alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 1513

NELSON L. BRUCE , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, a/k/a PenFed Credit Union , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston

. Bruce H. Hendricks , District Judge. ( 2:17

- cv - 02170

- BHH )

Submitted : July 16, 2019 Decided: July 18, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Nelson L. Bruce, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Thomas Moraites, ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC, Washington, D

. C

. , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nelson L. Bruce appeals the district court’s text order denying his motion to compel arbitration and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking relief from the court’s prior judgment dismissing his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record a nd find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bruce v. Pentagon Fed. Credit Union , No. 2:17

- cv - 02170

- BHH (D.S.C. May 3, 2019). 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 the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
#### § 408.413 How do we evaluate the evidence of age you give us?

In evaluating the evidence of age you give us, we use the rules in § 416.803 of this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.2015 Establishing eligibility. ( a ) *Applications.* Any person who meets the application requirements of subpart C of this part is deemed to have filed an application for any federally administered State supplementation for which he may be eligible unless supplementation has been waived pursuant to § 416.2047. However, a supplemental statement will be required where additional information is necessary to establish eligibility or to determine the correct payment amount.
( b ) *Evidentiary requirements.* The evidentiary requirements and developmental procedures of this part are applicable with respect to federally administered State supplementary payments.
( c ) *Determination.* Where not inconsistent with the provisions of this subpart, eligibility for and the amount of the State supplementary payment will be determined pursuant to the provisions of subparts A through Q of this part.
( d ) *Categories; aged, blind, disabled.* An applicant will be deemed to have filed for the State supplementary payment amount provided for the category under which his application for a Federal supplemental security income benefit is filed. As in the Federal supplemental security income program, an individual who establishes eligibility as a blind or disabled individual, and continually remains on the rolls, will continue to be considered blind or disabled after he attains age 65.
( e ) *Concurrent categories.* ( 1 ) In States where the supplementary payment provided for the aged category is higher than for the blind or disabled category aged individuals will be paid the State supplement on the basis of age.
( 2 ) If the administration agreement pursuant to § 416.2005(b) provides for higher supplementary payments to the blind or disabled than to the aged category, then, at the option of the State, the agreement may provide that individuals who are age 65 or over at time of application and who are blind or disabled may elect to receive such higher supplementary payments.
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.1876 Effects a parent (or parents) can have on the child's benefits.

Section 416.1851 (b) and (c) tells what effects a parent's income and resources can have on his or her child's benefits.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6190

ANTONIO ROMYA BEALE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MARIE VARGO, Warden, Sussex II State Prison,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00674-LMB-JFA)

Submitted: March 26, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014

Before DIAZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Romya Beale, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio Romya Beale seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Beale 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
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean

1 1,702 167 655

2 1,334 165 368

3 719 158 274

4 601 152 237

5 962 152 274

6 1,466 156 374

7 1,378 162 387

8 1,984 161 426

9 938 157 257

10 854 154 248

11 870 154 263

12 1,239 154 357

13 995 156 334

14 633 156 261

15 478 154 243

16 388 155 202

17 544 156 216

18 1,347 157 288

19 1,068 158 279

20 1,681 161 371

21 2,186 164 471

22 2,618 168 578

23 3,047 169 717

24 3,478 172 701

25 3,694 174 972

26 4,218 177 1,253

27 4,303 185 1,328

28 4,223 197 1,483

29 2,697 207 818

30 1,879 194 638

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Rio Vista On The Sacramento River

Period: November 2022 Run Date: 12/8/2022
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4271 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from 

awarding contracts for public relations, market research, or other similar 

activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2015 

Mr. SMITH of Missouri introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees 

on Agriculture, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Science, Space, 

and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from awarding contracts for public relations, 

market research, or other similar activities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘End EPA Advertising 

5 Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4271 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON PUBLIC RELATIONS CON2 TRACTING BY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

3 AGENCY. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—The Administrator of the Envi5 ronmental Protection Agency may not award any contract 

6 for public relations, market research, or other similar ac7 tivities. 

8 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

9 (1) PUBLIC RELATIONS.—The term ‘‘public re10 lations’’ includes writing services, event planning 

11 and management, media relations, radio and tele12 vision analysis, and press services. 

13 (2) MARKET RESEARCH.—The term ‘‘market 

14 research’’ includes telephone and field interviews, 

15 focus testing, and surveys. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with 

17 respect to contracts awarded on or after the date of the 

18 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §1643i. Time limitation on completion of affairs of Commission

The Commission shall complete its affairs in connection with the settlement of claims pursuant to this subchapter not later than July 6, 1972.

