alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13** 

**- 1922** 

WEST VIRGINIA CWP FUND, as carrier for East View Trucking,
Inc. ,

Petitioner

,

v.

CARL E. MATLICK; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS ’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
,
Respondent s

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board

. ( 12

- 0543

- BLA )

Submitted : April 17, 2014 Decided: April 25, 2014

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

William S. Mattingly, Jeffrey R. Soukup, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Cheryl Catherine Cowen, Waynesburg, Pennsylvania ; Sean Gregory Bajkowski, Kathleen Kim, Gary K. Stearman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C. , for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

West Virginia CWP Fund seeks review of the Benefi ts

Review Board ’ s de cision and order affirming the Administrative

Law Ju dge ’ s (“ALJ”) award of black lung benefits to Carl E.

Matlick, pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901

- 945 (2012) . Our review of

the record discloses that the ALJ’s decision is based upon

substa ntial evidence and is without reversible error. See

Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton , 211 F.3d 203, 207

- 08 (4th Cir.

2000) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the

petition for review . We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
**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 on Form 10-QSB of **VisualMED Clinical Solutions Corp.** (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerard Dab, Principal Executive Officer, Secretary and a member of the Board of Directors of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)      The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|   |   |   |                                                                                                            |
|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | */s/ Gerald Dab*                                                                                                |
|   |   |   | Gerard          DabPrincipal Executive Officer, Secretary anda member of the Board of DirectorsNovember 9, 2005 |

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78r), as amended.

 

----
§ 300.209 Treatment of charter schools and their students. ( a ) *Rights of children with disabilities.* Children with disabilities who attend public charter schools and their parents retain all rights under this part.
( b ) *Charter schools that are public schools of the LEA.* ( 1 ) In carrying out Part B of the Act and these regulations with respect to charter schools that are public schools of the LEA, the LEA must— ( i ) Serve children with disabilities attending those charter schools in the same manner as the LEA serves children with disabilities in its other schools, including providing supplementary and related services on site at the charter school to the same extent to which the LEA has a policy or practice of providing such services on the site to its other public schools; and
( ii ) Provide funds under Part B of the Act to those charter schools— ( A ) On the same basis as the LEA provides funds to the LEA's other public schools, including proportional distribution based on relative enrollment of children with disabilities; and
( B ) At the same time as the LEA distributes other Federal funds to the LEA's other public schools, consistent with the State's charter school law.
( 2 ) If the public charter school is a school of an LEA that receives funding under § 300.705 and includes other public schools— ( i ) The LEA is responsible for ensuring that the requirements of this part are met, unless State law assigns that responsibility to some other entity; and
( ii ) The LEA must meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
( c ) *Public charter schools that are LEAs.* If the public charter school is an LEA, consistent with § 300.28, that receives funding under § 300.705, that charter school is responsible for ensuring that the requirements of this part are met, unless State law assigns that responsibility to some other entity.
( d ) *Public charter schools that are not an LEA or a school that is part of an LEA.* ( 1 ) If the public charter school is not an LEA receiving funding under § 300.705, or a school that is part of an LEA receiving funding under § 300.705, the SEA is responsible for ensuring that the requirements of this part are met.
( 2 ) Paragraph (d)(1) of this section does not preclude a State from assigning initial responsibility for ensuring the requirements of this part are met to another entity. However, the SEA must maintain the ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with this part, consistent with § 300.149.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0600) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1413(a)(5))
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

DAY HIGH

 149

 147

 141

 153

 160

 153

 151

 156

 148

 163

 132

 135

 139

 156

 157

 166

 173

 178

 159

 162

 164

 160

 167

 167

 166

 184

 235

 343

 452

 508

 135

 131

 131

 132

 128

 126

 127

 128

 128

 127

 127

 127

 129

 131

 133

 136

 138

 140

 139

 141

 142

 142

 146

 145

 146

 147

 153

 157

 161

 157

 138

 138

 136

 138

 135

 132

 132

 132

 132

 131

 128

 129

 132

 138

 141

 145

 149

 155

 150

 151

 151

 150

 151

 151

 153

 162

 184

 218

 248

 251

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JUNE 2003 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 2, 2003

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 1,924

 1,918

 1,911

 1,908

 1,904

 1,898

 1,893

 1,891

 1,892

 1,892

 1,886

 1,878

 1,871

 1,871

 1,874

 1,881

 1,894

 1,911

 1,926

 1,945

 1,964

 1,982

 2,001

 2,021

 2,046

 2,079

 2,131

 2,211

 2,318

 2,424

 137

 137

 137

 136

 136

 136

 135

 135

 135

 135

 135

 134

 134

 134

 134

 134

 135

 137

 138

 139

 140

 142

 143

 144

 146

 149

 152

 158

 166

 173

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### §47. Use of aircraft or motor vehicles to hunt certain wild horses or burros; pollution of watering holes

(a) Whoever uses an aircraft or a motor vehicle to hunt, for the purpose of capturing or killing, any wild unbranded horse, mare, colt, or burro running at large on any of the public land or ranges shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(b) Whoever pollutes or causes the pollution of any watering hole on any of the public land or ranges for the purpose of trapping, killing, wounding, or maiming any of the animals referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(c) As used in subsection (a) of this section—

(1) The term "aircraft" means any contrivance used for flight in the air; and

(2) The term "motor vehicle" includes an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land.

