alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Summary: Oglala Sioux Tribe Member Fraudulently Obtained BIA 

General Assistance Funds 

Report Date: February 21, 2020 Report Number: 18-0920 

The OIG investigated allegations that Oglala Sioux Tribe Member Monica Tyon fraudulently 

obtained Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) general assistance funds. She reportedly received 

general assistance while she was employed by the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Tyon did not qualify 

for assistance because of the income from her tribal employment. 

We found that Tyon fraudulently received $4,775. Tyon admitted she applied for general 

assistance even though she knew she was not eligible. 

Tyon pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, Western Division, 

to misdemeanor theft of Government funds. She will not serve prison or probation time, but 

was ordered to pay $4,775 in restitution. 

This is a summary of the report we provided to the BIA Director. 

Office of Investigations | Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of the Interior | Washington, DC
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                         0001103090
<NAME>                        COLE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         5,195
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,195
<PP&E>                                         1,410
<DEPRECIATION>                                 351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       10,850
<OTHER-SE>                                    (4,734)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,254
<SALES>                                        292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               292
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               744
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (452)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (452)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.01)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6065
STEPHEN LOVE PRESTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-111, CA-96-413-R) Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 29, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Steven Love Preston, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Preston v. United States , Nos. CR-88-111; CA-96-413-R (W.D. Va. Dec. 17, 1996). The Government's motion to dismiss is denied as moot. 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
§ 101.101 Posthearing briefs: proposed findings and conclusions. ( a ) The presiding officer shall fix the time for filing posthearing briefs, which may contain proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and, if permitted, reply briefs.
( b ) Briefs should include a summary of the evidence relied upon together with references to exhibit numbers and pages of the transcript, with citations of the authorities relied upon.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7659

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DWIGHT JONES, a/k/a Shakey,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-162-R, CA-95-801)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight Jones, Appellant Pro Se. N. George Metcalf, Assistant

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Jones, Nos. CR-92-162-R; CA-95-801 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### § 5.12 Creation of agency records not required.

In response to a FOIA request, the Department produces only those agency records that are not already publicly available and that are in existence at the time it receives a request. The Department does not create new agency records in response to a FOIA request by, for example, extrapolating information from existing agency records, reformatting available information, preparing new electronic programs or databases, or creating data through calculations of ratios, proportions, percentages, trends, frequency distributions, correlations, or comparisons.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 20 U.S.C. 3474)
Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 1528 Filed 07/27/22 Entered 07/27/22 17:47:08 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3
Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 1528 Filed 07/27/22 Entered 07/27/22 17:47:08 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3
Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 1528 Filed 07/27/22 Entered 07/27/22 17:47:08 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3
g:\blm\buttermp\ams\FinalFigures\Fig2-9_VegZones1117.mxd 

Cascade County 

Lewis and Clark County 

Meagher County 

Powell County Helena 

East Helena 

£¤12 

Jefferson County 

§ ̈¦15 

£¤

Broadwater County 

12 Townsend 

Boulder 

Anaconda 

§ ̈¦90 

Deerlodge County 

£¤287 

Butte 

I
 Group 1 - Subalpine
 Group 5 - Wetland Riparian 

Non Vegetated Vegetation Zones in the Butte Planning Area 

Butte Field Office - EIS

Group 2 - Moist Conifer 

0 Miles 10 Group 3 - Woodland Water RMP Planning Area, Montana No warranty is made by the Bureau of Map Land Management (BLM) for use of Location
 FIGURE 2-9a data for purposes not intended by BLM. Group 4 - Shrub Grassland
Patrick J. Potter, VSB No. 39766 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

1200 Seventeenth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Tel: (202) 663-8928 

Email: patrick.potter@pillsburylaw.com 

Counsel for the Debtor and Debtor in Possession

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Newport News Division 

__________________________________________ 

 ) 

In re: ) 

 ) 

INSIGNIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC,1 ) Case No. 19-50277-SCS 

 ) 

 Debtor. ) Chapter 11 

__________________________________________) 

NOTICE OF HEARING 

 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the Court has scheduled a hearing on the following 

motion (the “Motion”) for October 11, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. (ET) (the “Hearing”) at the United 

States Bankruptcy Court – Newport News Division, 2400 West Avenue, Newport News, 

VA: 

(1) Motion to Assume Unexpired Nonresidential Real Property Lease With 

PCT, LLC Effective From September 30, 2019 [Doc. 260] 

YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED. You should read these papers carefully and 

discuss them with your attorney, if you have one in this bankruptcy case. If you do not have an 

attorney, you may wish to consult one. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT under Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013-1, 

unless a written response to the Motion is filed with the Clerk of Court and served on the 

Debtor’s counsel at least three (3) days before the scheduled Hearing date (the “Objection 

Deadline”), the Court may deem any opposition waived, treat the Motion as conceded, and issue 

orders granting the requested relief without further notice or hearing.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT you may file a written response at: U.S. 

