alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sacramen to River

T16N R1W

CCOOLLUUSSAA CC OO

29 28

20 21

32 33

Arbee

88.7 L

Contractor's Service Area

Point of Diversion

Contract No. 14-06-200-1976A-R-1

Exhibit B

Butte Creek Farms, Inc.

725-202-12

Note: The Public Land Survey depicted here

was digitized from USGS topographic maps.

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Date: October 28, 2004

File Name: N:\districts\contracts\butte_creek_farms1976\butte_creek_farms1976.mxd
No: II-23-029 September 28, 2023 

Contact: Dave Gasperson, 404-997-4417 

NRC Names New Senior Resident Inspector at Hatch Nuclear Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has selected Phil Niebaum as 

the new senior resident inspector at the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. The 

plant, operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Co., is located near Baxley, 

Georgia.

Niebaum joined the NRC in 2006 as a project engineer in the Region 

II office in Atlanta. He has held various positions, including resident 

inspector, at the Hatch and Browns Ferry nuclear power plants near Athens, 

Alabama. He served as the senior resident inspector at the Farley nuclear 

power plant in Columbia, Alabama, before recently assuming the same role at 

the Columbia Generating Station near Richland, Washington. Niebaum earned a bachelor's degree 

in mechanical engineering from the University of Central Florida. 

“I am confident that Phil's experience will make him a valuable asset to the resident 

inspector office at Plant Hatch,” said NRC Region II Administrator Laura Dudes. “He has a proven 

track record of success inspecting nuclear power plants for safe operation and will continue to 

uphold the NRC's high standards for nuclear safety at the site.” 

Niebaum joins Resident Inspector Richard Easter at Hatch. Each U.S. commercial nuclear 

power plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors who monitor day-to-day operations at the 

plant. They serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring 

significant projects, and interacting with plant workers and the public.
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 this annual  report on Form 10-KSB of United  Tennessee
Bankshares,  Inc.,  I, Richard G.  Harwood,  Chief  Executive  Officer of United
Tennessee   Bankshares,   Inc.,   certify,   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 this report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of United Tennessee Bankshares, Inc.



Date:  March 31, 2005                  /s/ Richard G. Harwood
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Richard G. Harwood
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
#### George W. Maytham, Appellant, v. Elmer L. Duncan and Others, as Executors, etc., Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
SCI 001711

CONFIDENTIAL

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-154 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000895329
<NAME> 0
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         843,229
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,890,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  9,839,193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,776,166
<PP&E>                                      15,765,552
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,979,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,140,561
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,385
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,616,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,979,285
<SALES>                                     47,962,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            47,962,185
<CGS>                                       38,799,040
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,799,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,293,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             681,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,187,998
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,236,348
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,951,650
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,951,650
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61290-CIV-SINGHAL/VALLE

HOWARD COHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOCA GAS COMPANY HOLDINGS 2 LLC

d/b/a 50th Street Shell,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with 

Prejudice (DE [17]). The Court having reviewed the Stipulation and being otherwise fully 

advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action stands DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs, except as 

otherwise provided in the parties’ settlement agreement. The Court retains jurisdiction to 

enforce the parties’ settlement agreement. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and 

DENY AS MOOT any pending motions. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 6th day of 

April 2021.

Copies furnished to counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:20-cv-61290-AHS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/06/2021 Page 1 of 1
#### Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Appellant, v. Britton Realty Corporation et al., Defendants, and Anna R. Mahnken et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No opinion. Present—Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
### [§2520. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–518, title II, §207, Nov. 13, 2000, 114 Stat. 2414]

Section, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 979; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, §58, 68 Stat. 1248; Pub. L. 89–507, §2, July 18, 1966, 80 Stat. 308; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §139(n)(1)–(3), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 43, 44; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, §1012(a)(1), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4668; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516, required the Court of Federal Claims to impose a fee not exceeding $120 for petition filings.
§ 45.21 How do I request a hearing? ( a ) *General.* To request a hearing on disputed issues of material fact with respect to any preliminary condition or prescription filed by DOI, you must: ( 1 ) Be a license party; and
( 2 ) File with OEPC, at the address provided in§ 45.2, a written request for a hearing: ( i ) For a case under § 45.1(d)(1), within 30 days after DOI files a preliminary condition or prescription with FERC; or
( ii ) For a case under § 45.1(d)(2), within 60 days after DOI files a preliminary condition or prescription with FERC.
( b ) *Content.* Your hearing request must contain: ( 1 ) A numbered list of the factual issues that you allege are in dispute, each stated in a single, concise sentence;
( 2 ) The following information with respect to each issue: ( i ) The specific factual statements made or relied upon by DOI under § 45.20(a) that you dispute;
( ii ) The basis for your opinion that those factual statements are unfounded or erroneous; and
( iii ) The basis for your opinion that any factual dispute is material.
( 3 ) With respect to any scientific studies, literature, and other documented information supporting your opinions under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, specific citations to the information relied upon. If any such document is not already in the license proceeding record, you must provide a copy with the request; and
( 4 ) A statement indicating whether or not you consent to service by electronic means under § 45.13(c)(4) and, if so, by what means.
( c ) *Witnesses and exhibits.* Your hearing request must also list the witnesses and exhibits that you intend to present at the hearing, other than solely for impeachment purposes. ( 1 ) For each witness listed, you must provide: ( i ) His or her name, address, telephone number, and qualifications; and
( ii ) A brief narrative summary of his or her expected testimony.
( 2 ) For each exhibit listed, you must specify whether it is in the license proceeding record.
( d ) *Page limits.* ( 1 ) For each disputed factual issue, the information provided under paragraph (b)(2) of this section may not exceed two pages.
( 2 ) For each witness, the information provided under paragraph (c)(1) of this section may not exceed one page.
Mr. Barry R Stephens 