(Added Pub. L. 86–234, §1(a), Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 470; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $500".
### §4010. Acquisition of additional land

The Attorney General may, when authorized by law, acquire land adjacent to or in the vicinity of a Federal penal or correctional institution if he considers the additional land essential to the protection of the health or safety of the inmates of the institution.

(Added Pub. L. 89–554, §3(f), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 610.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 341f. | July 28, 1950, ch. 503, §7, 64 Stat. 381. |
| | | Sept. 16, 1959, Pub. L. 86–286, 73 Stat. 567. |

Statutes at Large

The reference to an appropriation law is omitted as covered by the words "when authorized by law".
§ 75.511 Waiver of requirement for a full-time project director. ( a ) If regulations under a program require a full-time project director, the Secretary may waive that requirement under the following conditions: ( 1 ) The project will not be adversely affected by the waiver.
( 2 ) ( i ) The project director is needed to coordinate two or more related projects; or
( ii ) The project director must teach a minimum number of hours to retain faculty status.
( b ) The waiver either permits the grantee: ( 1 ) To use a part-time project director; or
( 2 ) Not to use any project director.
( c ) ( 1 ) An applicant or a grantee may request the waiver.
( 2 ) The request must be in writing and must demonstrate that a waiver is appropriate under this section.
( 3 ) The Secretary gives the waiver in writing. The waiver is effective on the date the Secretary signs the waiver. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)


Cross Reference:
See 2 CFR 200.308, Revision of budget and program plans.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I,
Joan E. Ryan, certify that:

1.    I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of North American Van Lines, Inc.

2.    Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.    Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



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



6.    The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other
factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses.

Date
November 21, 2003

/s/JOAN E. RYANJoan E. Ryan
Chief Financial Officer


---

QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19187-19188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8158]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35237]


City of Davenport, Iowa--Construction and Operation Exemption--in 
Scott County, Iowa

    By petition filed on July 21, 2009, the City of Davenport, Iowa 
(the City) seeks an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from the prior 
approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 to construct approximately 2.8 
miles of rail line in southern Eldridge, northern Davenport, and an 
unincorporated area of Scott County, Iowa. The new line will provide 
the Eastern Iowa Industrial Center, an industrial park, with rail 
access. The City will hire an operator to provide service on the line, 
but the City also will be required to ensure continued rail service.
    In a decision served on October 19, 2009, the Board instituted a 
proceeding under 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). No comments opposing the petition 
have been filed.
    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the lead Federal agency 
on this rail project, and the City issued an Environmental Assessment 
(EA) for public review and comment on March 17, 2008. On July 8, 2008, 
the FHWA issued its Record and Finding of No Significant Impact and 
recommended 3 environmental conditions to mitigate the impacts of the 
project. After the Board's Office of Environmental

[[Page 19188]]

Analysis (OEA) independently reviewed the FHWA EA, OEA prepared and 
issued on January 28, 2010, a Review of Environmental Matters and Final 
Environmental Recommendations in which OEA recommended that the Board 
adopt the FHWA EA and impose the 3 environmental conditions recommended 
by the FHWA. Due to a subsequent proposed change by the City in project 
design and in the rail alignment, OEA, the FHWA, the Iowa Department of 
Transportation, and the City conducted a reevaluation of the project. 
In December 2010, the FHWA and OEA determined that no supplemental 
environmental review would be required and that the same 3 
environmental conditions should be imposed.
    After considering the entire record, including both the 
transportation aspects of the petition and the potential environmental 
issues, the Board granted the requested construction and operation 
exemption in a decision served today, subject to compliance with the 
environmental mitigation measures listed in the Appendix to the 
decision. Petitions to reopen must be filed by April 26, 2011.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: March 30, 2011.

    By the Board, Chairman Elliott and Commissioner Mulvey.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2011-8158 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear by T.D. ATF-463, 66 FR 42733, Aug. 15, 2001.

###### Editorial Note on Subpart C of Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart C of part 1 appear by T.D. ATF-416, 64 FR 49985, Sept. 15, 1999.

#### § 1.56 Oaths and affirmations.

A document must be verified by an oath or affirmation taken before a person authorized by the laws of the United States or by State or local law to administer oaths or affirmations in the jurisdiction where the document is executed when required by:

(a) Regulation; or

(b) An appropriate TTB officer.