Courthouse, 2400 West Avenue, Newport News, VA or mail your response to the Court for 

filing to: U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 600 Granby Street, Room 400, Norfolk, VA 23510-1915. 

1

 The last four digits of the Debtor’s federal tax identification number are: 3701. The Debtor’s address is: 610 

Thimble Shoals Boulevard, Building 6, Newport News, Virginia 23606. 

4813-9208-8215

Case 19-50277-SCS Doc 261 Filed 09/27/19 Entered 09/27/19 15:56:13 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
2

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT you must also send a copy of any 

response filed with the Court to the Debtor’s counsel at: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 

Attn: Patrick J. Potter 1200 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT you must mail any response early 

enough so the Court and the Debtor’s counsel will receive it on or before the Objection Deadline. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT copies of the Motion may be obtained at 

https://www.vaeb.uscourts.gov or by written/email request to the undersigned counsel for the 

Debtor.

Dated: September 27, 2019 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

/s/ Patrick J. Potter 

Patrick J. Potter, VSB No. 39766 

1200 Seventeenth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Tel (202) 663-8928 

Fax (202) 663-8007 

E-mail: patrick.potter@pillsburylaw.com 

Counsel for the Debtor and Debtor in Possession 

Case 19-50277-SCS Doc 261 Filed 09/27/19 Entered 09/27/19 15:56:13 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00499-CR

____________________

IN RE JODY FLOYD MATHES

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding 

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Jody Floyd Mathes filed a petition for writ of mandamus to compel the 

preparation of a chronological itemized list of all documents filed in Cause Nos. 

09-06-05587-CR and 09-06-05589-CR, in the 221st District Court of Montgomery 

County, Texas. He also requests that this Court either order the respondents to 

allow him to purchase the clerk’s and reporter’s records from a prepared 

chronological list of documents or issue a declaratory judgment of his rights.

This Court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over a district clerk or a district 

attorney unless it is necessary to enforce this Court’s jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t 

Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). This Court has mandamus jurisdiction against a 
2

judge of a district court in our geographic jurisdiction, but after reviewing the 

mandamus petition and record, we conclude that Mathes has not demonstrated that 

he has a clear right to the relief he seeks from the Judge of the 221st District Court 

of Montgomery County, Texas. See id. § 221.21(b)(1); see also In re State ex rel. 

Tharp, 393 S.W.3d 751, 754 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (To be entitled to mandamus 

relief, the relator must show that he has a clear right to the relief sought.). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED.

 

 PER CURIAM

Opinion Delivered November 27, 2013

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
### Bedrock geology of the Evitts Creek and Pattersons Creek quadrangles, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia

By: Wallace De Witt Jr.G. W. Colton

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1173

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 243

 221

 350

 309

 582

 453

 296

 229

 331

 280

 239

 332

 724

 572

 278

 270

 277

 279

 258

 268

 298

 322

 317

 300

 331

 348

 369

 404

 417

 429

 445

 192

 161

 190

 258

 272

 291

 220

 188

 196

 230

 180

 168

 350

 249

 237

 241

 244

 252

 242

 245

 266

 272

 278

 271

 253

 260

 250

 257

 258

 265

 248

 220

 190

 244

 279

 446

 354

 245

 205

 266

 251

 214

 201

 626

 342

 256

 256

 261

 267

 249

 259

 280

 304

 300

 286

 294

 310

 316

 325

 330

 337

 352

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2011 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 24, 2011

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 152

 133

 167

 188

 292

 235

 167

 143

 180

 171

 148

 140

 403

 227

 174

 174

 177

 181

 170

 176

 189

 204

 201

 193

 198

 208

 211

 217

 220

 224

 234

TOTAL 9,065

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, Stuart R. Lloyd, Chief Financial Officer (principal financialofficer) of PEC Solutions, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certify that to thebest of my knowledge, based upon review of the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 of the Registrant (the “Report”):

 

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

 

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

 
|   | /s/ STUART R. LLOYD |   |
|--------|---------------------|--------|
| Name:  | Stuart R. Lloyd     |
| Date:  | May 6, 2005         |
|        |                     |        |  |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James B. TORRENCE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-7823.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 29, 2002.