Director 

Tennessee Division of Air Pollution Control 

312 Rosa L. Parks Avenue 15th Floor 

Nashville, Tennessee 37243 

Dear Mr. Stephens: 

On March 17,2014, we received a revision to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan submitted by 

your agency on March 13, 2014. That revision pertains to Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for section 

110(a)(2) (A-C), D(i)(II), D(ii), (E-H), and (J-M) for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide standards. We have 

completed our review of this submission and have determined that all of the required administrative and 

technical components for these aforementioned elements are present. Consistent with CAA timeframes, 

we will review the submission for approvability prior to preparing a rulemaking notice to take action on 

the revision. 

If you have questions about this letter, contact me or Lynorae Benjamin, Chief of the Regulatory 

Development Section, at (404) 562-9040. 

Sincerely, 

Air, Pesticides and Taxies 

Management Division 

Internet Address (URLI • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
§ 500.201 Eligible Lender. ( a ) A lender eligible to apply to the Board for a Guarantee of a loan must be: ( 1 ) A banking institution, such as a commercial bank or trust company, subject to regulation by the Federal banking agencies enumerated in 12 U.S.C. § 1813; or
( 2 ) An investment institution, such as an investment bank, commercial finance company, or insurance company, that is currently engaged in commercial lending in the normal course of its business.
( b ) ( 1 ) If more than one banking or investment institution is applying to the Board for a Guarantee of a single loan, each one of the banking or investment institutions on the application must meet the requirements to be an eligible lender set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
( 2 ) An application for a Guarantee of a single loan submitted by a group of banking or investment institutions, as described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, must identify one of the banking or investment institutions applying for such loan to act as agent for all. This agent is responsible for administering the loan and shall have those duties and responsibilities required of an agent, as set forth in the Guarantee.
( 3 ) Each Lender, irrespective of any indemnities or other agreements between the Lenders and the Agent, shall be bound by all actions, and/or failures to act, of the Agent. The Board shall be entitled to rely upon such actions and/or failures to act of the Agent as binding the Lenders.
( c ) Status as a Lender under paragraph (a) of this section does not assure that the Board will issue the Guarantee sought, or otherwise preclude the Board from declining to issue a Guarantee. In addition to evaluating an application pursuant to § 500.207, in making a determination to issue a Guarantee to a Lender, the Board will assess: ( 1 ) The Lender's level of regulatory capital, in the case of banking institutions, or net worth, in the case of investment institutions;
( 2 ) Whether the Lender possesses the ability to administer the loan, as required by § 500.211(b), including its experience with loans to oil and gas companies;
( 3 ) The scope, volume and duration of the Lender's activity in administering loans;
( 4 ) The performance of the Lender's loan portfolio, including its current delinquency rate;
( 5 ) The Lender's loss rate as a percentage of loan amounts for its current fiscal year; and
( 6 ) Any other matter the Board deems material to its assessment of the Lender.
( d ) In the case of the refinancing of an existing credit, the applicant must be a different lender than the holder of the existing credit.
[64 FR 57947, Oct. 27, 1999, as amended at 65 FR 24107, Apr. 25, 2000]
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Theodore R.
Maloney, certify that: 1. The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2004 (the
Report) of MediCor Ltd. (the Company), 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 MediCor. Date: September 20, 2004/s/ Theodore R. MaloneyTheodore R. MaloneyChief Executive Officer
### SUBCHAPTER III—PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIAL PROJECTS AND DEMONSTRATIONS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Title III of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, comprising this subchapter, was originally enacted by Pub. L. 93–112, title III, Sept. 26, 1973, 87 Stat. 377, and amended by Pub. L. 93–516, Dec. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1617; Pub. L. 93–651, Nov. 21, 1974, 89 Stat. 2–3; Pub. L. 94–230, Mar. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 211; Pub. L. 94–273, Apr. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 375; Pub. L. 94–288, May 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 520; Pub. L. 95–602, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2955; Pub. L. 98–221, Feb. 22, 1984, 98 Stat. 17; Pub. L. 99–506, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1807; Pub. L. 100–630, Nov. 7, 1988, 102 Stat. 3289; Pub. L. 102–52, June 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 260; Pub. L. 102–119, Oct. 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 587; Pub. L. 102–569, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4344; Pub. L. 103–73, Aug. 11, 1993, 107 Stat. 718; Pub. L. 103–218, Mar. 9, 1994, 108 Stat. 50; Pub. L. 104–66, Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 707. Title III is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §406, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1183, without reference to those intervening amendments because of the extensive revision of title III by Pub. L. 105–220.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-22589-WILLIAMS

EDDIE L. PICKETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant. 