(Mar. 10, 1950, ch. 54, title V, §510, as added Pub. L. 88–666, Oct. 16, 1964, 78 Stat. 1112; amended Pub. L. 89–780, §5, Nov. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 1365; Pub. L. 91–157, Dec. 24, 1969, 83 Stat. 435.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1969—Pub. L. 91–157 set July 6, 1972, as the final date for the settlement of claims pursuant to this subchapter.

1966—Pub. L. 89–780 inserted "with respect to each respective claims program authorized" after "carrying out its functions".
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of China Medical Technologies,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Xiaodong Wu, 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, that to my knowledge:

(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.

Date: July 18, 2011



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Xiaodong Wu        
|Name:  |  | Xiaodong Wu            
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
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

 267

 439

 888

 765

 1,091

 640

 500

 508

 329

 252

 271

 214

 223

 284

 635

 894

 1,073

 721

 722

 722

 601

 596

 781

 2,007

 775

 708

 596

 594

 1,001

 2,006

 2,562

 183

 180

 193

 214

 219

 215

 216

 214

 207

 203

 185

 193

 192

 192

 203

 211

 223

 226

 228

 221

 226

 227

 228

 258

 258

 246

 247

 257

 276

 283

 316

 203

 236

 313

 328

 357

 320

 267

 271

 240

 223

 220

 204

 200

 213

 292

 363

 361

 353

 345

 320

 314

 335

 405

 764

 479

 422

 372

 360

 440

 562

 731

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MAY 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 6, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
Editorial Note on Part 416
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

§ 416.730 Penalty period: Three or more failures to report. ( a ) *Third (or a following) penalty period.* A third (or a following) penalty period begins the day after the last penalty period ends. This penalty period ends on the day we first learn that you should have made a required report during the penalty period, but did not do so within 10 days after the close of the month in which the event happened. (The event may have happened during an earlier penalty period, with the reporting due date in the third (or a following) penalty period. The due date and the failure to report on time are the important factors in establishing a penalty period.) There may be more than one required report overdue at the end of a penalty period, but we will impose no more than one penalty deduction for any one penalty period.
( b ) *Extension of third (or a following) penalty period.* Just as with the first and second penalty periods, if you have good cause for not making a report on time during the third (or a following) penalty period (see § 416.732), we will extend the penalty period to the day when we learn that you should have made another required report, but did not do so within 10 days after the close of the month in which the event happened. There may be more than one required report overdue at the end of an extended penalty period, but we will impose no more than one penalty deduction for any one extended penalty period.
[46 FR 5873, Jan. 21, 1981, as amended at 50 FR 48573, Nov. 26, 1985]
#### § 411.375 Does a State VR agency continue to provide services under the requirements of the State plan approved under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 720 *et seq.*), when functioning as an EN?

Yes. The State VR agency must continue to provide services under the requirements of the State plan approved under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 720 *et seq.*), even when functioning as an EN.
Comments on Draft PGP for Pesticide Applications

Ralph Smith to: Jack Faulk 01/22/2010 01:32 PM

Cc: "Jeffrey Reading"

Jack,

Attached are comments on the draft PGP for pesticide applications. This is 

from the pesticide regulatory lead agency in NJ. Thanks.

Ralph C. Smith, Chief

Bureau of Pesticide Operations

NJ Dept of Environmental Protection

Pesticide Control Program
§ 771.60 Revocation or denial of renewal proceedings. ( a ) If the licensee or permittee desires a hearing, he shall file a request, in writing, with the Director of Industry Operations within 15 days after receipt of the notice or within such time as the Director of Industry Operations may allow.
( b ) Where a licensee or permittee requests a hearing, the Director of Industry Operations shall forward a copy of the request, together with a copy of the notice, to the Office of Chief Counsel for the assignment of an administrative law judge.
( c ) After the Office of Chief Counsel notifies the Director of Industry Operations or the Attorney for the Government of the assignment of an administrative law judge, the Director of Industry Operations shall notify the licensee or permittee of the assignment, if the administrative law judge has not already done so.
( d ) In the case of a revocation, a licensee or permittee may include a request for a stay of the effective date of revocation with the request for a hearing.
( e ) On receipt of a request for a stay of the effective date of a revocation, the Director of Industry Operations shall timely advise the licensee or permittee whether the stay is granted. ( 1 ) If the stay is granted, the matter shall be referred to an administrative law judge pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
( 2 ) If the stay is denied, the licensee or permittee may request an immediate hearing. In this event, the Director of Industry Operations shall immediately refer the matter to the Office of Chief Counsel for the assignment of an administrative law judge, who shall set a date and place for hearing, which date shall be no later than 10 days from the date the licensee or permittee requested the immediate hearing.
#### § 340.12 Waiver not a matter of right.