Decided May 14, 2002.

*133James B. Torrence, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

James B. Torrence, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. Torrence,*Nos. CR-96-180; CA-00-306-5 (S.D.W.Va. Aug. 20, 2001). 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.*
# Official Journal L 338/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 338 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 495 December 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 338

English edition

Legislation

Volume 495 December 2006

---

| Contents | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Commission |
| | * | Commission Decision of 26 July 2006 approving on behalf of the European Community amendments to Annexes V and VIII to the Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on sanitary measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products
  (notified under document number C(2006) 3327)

   (1) | 1 |
| Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters constituting an Arrangement with New Zealand on the amendments to Annex V and Annex VIII to the Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on sanitary measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products | 3 |
| | * | Commission Decision of 24 August 2006 amending Decision 2003/56/EC on health certificates for the importation of live animals and animal products from New Zealand
  (notified under document number C(2006) 3708)

   (1) | 45 |

Contents

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

page

Commission

*

Commission Decision of 26 July 2006 approving on behalf of the European Community amendments to Annexes V and VIII to the Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on sanitary measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products
  (notified under document number C(2006) 3327)

   (1)

(notified under document number C(2006) 3327)

1

Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters constituting an Arrangement with New Zealand on the amendments to Annex V and Annex VIII to the Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on sanitary measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products

3

*

Commission Decision of 24 August 2006 amending Decision 2003/56/EC on health certificates for the importation of live animals and animal products from New Zealand
  (notified under document number C(2006) 3708)

   (1)

(notified under document number C(2006) 3708)

45

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Tilden Line 1 using GSA and ESP ID Fan Costs 

The following discussion is taken from July e-mails and discussions with Don 

Shepherd

Tilden Line 1 currently uses an ESP, so the current gas flow contains little 

water and the gas would enter the GSA at the indurating line exhaust 

temperature of 300F. Table 4-1 of Tilden's 12/28/06 BART report shows 

1,148,000 acfm @ 300F. Don assumed that application of GSA would result in 

Tilden removing the ESP, since the baghouse following the GSA would remove PM 

anyway. Don assumed no need to adjust the temperature and gas flow coming out 

of the indurating furnace and going into the GSA.

The cost of the GSA+baghouse (in the "Given/Assume" tab) is based upon a

USS cost for treating 910,000 acfm. That cost is adjusted to the higher gas 

flow at Tilden Line 1 using the six-tenth's power rule on the "Cap Cost" tab.

The freight cost comes from the GSA information.

Don assumed no additional retrofit cost because none has been justified.

The $125/ton lime cost came from GSA information.

Don noted that solvent usage has been a major question for him. He found a 

workbook submitted by ESSAR Steel to MPCA for a PSD permit for its new steel 

mill:

The "GSA" tab of the workbook contains an estimate of 3,200 gpm for the GSA

treating 1.2 million acfm. Assuming that the same liquid/gas ratio of 2.7

gal/1000 acfm would apply to GSA at Tilden yields a solvent use rate of

3,100 gpm, which appears reasonable for this slightly smaller (than ESSAR)

gas flow.

Don noted that Tilden's estimate of $0.40/kgal for water seems reasonable.

Waste disposal cost/ton for the material captured by the GSA+baghuse system

was taken from the "Hood Exhaust Utility Chem$ Data" tab of the ESSAR

workbook.

Gas Cleaning System Electricity Cost was calculated as a direct ratio of

the cost for the smaller system at USS per your 7/25/12 email to me.

ID Fan Power Cost was calculated as a direct ratio of the cost for the

smaller system at USS.

Don Shepherd

National Park Service

Air Resources Division

12795 W. Alameda Pkwy.

Lakewood, CO 80228

Phone: 303-969-2075

Fax: 303-969-2822
Additional Considerations:

The spreadsheet below is based upon information provided by Don Shepherd, 

with ID Fan electricity costs based upon item 3 below. Items 1 and 2 would 

also lower the $/ton cost-effectiveness values.

1) The existing ESPs could be used, at least in part, in lieu of a baghouse.

2) Even if a new collector system was installed, the operating costs of the 

existing dry ESPs, which would no longer be needed, could be subtracted from 

the annual operating costs.

3) As stated by a GSA vendor, an ESP could be used in lieu of a baghouse, 

with less than 1/8th of the pressure drop. This would reduce the Fan ID 

electricity costs to no more than $177,404 and result in a cost effectiveness 

of $5,459/ton.

Tilden GSA-ESP.xls