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

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7179 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 

revise certain ethylene oxide emissions standards under the Clean Air 

Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 28, 2018 

Mr. SCHNEIDER (for himself, Mr. FOSTER, and Mr. LIPINSKI) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to revise certain ethylene oxide emissions 

standards under the Clean Air Act, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ETHYLENE OXIDE EMISSIONS STANDARDS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 

6 Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this sec7 tion as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall amend— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 7179 IH

1 (1) subparts O and FFFF of part 63 of title 

2 40, Code of Federal Regulations, to revise the stand3 ards for the emission of ethylene oxide under those 

4 subparts based on the results described in the report 

5 of the National Center for Environmental Assess6 ment of the Environmental Protection Agency enti7 tled ‘‘Evaluation of the Inhalation Carcinogenicity of 

8 Ethylene Oxide’’ and dated December 2016; and 

9 (2) subpart O of part 63 of title 40, Code of 

10 Federal Regulations, to apply maximum achievable 

11 control technology (within the meaning of the Clean 

12 Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.)) requirements to 

13 chamber exhaust vents. 

14 (b) NOTIFICATION.— 

15 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after 

16 the Administrator learns of a violation of the stand17 ards revised under subsection (a), the Administrator 

18 shall notify the public of the violation in a manner 

19 determined to be appropriate by the Administrator. 

20 (2) FAILURE TO NOTIFY.—If the Administrator 

21 fails to notify the public under paragraph (1) by the 

22 end of the period described in that paragraph, the 

23 Inspector General of the Environmental Protection 

24 Agency shall carry out an investigation to deter25 mine— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 7179 IH

1 (A) the reason or reasons for which the 

2 Administrator failed to notify the public; 

3 (B) the public health risks associated with 

4 the failure of the Administrator to notify the 

5 public; and 

6 (C) any steps the Administrator should 

7 take to ensure the Administrator meets the re8 quirements described in paragraph (1) in the 

9 future. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE





Reference is hereby made to that
certain Primary Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2014, by and among Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National
Association as Master Servicer, and Berkeley Point Capital LLC, as Primary Servicer, with respect to Deutsche Mortgage & Asset
Receiving Corporation Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series COMM 2014-UBS4 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized
terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.





Pursuant to Section 3.05 of this
Agreement, I, hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Primary Servicer from July 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 (the
“Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Primary Servicer has fulfilled all of its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
has executed this Certificate as of the 9th day of March 2015.









/s/ Ellen D. Miller

Ellen D. Miller

Managing Director

Head of Servicing

Berkeley Point Capital LLC
585 A.2d 397

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FRANK HUBBARD.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Gustav Peter FINKEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-249.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 26, 2011.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DAMOORGIAN, J.

Gustav Peter Finkel assigns error to his judgment and sentence for grand theft. Finkel was charged with the crimes of burglary of a dwelling (Count I) and grand theft of property and currency in excess of $100,000.00 (Count II). After a jury trial, Finkel was found guilty of Count I, as charged, and petit theft, a lesser-included offense of the grand theft as charged in Count II. For reasons not entirely clear from the record, the judgment reflects that Finkel was found guilty of grand theft as to Count II. Moreover, the sentencing order imposed a sentence of 27.75 months imprisonment for each count, with each sentence to run concurrent with the other. Finkel argues that the judgment adjudicating him guilty of grand theft is fundamentally erroneous because the jury found him guilty of the petit theft, a second degree misdemeanor. *See Miller v. State,*764 So.2d 640, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Moreover, the concurrent sentence of 27.75 months appended to what should have been the second degree misdemeanor count exceeds the maximum sentence of 60 days incarceration. *See*§ 812.014(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2009); § 775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009). Therefore, the sentence is illegal. Rightfully so, the State concedes error.

Accordingly, we remand with directions to the trial court to correct the written *829judgment, so that it reflects the jury’s verdict on Count II, finding Finkel guilty of petit theft. On remand, the trial court shall resentence Finkel on Count II to a sentence not to exceed the maximum permitted by law.

*Affirmed and Remanded to Correct Judgment and Sentence.*

POLEN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit32.2**

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

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending July 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,except for the matters set forth in Part II — Item 5 of this Quarterly Report;and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.
|        | /s/ Robert H. Barghaus             |   |
|--------|------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert H. Barghaus                 |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial |
|   | Officer                            |
|   | September 11, 2006                 |

This certification is made solely for the purpose of18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and notfor any other purpose.