 /

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s Report 

and Recommendation (DE 6) on Petitioner’s pro se Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. Magistrate Judge Reid recommends dismissal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction as Petitioner’s Motion is an unauthorized successive filing. Furthermore, 

Magistrate Judge Reid recommends that no certificate of appealability issue given that 

“jurists of reason would [not] find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 

procedural ruling.” (DE 6 at 6) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

Petitioner did not file objections to the Report but did file a Motion for Certificate of 

Appealability (DE 8) in response to the Report. The Government filed a response in 

opposition to the motion (DE 9). 

Upon and independent review of the Report (DE 6), the record, and applicable 

case law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The conclusions in the Report (DE 6) are AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 

2. Petitioner’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability (DE 8) is DENIED. No 

certificate of appealability shall issue. 

3. This case is DISMISSED. 

Case 1:20-cv-22589-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. 

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, this 9th day of February, 

2021.

CC: Eddie L. Pickett 

06275-104 

Coleman I-USP 

United States Penitentiary 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

Post Office Box 1033 

Coleman, FL 33521 

PRO SE 

Noticing 2255 US Attorney 

Email: usafls-2255@usdoj.gov

Case 1:20-cv-22589-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2021 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph N. SANCHEZ, Appellant.

No. 05-2492.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.

Decided Feb. 28, 2006.

John E. Higgins, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

Joseph N. Sanchez, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.

Carlos Monzon, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Sanchez (Sanchez) appeals the 63-month sentence imposed by the district court1 after Sanchez pled guilty to one count of possessing and attempting to possess pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(c)(1) and 846. Sanchez entered into a plea agreement stating a sentencing range of 0 to 63 months. The district court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 63 to *78*months’ imprisonment; denied Sanchez’s motion for a downward departure; and, after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), imposed a sentence of 63 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Sanchez contends the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence, because the sentence is greater than necessary to promote the goals of section 3553(a).

Sanchez fails to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his sentence. *See United States v. Lincoln,*413 F.3d 716, 717-18 (8th Cir.) (holding a sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 840, 163 L.Ed.2d 715 (2005). The district court expressly recognized the Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, and expressly considered the factors in section 3553(a). Nothing in the record indicates the district court failed to consider a relevant sentencing factor, considered an improper or irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors listed in section 3553(a). *See United States v. Haack,*403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005). Having reviewed the record and the section 3553(a) factors, we conclude the district court considered appropriate sentencing factors and the sentence was not unreasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Sanchez’s sentence.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
#### In the Matter of Morris M. Kreindler (Also Known as Morris Murray Kreindler and M. Murray Kreindler), an Attorney.

Present—Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### George W. Morrell, Respondent, v. Richards & Gaston, Incorporated, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Jenks, P. J., Carr, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 17, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00472

- CV

IN RE John M. DONOHUE

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Jus tice A.

Relator filed a pro se “Motion for Permission to File Writ of Mandamus.” 2 If relator

desires to fi le a petition for wr it of mandamus, he must do so no later than August 2, 2019 . The

petition must compl y with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7. If relator does not

file a petition for writ of mandamus by August 2, 2019 , this proceeding will be dismissed for

want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b).

It is so ORDERED on July 17, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _______________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. CV

- 15

- 00 00271 , styled John M. Donohue v. Bandera County Law

Enforcement, et al. , pending in the 198th Judicial District Court

, Bandera County, Texas, the Honorable M. Rex

Emerson presiding.

2 Relator filed his motion in cause number 04

- 19

- 000273

- CV. This court has assigned a new cause

— 04

- 19

- 00472

-

CV

— in which relator must file the petition.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-61328-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

TIM CANOVA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BRENDA C. SNIPES, DOZEL

SPENCER, and the BROWARD

COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF

ELECTIONS,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

RULE 4(M) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court sua sponte.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must serve the 

summons and complaint on the defendant within 90 days after filing the complaint. Plaintiff filed 

a Complaint on July 2, 2020, yet there is no indication Defendants have been served. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before October 8, 2020, 

Plaintiff shall either perfect service upon Defendants, show that service has already been made, 

or show good cause why service has not been perfected. Failure to timely respond will result in 

immediate dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 1st day of October, 2020.

Case 0:20-cv-61328-AHS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2020 Page 1 of 2
Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Case 0:20-cv-61328-AHS Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/02/2020 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Richard E. Stoddard, Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Ventures LLC, certify that:



1. The Form 10-K Report of Kaiser Ventures LLC for the period ended December 31, 2003, 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 Form 10-K Report of Kaiser Ventures LLC for the period ended December 31, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.



|                     |  |  |  |                                            
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 23, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    RICHARD E. STODDARD                 
|                     |  |  |  |                                            
|                     |  |  |  | Richard E. Stoddard Chief Executive Officer