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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2194

DON BRADLEY WALLACE,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (7:13-cv-00124-FL)

Submitted: April 28, 2016 Decided: June 21, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Bradley Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Scott Stephen Gallagher, 

SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP, Jacksonville, Florida, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Don Bradley Wallace appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his complaint asserting claims under the 

Telephone Consumer Protect Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (2012).* We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Schatz v. 

Rosenberg, 943 F.2d 485, 487 n.1 (4th Cir. 1991) (“We must 

review the district court’s decision on the same record as that 

before the district court.”). Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order, deny Wallace’s motions to supplement the 

record on appeal, to seal some of those documents, and to 

clarify, and deny the Appellee’s motion to strike portions of 

Wallace’s opening brief. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid in the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * Wallace abandoned in the district court the remaining 

claims asserted in the complaint.
Exhibit 18-1

 

 

 

Board of Directors 

Golden Enterprises, Inc. 

2140 11th Avenue South, Suite 208

Birmingham, Alabama 35205

 

Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Golden Enterprises, Inc

and subsidiary incorporated by reference in its Form 10-k for the year 

ended May 31, 2002 describes a change in the method of accounting 

for slotting fees from expensing the costs when incurred to capitalizing and 

amortizing such costs over the expected benefit period, which is generally 

one year.  There is no authoritative criteria for determining a preferable 

method based on the particular circumstances; however, we conclude 

that such change in the method of accounting for the costs of 

slotting fees is an acceptable alternative method which, based on 

your business judgment to make this change and for the stated 

reasons, is preferable in your circumstances. 

 

 

 

	Yours very truly,

 

 

 

DUDLEY, HOPTON-JONES, SIMS & FREEMAN PLLP

 

 

August 14, 2002

Birmingham, Alabama
§ 301.304 Representation of claimant. ( a ) Any person may represent the claimant's interest in any proceeding for determination of a claim under this part, so long as that person is not confined in any federal, state or local correctional facility. Written appointment of a representative, signed by the claimant, must be submitted before the representative's authority to act on behalf of the claimant may be acknowledged.
( b ) It is not necessary that a claimant employ an attorney or other person to assert a claim or effect collection of an award. Under no circumstances will the assignment of any award be recognized, nor will attorney fees be paid by Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
#### § 590.13 Federal and State cooperation.

The Secretary shall, whenever he determines that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act, authorize the Administrator to cooperate with appropriate State and other governmental agencies in carrying out any provisions of the Egg Products Inspection Act and these regulations. In carrying out the provisions of the Act and the regulations, the Secretary may conduct such examinations, investigations, and inspections as he determines practicable through any officer or employee of any such agency commissioned by him for such purpose. The Secretary shall reimburse the States and other agencies for the services rendered by them in such cooperative programs as agreed to in the cooperative agreements as signed by the Administrator and the duly authorized agent of the State or other agency.
### §4107. Repealed. Pub. L. 117–328, div. S, title II, §204(a), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5270

Section, Pub. L. 99–659, title III, §308, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3736; Pub. L. 101–627, title V, §§502, 503, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4463; Pub. L. 102–396, title IX, §9135, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1937; Pub. L. 103–206, title VIII, §811, Dec. 20, 1993, 107 Stat. 2454; Pub. L. 103–238, §21, Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 561; Pub. L. 104–134, title I, §101[(a)] [title II, §211], Apr. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 1321, 1321–31; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 104–140, §1(a), May 2, 1996, 110 Stat. 1327; Pub. L. 104–297, title IV, §402, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3618; Pub. L. 107–372, title III, §302(a), Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3094; Pub. L. 109–479, title III, §302(g), Jan. 12, 2007, 120 Stat. 3624; Pub. L. 111–348, title I, §104, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3671, authorized appropriations, with certain conditions, to the Secretary of Commerce for fiscal years 2007 through 2012.
1

Whalen, Marilyn

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2014 3:53 PM

To: Richard Takaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov); roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov

Cc: Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Ueda, Jill T CIV NAVFAC HI, HIEV4; Kishaba, 

Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Tsutsui, Bruce O CIV NAVFAC HI, OPHE3; Nakamura, 

Peter M CIV NAVFAC HI, EV1; Mizuno, Arleen M CIV NAVFAC HI, PRJ412; Lovgren, 

Andrew C LT NAVSUP, 700; Linder, Steven; Pallarino, Bob; steven.chang@doh.hawaii.gov; 

stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - JULY 8, 2014

Hi Richard/Roxanne:

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of July 8, 2014.  In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will be

annotated.

1. Preliminary Work Plan  

a. Item 1‐ Models to estimate downward vertical migration of free product.

b. Item 2 ‐ Methods or options for non‐invasive scanning of basalt to determine area and volume of contaminant

mass prior to any drilling investigation.

c. Item 3 ‐ Methods and locations for borings to most efficiently characterize the extent of contamination.