----
#### Arthur J. PALMER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 19149.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

June 8, 1964.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1964.

Arthur J. Palmer, Leavenworth, Kansas, appellant pro se.

Sidney I. Lezak, U. S. Atty., Donal D. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The order denying appellant’s motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is affirmed.

We are satisfied that the court’s finding that Palmer’s plea was entered understandingly and voluntarily is correct.

We find no merit in Palmer’s contention that 26 U.S.C. § 4724 violates the Fifth Amendment.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1678 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1678

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize 
appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign programs 
  and centers for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Torture Victims Relief 
Reauthorization Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR DOMESTIC TREATMENT CENTERS 
              FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

    Section 5(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22 
U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--Of the amounts 
        authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Health and 
        Human Services for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, there are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) 
        $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.''.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FOREIGN TREATMENT CENTERS 
              FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

    Section 4(b)(1) of the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 (22 
U.S.C. 2152 note) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--Of the amounts 
        authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 
        pursuant to chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
        of 1961, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
        President to carry out section 130 of such Act $12,000,000 for 
        each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES 
              CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNITED NATIONS VOLUNTARY FUND FOR 
              VICTIMS OF TORTURE.

    Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 2008 
and 2009 pursuant to chapter 3 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
of 1961, there are authorized to be appropriated to the President for a 
voluntary contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims 
of Torture $12,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 25, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1678

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To amend the Torture Victims Relief Act of 1998 to authorize 
appropriations to provide assistance for domestic and foreign programs 
  and centers for the treatment of victims of torture, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ANTHONY ARNETT JACKSON, )

)

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-82

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed February 15, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Reinaldo Ojeda, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Megan Olson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and MORRIS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
585 A.2d 365

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN DENNIS.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 AF temporarily transitions to contract maintenance for some active-duty unitsPublished Feb. 12, 2016
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force will temporarily transition some legacy active-duty maintenance units to contract maintenance beginning in fiscal year 2017 and continuing through fiscal year 2020.
The move to contract maintenance for some legacy non-deployable flying units and back shop maintenance will allow the Air Force to cross train approximately 1,100 experienced maintainers from legacy aircraft (F-16 Fighting Falcon, A-10 Thunderbolt II, and C-130 Hercules) into the F-35 Lightning II program.
There is a shortfall of 4,000 maintainers as a result of budgetary constraints that has significantly impacted our overall maintenance manning, said Lt. Gen. John B. Cooper, the deputy chief of staff for logistics, engineering and force protection.
“Changes in the geopolitical environment also require us to maintain our current fleet, rather than divest legacy aircraft,” Cooper said. “All of this has affected our plan to transition maintenance manpower from legacy aircraft to the F-35A as originally planned.”
Cooper said contract maintenance is a short-term solution that will ensure the Air Force remains on a steady path toward full operating capability for the F-35A as the maintenance career fields grow and strengthen.
“This is one of many deliberate measures we are taking to help manage this shortage of experienced aircraft maintainers until we can grow and develop our new accessions,” he said.
Additional initiatives to manage the maintainer shortage include: increasing the number of maintenance accessions; offering selective reenlistment bonuses as an incentive to improve retention; offering experienced former Airmen the opportunity to return to active duty; offering high year of tenure extensions; implemented direct duty prior service accessions; implemented voluntary limited period of active duty; and evaluating total force manning solutions.
Locations affected include formal training units at Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, and Little Rock AFB, Arkansas; A-10 Weapons Instructor Course and operational test and evaluation units at Nellis AFB, Nevada; F-16 aggressor maintenance at Eielson AFB, Alaska; aerospace ground equipment units Anderson AFB, Guam; Holloman AFB and Kirtland AFB, New Mexico; Peterson AFB, Colorado; and Rota Air Base, Spain; and avionics units at Eglin AFB and Tyndall AFB in Florida.
Beginning in fiscal 2017, the Air Force will use an existing contract vehicle to begin the transition. As contract maintainers come onboard, military members will begin moving to operational units in the summers of 2017 and 2018. As accessions grow, it will allow the Air Force to phase out the contract support by 2020.maintenance 



budget 



legacy aircraft
585 A.2d 352

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KENNETH MICHAEL ZIOLKOWSKI.

July 17, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Kenneth NIX, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D10-593.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 20, 2011.