A waiver under § 340.10 or § 340.11 is not a matter of right, but is at all times within the judgment of the Board.
### Part J—Foreign Service Grievances
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1522

IN RE: FATEMEH NAJAFIAN,

Debtor,

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

FATEMEH NAJAFIAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; SALLIE MAE INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, 

District Judge. (1:12-cv-01408-AJT-TCB)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fatemeh Najafian, Appellant Pro Se. Julie K. Swedback, Senior 

Attorney, EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Oakdale, 

Minnesota, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Fatemeh Najafian appeals the district court’s order 

affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her a hardship 

discharge of student loan debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) 

(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we grant Najafian’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Najafian v. Educ. Credit Mgmt, No. 1:12-cv-01408-AJT-TCB

(E.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2013). 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 the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906  In connection with the Annual Report of Orchids Paper Products Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert A. Snyder, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 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; 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/ Robert A. SnyderRobert A. SnyderChief Executive Officer and PresidentMarch 11, 2011
June 30 , 2011

MEMORANDUM From: William H. Maxwell

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243 - 01) To: Docket Number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0234 Subject: Teleconference with Sunflower Electric Attendees : Richard Taylor, UA Jerry O’Leary , UA Richard Hilton, Alstom Clare A. Gustin , Sunflower Electric Earl Watkins, Sunflower Electric Way ne Penrod, Sunflower Electric Ralph Roberson, RMB Consulting (consultant to Sunflower Electric) Dana Stephens, Tri - State Generation and Transmission Joe Goffman, EPA/OAR Peter Tsirigotis , EPA/OAR/ OAQ PS/SPPD Kirsten King, EPA/OAR Discussion : A general discussion of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards was held.
**Exhibit 15.3**

 

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

 

We hereby consent to the use of our estimates of proved reserves and future revenue of Sundance Energy Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sundance Energy Australia Limited, as of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2014, based on our reserves reports incorporated by reference into this Form 20-F.

 
|   | **NETHERLAND, SEWELL &   ASSOCIATES, INC.** |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                      |
|   | By:                                                       | /s/ Danny D. Simmons |
|   |                                                      | Danny D. Simmons, P.E. |
|   |                                                      | President and Chief   Operating Officer |

 

Houston, Texas

May 2, 2016

 

Please be advised that the digital document you are viewing is provided by Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. (NSAI) as a convenience to our clients.  The digital document is intended to be substantively the same as the original signed document maintained by NSAI.  The digital document is subject to the parameters, limitations, and conditions stated in the original document.  In the event of any differences between the digital document and the original document, the original document shall control and supersede the digital document.

 

----
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

 17,877

 17,435

 18,147

 18,722

 20,169

 19,256

 19,062

 19,753

 19,702

 19,030

 20,799

 19,507

 20,193

 22,090

 18,678

 19,367

 18,935

 18,097

 19,675

 18,683

 18,551

 18,618

 18,416

 18,458

 20,827

 19,060

 19,383

 18,668

 17,967

 18,173

 17,281

 9,185

 7,384

 8,028

 6,829

 9,696

 9,747

 11,227

 9,703

 8,024

 7,859

 9,222

 9,723

 8,157

 11,396

 8,297

 11,840

 11,156

 9,669

 11,457

 11,890

 11,060

 10,457

 10,311

 8,870

 10,809

 7,929

 9,315

 8,842

 8,720

 8,027

 8,359

 12,276

 11,704

 12,678

 12,576

 14,343

 14,061

 14,990

 14,131

 14,228

 14,375

 14,487

 13,813

 13,250

 16,467

 13,954

 15,316

 14,886

 14,353

 15,037

 15,183

 14,487

 13,833

 13,885

 13,033

 15,606

 13,692

 13,344

 12,946

 12,521

 12,641

 13,203

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 3, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG TOP ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lorenzo LINEAR, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-6162.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 20, 2006.

Decided: July 24, 2006.

Lorenzo Linear, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Office of the United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Lorenzo Linear seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Linear 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.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 416

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 416 appear at 68 FR 53509, Sept. 11, 2003.

#### § 416.401 Scope of subpart.

This subpart D sets forth basic guidelines for establishing the amount of monthly benefits payable to an eligible individual or couple (as defined in § 416.120(c)(5)). This subpart does not contain provisions with respect to establishing the amount of State supplementary payments payable in accordance with an agreement entered into between a State and the Administration under the provisions of subpart T of this part. Provisions with respect to determination and payment of State supplementary payments under such agreements will be administered by the Administration in accordance with the terms set forth in such agreements.

[39 FR 23053, June 26, 1974]