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable)

a. Action 1 ‐ Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation

of release point(s) within Tank 5.

b. Action 2 ‐ The rate of vertical migration for the released JP‐8 free product is unknown.  Information from the

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration.  This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination.  Prepare models for petroleum JP‐8 releases of 10,000,

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5.  Progress in developing

these models should be included in the preliminary work plan.

c. Action 3 ‐ Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of

the released JP‐8 free product.  Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased

monitoring are required to address this plume.

d. Action 4 ‐ Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future

releases from the USTs within the Complex.  This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete.  

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical.

The Draft Work Plan for Installation of Two Sentinel Wells will be submitted to the DOH the week of 14 July 2014.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Vr,
2

Aaron
#### § 115.372 Evidentiary standard for administrative investigations.

The agency shall impose no standard higher than a preponderance of the evidence in determining whether allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment are substantiated.
### §18e. Repealed. Sept. 20, 1941, ch. 412, title V, §541(c), 55 Stat. 710

Section, act June 28, 1941, ch. 259, §1, 55 Stat. 350, exempted national park, etc., admission fees from all Federal tax on admissions. Act Sept. 20, 1941, was made effective on, and applicable only with respect to, the period beginning with Oct. 1, 1941, by section 550(a) thereof.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
                                                                      EXHIBIT 27
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS  OF  INCOME  AND  CASH FLOWS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999,  AND  IS  QUALIFIED  IN  ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.

                        GREEN MOUNTAIN POWER CORPORATION
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           FORM 10-K DECEMBER 31, 1999


                 (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<S>                                     <C>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                            per-book
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   192826
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  20665
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       33238
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     41853
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               11099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              299751
<COMMON>                                     18085
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    72594
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          10344
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>              100645
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         1880
<PREFERRED>                                  12555
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         88500
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                            7900
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                 6700
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                     1650
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                   7038
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               89133
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               299751
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   251048
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                          1242
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  241860
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  243102
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                       7946
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            3453
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               11399
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      7183
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3063)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                   1155
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                (4218)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2946
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                     6716
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       15105
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.79)



</TABLE>
#### § 51.49 Absence of judicial review.

The decision of the Attorney General not to object to a submitted change or to withdraw an objection is not reviewable. The preclearance by the Attorney General of a voting change does not constitute the certification that the voting change satisfies any other requirement of the law beyond that of section 5, and, as stated in section 5, “(n)either an affirmative indication by the Attorney General that no objection will be made, nor the Attorney General's failure to object, nor a declaratory judgment entered under this section shall bar a subsequent action to enjoin enforcement of such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure.”
**SECURITIES        AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington,        D.C. 20549**

**FORM        8-K**

**CURRENT        REPORT**

**Pursuant        to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of        1934**

**Progenics        Pharmaceuticals, Inc.**

| Delaware                                                                                            |   | **000-23143**                            |   | **13-3379479**                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (State                  or other jurisdictionof                  incorporation)                     |   | (CommissionFile                  Number) |   | (IRS                  EmployerIdentification                  No.) |
|                                                                                                |   |                                     |   |                                                               |
| 777                  Old Saw Mill River Road, Tarrytown, New York                                   |   | 10591                                    |
| (Address                  of principal executive offices)                                           |   | (Zip                  Code)              |
| Registrant's                  telephone number, including area code (914)                  789-2800 |

*see *

----

**Section        8**

**Item        8.01. Other Events**

----

**SIGNATURES**
#### In the Matter of the Application of Fred H. Blakeslee, Appellant, to Lay Out a Highway in the Town of Sanford, Broome County, New York, Respondent, and the Assessment of Damages Therefor.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
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 Teliphone Corp.. (the “Company”) on Form
10–Q for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George Metrakos, 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, 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; and
  2.      
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  /s/
      George MetrakosGeorge
      Metrakos
                Chief
      Executive Officer
 Dated:February
13, 2009
§ 401.121 Definitions. For the purposes of this part, except as the context may otherwise require: ( a ) All words and phrases which are defined by section 1.2 of the Compact shall have the same meaning herein.
( b ) Words and phrases which are defined by part I of the Administrative Manual (section 1-3) shall have the same meaning for the purposes of this part 401.
( c ) *Application* shall mean a request for action by the Commission in any written form, including without limitation thereto, a letter, referral by any agency of a signatory party, or an official form prescribed by the Commission; provided that whenever an official form of application has been duly required, an application shall not be deemed to be pending before the Commission until such time as such form, together with the information required thereby, has been completed and filed.
( d ) *Applicant* shall mean any sponsor or other person who has submitted an application to the Commission.
( e ) *Material change* shall mean a change to a project previously approved by the Commission that is important in determining whether the project would substantially impair or conflict with the Commission's comprehensive plan.
( f ) *Sponsor* shall mean any person authorized to initiate, construct or administer a project.
[40 FR 14056, Mar. 28, 1975; 40 FR 17987, Apr. 24, 1975. Redesignated at 52 FR 37602, Oct. 8, 1987, as amended at 89 FR 51828, June 20, 2024]
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. 99-31199

Summary Calendar

SAMUEL HULL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD STALDER, Secretary,

Department of Public Safety and

Corrections; UNIDENTIFIED PARTIES,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(99-CV-1838-J)

September 28, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Samuel Hull, Louisiana prisoner #114055, appeals the denial of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The district court

granted a certificate of appealability on the issues of whether his

petition was procedurally barred and whether the application of a

ten-year cleansing period to his multiple-offender proceedings was

an ex-post-facto violation.1 Hull did not directly appeal his sen tence. A direct appeal

would have been the proper vehicle for challenging his sentence.

