera. First, the ongoing Mammoth Mountain–Mono-Inyo volcanic chain magmatism is explained by a ridge-transform-ridge system, with the Mono-Inyo volcanic chain acting as one ridge segment and the South Moat fault acting as a transform fault. Implicit in this first model is that this region of eastern California is beginning to act as an incipient plate boundary. Second, the older Long Valley Caldera system is hypothesized to occur in a region of enhanced extension resulting from regional fault block rotation, specifically involving activation of the sinistral faults of the Mina deflection. The tectonic models are consistent with observed spatial and temporal differences in the geochemistry of the regional magmas, and the westward progression of magmatism since ca. 12 Ma.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Wes Hildreth

##### Senior Scientist (ST)

California Volcano Observatory

hildreth@usgs.gov

650-329-5231

## Related Content

#### Wes Hildreth

##### Senior Scientist (ST)

California Volcano Observatory

hildreth@usgs.gov

650-329-5231

### Contact

#### USGS Volcano Science Center

1300 SE Cardinal CourtVancouver, WA38683United States

360-993-8900

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Long Valley Caldera
                  -  Mammoth Mountain
                  -  Mono-Inyo Craters
                  - california

View All **
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Michael J. Erhart, Chief Executive Officer and I, Richard Sterrett,
Chief Financial Officer of Western Plains Energy, L.L.C. (the "Company") certify
that:

     1. I have reviewed the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Western Plains
Energy, L.L.C.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report 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 with respect to the period covered by this annual
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this annual report fairly present, in all material
respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report.

Date:  December 20, 2005


/s/ Michael J. Erhart
----------------------------
Michael J. Erhart,
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Richard Sterrett
----------------------------
Richard Sterrett,
Chief Financial Officer
Jonathan T. TRAMMELL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0202

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.