Kenneth Nix, Madison, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Y. Mclntire, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Nix appeals an order of the trial court summarily denying his timely, sixty-five page sworn pro se motion for postconviction relief. His motion raises twelve grounds for relief, including ten separate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse.

Although the trial court considered a response filed by the state, it denied the motion without attaching or incorporating the response, stating any rationale for denial, or attaching any portions of the record to conclusively refute any of the grounds for relief, at least some of which facially appear to be meritorious.

When a trial court denies a rule 3.850 motion without an evidentiary hearing, it must “either state its rationale in its decision or attach those specific parts of the record that refute each claim presented in the motion.” *Anderson v. State,*627 So.2d 1170, 1171 (Fla.1993) (citing *Hoffman v. State,*571 So.2d 449, 450 (Fla.1990)).

In response to this court’s order to show cause, the state suggests it can be inferred *1291from the trial court’s order that all of Nix’s grounds for relief are facially insufficient. However, if that were the case, then the trial court should have stricken them with leave to amend within a reasonable time period. *See Spera v. State,*971 So.2d 754, 755 (Fla.2007) (holding that “in dismissing a first postconviction motion based on a pleading deficiency, a court abuses its discretion in failing to allow the defendant at least one opportunity to correct the deficiency unless it cannot be corrected”).

Accordingly, the order is reversed and remanded for the attachment of portions of the record conclusively refuting the allegations of the motion or for an evidentiary hearing. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(d). On remand, if the trial court determines that any of Nix’s grounds are facially insufficient, it should strike them and allow Nix a reasonable amount of time in which to amend them.

*Reversed and remanded.*

GROSS, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ„ concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6023

JUANITA POPE REID,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (CA-02-300)

Submitted: May 4, 2005 Decided: June 14, 2005

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juanita Pope Reid, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Juanita Pope Reid, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on her motion filed pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in which she raised a defect in the

proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone,

369 F.3d 363, 367-70 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 the district court’s assessment of her

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. 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 Reid 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
585 A.2d 340

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ARCHIE J. HODGES.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
LAW OFFICE OF

CHRISTIAN T. SOUZA

4303 N. Central Expressway Dallas, Texas 75205

Tel. (214) 862

- 7462 • Fax (214) 696

- 0867

souzalawdallas.com

January 2 7 , 2015

Lisa Matz, Clerk Court of Appeals, 5th District 600 Commerce Street, Suite 200 Dallas, Tex as 75202

RE: State of Texas v. Erick Ford

Trial No. F13

- 55893 Appeal No. 05

- 13

- 01482

- CR

Notification concerning T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4

Dear Ms. Matz:

I am writing to advise that on or before this date copies of the opinion and judgment in

this case were sent, certi fied mail, return receipt requested, No. 7011 2000 0000 5521

2259 to Appe llant at his last known address per the web site of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice on January 26, 2015

. I further certify that a letter was included in which the Appellant was adv ised that he has the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary Review under Rule 68 within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the judgment and opinion.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Respectfully,

/s/ Christian T. Souza

Chris tian T. Souza ACCEPTED
05-13-01482-CR
FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS
1/27/2015 9:37:36 AM

LISA MATZ
CLERK
#### Ronald RILEY, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D10-3966.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 13, 2010.

Ronald Riley, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *See Baker v. State,*878 So.2d 1236 (Fla.2004).

THOMAS, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Order entered July 11 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00162
- CV
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2 005
- 3, Appellant
V. JESSICA A. JOHNSON, Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 02205



### O RDER The reporter’s record is past due. After receiving written confirmation from appellant that it had paid the fee for preparation of the reporter’ s record, we ordered Antonette Reagor, Official Court Reporter for the 68th Judicial District Court, to file the reporter’s record by July 1, 2016. As of today’s date, the reporter’s record has not been filed. This appeal cannot proceed without the repor ter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Reagor to file the reporter’s record by JULY 18, 2016

. We expressly caution Ms. Reagor that failure to comply with this order may result in an order that she not sit as a court reporter until she complies.We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Martin

Hoffman, Presiding Judge of the 68th Judicial District Court, Ms. Reagor, and counsel for all parties.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
**Exhibit32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBlyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending October 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Robert H. Barghaus, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert H. Barghaus                     |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert H. Barghaus                         |
|   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | August 4, 2004                        |

 

 

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not forany other purpose.

 

----