2 Hull does challenge the district court’s finding that his

petition was untimely, but he fails to address the ruling that his

petition is barred under Coleman v. Thompson

.

2 The Louisiana Supreme Court denied Hull’s sta te habeas

petition raising the ex-post-facto claim. It cited Louisiana Code

Crim. Proc. art. 930.3, which limits the grounds on which a

prisoner may seek post-conviction relief, and Melinie v. State

, 665

So. 2d 1172 (La . 1996), which held that article 930.3 does not

allow post-conviction challenges to sentencing errors. 1 The

L ouisiana Supreme Court, then, rejected Hull’s petition on state

law grounds independent of his federal law claims.

An independent and adequate state law groun d for denial of

Hull’s petition bars federal habeas review. S ee Coleman v.

Thompson

, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (explaining the independent and

adequate state ground doctrine). Even construed liberally, Hull’s

pro se petition does not attempt to overcome this procedural bar. 2

Thus, federal review of Hull’s claim is precluded. See Yohey v.

Collins

, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (failure of a pro se

brief, construed liberally, to argue a point on appeal abandons the

claim); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9). In any case, our independent

review of the record and applicable law reveals that Hull would not

have been able to overcome the bar even if he had argued the point.3

The district court’s judgment dismissing Hull ’s § 2254

petition is AFFIRMED.
### §403j. Authorization of appropriation

There is authorized to be appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $743,265.29 to complete the acquisition of lands within the limits of said park, such funds to be available until expended.

(Feb. 12, 1938, ch. 27, §6, 52 Stat. 29.)
Searched for **http://www.guideline.gov/**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.guideline.gov/**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
#### § 570.44 Supervision and restraint requirements.

Inmates under escort will be within the constant and immediate visual supervision of escorting staff at all times. Restraints may be applied to an inmate going on an escorted trip, after considering the purpose of the escorted trip and the degree of supervision required by the inmate. Except for escorted trips for a medical emergency, an inmate going on an escorted trip must agree in writing to the conditions of the escorted trip (for example, agrees not to consume alcohol).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Administrative Proceedings Rulings

Release No. 6865 / September 6, 2022

Administrative Proceeding

File No. 3-18483

In the Matter of

Timothy C. Scarpino

Order Redesignating 

Presiding Judge

I ORDER that Administrative Law Judge Carol Fox Foelak is designated, 

in place of Chief Administrative Law Judge James E. Grimes, to preside at the 

hearing in this proceeding and to perform other and related duties under the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice.

For the Commission, by its Chief Administrative Law Judge, by delegated 

authority.

/s/ James E. Grimes

Chief Administrative Law Judge
#### § 2.90 Prior orders of the Board of Parole.

Any order entered by the Board of Parole of the District of Columbia shall be accorded the status of an order of the Parole Commission unless duly reconsidered and changed by the Commission at a regularly scheduled hearing. It shall not constitute grounds for reopening a case that the prisoner is subject to an order of the Board of Parole that fails to conform to a provision of this part.
February 1, 2012

Mr. Doug Neeley, Chief

Air Toxics & Monitoring Branch

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960

Dear Mr. Neeley,

I hereby acknowledge that the 2011 Ozone Air Quality Summary Report for the State of Mississippi, AQS reporting organization 703, and speciation contractor lab RTI, is accurate to the best of my knowledge when taking into consideration the quality

assurance indicators. The data were collected in accordance with the quality assurance, monitoring methodology, and probe siting criteria of 40 CFR part 58. The ambient data and quality assurance data for ozone have been submitted to the AQS database. The following reports for the 2011 ozone data set were submitted electronically to Darren Palmer of your section: “Quick Look” report AMP 450 and “Precision and Accuracy Quality Indicator Summary” report AMP 255. Please note that the remaining criteria pollutants will be certified by May 1, 2012.

If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Maya Rao, P.E., DEEChief, Air Division

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL

POST OFFICE Box 2261 • JACKSON, Mississippi 39225-2261 • TEL: (601) 961-5171 • FAx: (601) 354-6612 • www.deq.state.ms.us

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barney Deckenbrock, Appellant.

The practice is irregular. (See Code Crim. Proc. §§ 528, 529.) Application pursuant to these sections may be made to any justice of this Appellate Division. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Stapleton, JJ.