[T.D. ATF-416, 64 FR 49985, Sept. 15, 1999]
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

 8,113

 8,634

 9,524

 8,739

 7,473

 6,665

 6,041

 4,621

 4,655

 4,584

 5,528

 6,204

 6,818

 6,720

 6,450

 7,490

 7,202

 8,608

 6,994

 7,153

 6,501

 5,927

 5,286

 5,418

 5,841

 7,126

 7,689

 8,920

 9,349

 9,935

 10,222

 1,228

 738

 1,211

 1,000

 581

 570

 718

 443

 455

 516

 512

 614

 524

 777

 465

 492

 747

 723

 826

 706

 555

 517

 573

 469

 536

 857

 958

 868

 992

 1,885

 2,508

 4,185

 4,248

 5,016

 4,049

 3,656

 3,273

 3,326

 2,262

 1,884

 1,793

 2,069

 2,391

 2,890

 2,997

 2,992

 3,344

 3,707

 4,267

 3,600

 3,771

 3,701

 3,300

 2,918

 2,902

 2,996

 3,140

 3,752

 4,343

 4,942

 5,232

 5,380

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

DECEMBER 2013 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: February 21, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 46,597

 46,931

 48,023

 47,763

 48,743

 49,854

 50,376

 50,074

 49,608

 49,010

 48,026

 46,377

 45,175

 44,039

 42,846

 41,942

 40,633

 40,851

 40,795

 41,293

 41,668

 42,706

 43,740

 44,849

 45,776

 46,525

 47,387

 48,733

 50,683

 52,571

 54,244

 3,328

 3,352

 3,430

 3,412

 3,482

 3,561

 3,598

 3,577

 3,543

 3,501

 3,430

 3,313

 3,227

 3,146

 3,060

 2,996

 2,902

 2,918

 2,914

 2,950

 2,976

 3,050

 3,124

 3,204

 3,270

 3,323

 3,385

 3,481

 3,620

 3,755

 3,875

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

37 CA 12-00802 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

TOWN OF AMHERST AND GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER

ARTHUR HILGER, SALLY BISHER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND AARON HILGER, DEFENDANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

SMITH, MURPHY & SCHOEPPERLE, LLP, BUFFALO, MAURO LILLING NAPARTY LLP, WOODBURY (MATTHEW W. NAPARTY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

SHAUB, AHMUTY, CITRIN & SPRATT, LLP, LAKE SUCCESS, DEMARIE & SCHOENBORN, P.C., BUFFALO (JOSEPH DEMARIE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS.

MICHAEL JAFFE, NEW YORK CITY, FOR NEW YORK STATE TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, AMICUS CURIAE.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Paula L. Feroleto, J.), entered January 23, 2012. The order, among other things, granted that part of plaintiffs’ motion seeking summary judgment against defendants Arthur Hilger and Sally Bisher.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy , 140 AD2d 988; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts , 63 AD2d 566, 567; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: March 22, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 17

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear by T.D. ATF-436, 66 FR 5470, 5471, Jan. 19, 2001.

#### § 17.113 Extent of release of surety from liability under bond.

The rights of the principal as supported by the bond shall cease as of the date when termination of the bond takes effect, and the surety shall be relieved from liability for drawback allowed on and after that date. Liability for drawback previously allowed shall continue until the claims for such drawback have been properly verified by the appropriate TTB officer according to law and this part.
### §907. Limitation on exclusive rights: innocent infringement

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, an innocent purchaser of an infringing semiconductor chip product—

(1) shall incur no liability under this chapter with respect to the importation or distribution of units of the infringing semiconductor chip product that occurs before the innocent purchaser has notice of protection with respect to the mask work embodied in the semiconductor chip product; and

(2) shall be liable only for a reasonable royalty on each unit of the infringing semiconductor chip product that the innocent purchaser imports or distributes after having notice of protection with respect to the mask work embodied in the semiconductor chip product.

(b) The amount of the royalty referred to in subsection (a)(2) shall be determined by the court in a civil action for infringement unless the parties resolve the issue by voluntary negotiation, mediation, or binding arbitration.

(c) The immunity of an innocent purchaser from liability referred to in subsection (a)(1) and the limitation of remedies with respect to an innocent purchaser referred to in subsection (a)(2) shall extend to any person who directly or indirectly purchases an infringing semiconductor chip product from an innocent purchaser.

(d) The provisions of subsections (a), (b), and (c) apply only with respect to those units of an infringing semiconductor chip product that an innocent purchaser purchased before having notice of protection with respect to the mask work embodied in the semiconductor chip product.

(Added Pub. L. 98–620, title III, §302, Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3350.)
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

 4,010

 3,457

 4,583

 5,396

 6,264

 5,996

 5,311

 4,682

 4,147

 3,429

 2,989

 3,059

 3,030

 3,611

 5,046

 4,999

 5,440

 5,227

 5,129

 5,146

 4,430

 3,804

 3,319

 2,708

 2,090

 1,880

 1,628

 2,356

 2,568

 2,349

 1,945

 605

 376

 304

 358

 510

 499

 467

 495

 470

 427

 393

 410

 500

 657

 428

 337

 327

 329

 408

 517

 472

 357

 421

 366

 299

 239

 301

 202

 274

 187

 163

 1,972

 1,849

 2,181

 2,468

 2,908

 2,932

 2,630

 2,537

 2,219

 1,993

 1,840

 1,678

 1,586

 1,603

 1,712

 1,883

 2,092

 2,235

 2,440

 2,537

 2,186

 1,898

 1,788

 1,586

 1,239

 984

 835

 872

 1,076

 936

 698

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2017 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 28, 2017

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

COLLINSVILLE BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER