alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Fw: Changes to MT Regional Haze Public Hearing Dates Changes to MT Regional Haze Public Hearing Dates Monica Morales Monica Morales to: Crystal Freeman 04/12/2012 01:42 PM

For the docket.

Monica S. Morales, Unit Chief Air Quality Planning Unit Air Program (8P-AR) U.S. EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 phone (303) 312-6936 fax (303) 312-6064

----- Forwarded by Monica Morales/R8/USEPA/US on 04/12/2012 01:36 PM -----

From: Monica Morales/R8/USEPA/US To: "Habeck, Bob" <BHabeck@mt.gov> Date: 03/23/2012 08:16 AM Subject: RE: Changes to MT Regional Haze Public Hearing Dates

It will be 60 days from the date of publication of the action in the Federal Register.

Monica S. Morales, Unit Chief Air Quality Planning Unit Air Program (8P-AR) U.S. EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 phone (303) 312-6936 fax (303) 312-6064

"Habeck, Bob" 03/23/2012 08:07:29 AM OK - thanks. What is the final day (date) that yo...

From: "Habeck, Bob" <BHabeck@mt.gov> To: Monica Morales/R8/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/23/2012 08:07 AM Subject: RE: Changes to MT Regional Haze Public Hearing Dates



### OK – thanks. What is the final day (date) that you will receive public comments following these presentations?



### Bob Habeck Air Program Manager Montana Dept. of Environ. Quality Helena, MT 59620

(406) 444-7305 w (406) 431-1359 c (406) 444-1499 fbhabeck@mt.gov

From: Monica Morales [mailto:Morales.Monica@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday , March 22, 2012 4:01 PM To: Klemp, Dave; Julie DalSoglio; Carson Coate; Merchant, Eric; Habeck, Bob Cc: Carl Daly Subject: Changes to MT Regional Haze Public Hearing Dates

I wanted you all to know, as soon as possible, that we had to change the dates for the public hearings in Montana for the Regional Haze proposed action. We r ealized that we have to ensure that following a public hearing that the comment period remains open for at least 30 additional days. Due to the deadli ne for signing our final action, we could not allow more than 60 days for public comment, so we have moved the hearing dates to May 1st in Helena and May 2nd in Billings. We will be in the same locations. However, the large room at the library in Helena is not available until 1:30 pm, so the public hearing will be held from 2-5:30 pm and 6:30-9:00 pm. The hours for the Billings hearing are the same as before. Sorry for the change.

These changes will be reflected in the notice that is published in the Federal Register.

Monica S. Morales, Unit Chief Air Quality Planning Unit Air Program (8P-AR) U.S. EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 phone (303) 312-6936 fax (303) 312-6064
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q
OF FIRSTWAVE TECH FOR QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,011
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,082<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,517
<PP&E>                                           1,028<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,650
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,000
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,680
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,341
<SALES>                                          1,930
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,705
<CGS>                                              690
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,512
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (31)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,601)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (37)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,638)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.33)
<FN>
<F1>A/R and PPE asset values represent net amounts.
</FN>


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7833** 

LUKE AMMON PREACHER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General; LORETTA LYNCH, Attorney General , Respondents

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:15

- hc

- 02073

- BO )

Submitted : March 29, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Luke Ammon Preacher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Luke Ammon Preacher appeals from the district court ’s order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus in which he challenged

his civil commitment. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Preacher v. Holder , No. 5:15

- hc

- 02073

- BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2015). 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.

AFFIRMED
### §4001a. Consultation required

In developing the assessments, reports, and plans under the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, the Task Force shall consult with the coastal States, Indian tribes, local governments, appropriate industries (including fisheries, agriculture, and fertilizer), academic institutions, and nongovernmental organizations with expertise in coastal zone science and management.

(Pub. L. 108–456, title I, §102 (part), Dec. 10, 2004, 118 Stat. 3630; Pub. L. 115–423, §9(f), Jan. 7, 2019, 132 Stat. 5463.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, referred to in text, is title VI of Pub. L. 105–383, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3447, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of part of section 102 of Pub. L. 108–456. Remainder of section 102 amended section 4001 of this title.

Section was enacted as part of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004, and not as part of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 which comprises this chapter.

Section was formerly set out as a note under section 1451 of Title 16, Conservation.

#### Amendments

2019—Pub. L. 115–423 substituted "the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998" for "the amendments made by this title".
#### Town of Eastchester, Appellant, v. Jerome A. Koch, Respondent.

Action by a municipality for a judgment declaring its right to establish a parking space on land which it owns, contiguous to land owned by respondent, and for other relief. Both parcels are part of one subdivision, two thirds of which, including the parcels involved in this action, is burdened by a restrictive covenant against business uses. In this action, respondent pleaded *res judicata*because *749o£ a prior judgment in his favor in an action brought by appellant under article 15 of the Real Property Law to bar respondent from claiming an interest in the property, on the ground that the neighborhood had so changed as to no longer require enforcement of the covenant. In that action, it was disclosed that all owners of property affected by the covenant, except respondent, had waived their rights under the covenant. Special Term held that the operation of a municipal parking place is a business enterprise and is the performance of a corporate rather than a governmental function, and that a municipality operating such a parking place does so subject to the same restrictions as anybody else, overruled the plea of *res judicata,*and dismissed the complaint. The town appeals from the judgment entered thereon. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and judgment directed for appellant declaring its right to establish a free parking space for the use of the general public. Findings of fact inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings will be made as indicated herein. By the establishment of a free parking space for the use of the general public, the town is not engaging in business, and hence is not violating the restrictive covenant. “Restrictive covenants must always be construed strictly against those seeking to enforce them”, and “they must be construed as they read and not be given a construction beyond the literal meaning of their terms.” *{Buffalo Academy of Sacred Heart*v. *Boehm Bros.,*267 N. Y. 242, 249.) Nolan, P. J., Adel, Wenzel, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice. [203 Mise. 328.]
6:\
 

~ANAR.EFINING COMPANY f€J©@[P~1
 1900 Tenth Street N.E. / Great Falls, Montana 59404-1955 

RECEIVED 

~EP 1 2 2005 

September 9, 2005 MT Dept. EnVIronmental Quality 

Permitting & Compliance Divison 

Trista Glazier PJr Resources Management Bureau 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

Air Resources Management Bureau 

P.O. Box 200901 

Helena, MY 59620·0901 

Dear Ms; Glazier: 

In your May 26, 2005 letter to Montana RefIning Company (MRC), you requested information 

on new or reconstructed emissions units that were in existence at MRCbetween August "1, 1962, 

and August 7, 1977 in order to determine sources SUbject to Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) regulations. 

MRC has identifIed two emissions units that were in existence, as that term is defined in your 

letter, at MRC within the specified time frame; the catalytic reforming unit, in existence in 1962 

(exact date unknown), and a collection of five (5) asphalt tank: heaters, in existence in 1963 

(exact date unknown). Both emissions units are in operation at this time. Enclosed is a table 

presenting the emissions units and their potential-to-emit for five (5) criteria pollutants. 

If you have questions, please feel free to call me at (406) 761-4100. 

.Sincerely; 

Ray Martinich 

Environmental Engineer 

Enclosure 

EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 501 East Main Street/Artesia. NM 88210/(505) 748-3311
 

MARKETING OFFICES: 1900 Tenth Street N.E. /Great Falls. MT 59404-1955/(406) 761-4100/Fax (406) 761-0174
 

REFINERY: 1900 Tenth Street N.E./Great Falls, MT 59404-1955/(406) 761-4100/Fax (406) 761-0174
 
Montana Refming Company
 

BART Emissions Unit Information Request
 

Potential-to-Emit for Emissions Units in Existence Between 08/07/62 and 08/07/77
 

(pollutant emissions in tons per year) 

Pollutant Catalytic Reforming Unit Asphalt Tank Heaters 

Carbon monoxide 

(CO) 2.77 2.42 

Sulfur dioxide (S02) 0.02 0.02 

Nitrogen dioxide 

(N°2) 

4.62 4.03 

Volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) 0.18 0.16 

Total particulate 

matter 

0.25 0.22
### §309. Federal recognition of National Guard officers: officers promoted to fill vacancies

Each officer of the National Guard who is promoted to fill a vacancy in a federally recognized unit of the National Guard, and who has been on the reserve active-status list or the active-duty list of the Army or the Air Force for at least one year and has completed the minimum years of service in grade specified in section 14303 of title 10, shall be examined for Federal recognition in the grade to which the officer is promoted.

(Added Pub. L. 85–861, §2(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1543; amended Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1630(1), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2963.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 309 | 50:1251. | Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1257, §319, 68 Stat. 1160. |

The words "authorized under section 1227(a) of this title" are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–337 substituted "National Guard officers: officers" for "officers: Army National Guard; officers" in section catchline and amended text generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "Each officer of the Army National Guard who is promoted to fill a vacancy in a federally recognized unit thereof, and who is eligible for promotion under section 3363(b) of title 10, shall be examined for Federal recognition in the grade to which he is promoted. However, a second lieutenant or first lieutenant of the Army National Guard who has served creditably for at least one year in a position prescribed to be filled by a captain, and who has not previously been federally recognized under this section, may be examined for Federal recognition in the next higher grade without regard to section 3363(b) of title 10."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–337 effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 1691 of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as an Effective Date note under section 10001 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

#### Suspension of This Section

For authority of the President to suspend this section in time of war or emergency declared by Congress, see section 111 of this title.
### §702l. Repeal of inconsistent laws

All laws or parts of laws inconsistent with sections 702a, 702b to 702d, 702e to 702g, 702h, 702i, 702j, and 702k of this title, are repealed.

(May 15, 1928, ch. 569, §12, 45 Stat. 539.)
### **CHAPTER 1—DEFINITIONS**

Sec.
101.
Agency.
102.
Executive agency.
103.
United States.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1761

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 9350 East Corporate Hill

Drive in Wichita, Kansas, as the ‘‘Garner E.Shriver Post Office Building’’.

108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1761

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita,

Kansas, as the ‘‘Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1761 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 9350 East Corporate Hill Drive in Wichita, Kan4 sas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Garner E.

5 Shriver Post Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

10 to the ‘‘Garner E. Shriver Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 8, 2003.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 317.1001 OPM authority for corrective action.

If OPM finds that an agency has taken an action contrary to law or regulation under this part, it may require the agency to take appropriate corrective action.

[54 FR 9761, Mar. 8, 1989]
#### § 337.203 Public notice requirements.

Agencies must comply with public notice requirements as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 3327 and 3330, and subpart A of part 330 of this chapter with respect to any position that an agency seeks to fill using direct-hire authority.

[69 FR 33275, June 15, 2004, as amended at 75 FR 67605, Nov. 3, 2010]
FILED: August 12, 2022

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6848

MARC PIERRE HALL,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant – Appellee.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed on August 10, 2022, as follows:

On page 2, the page number is added to the bottom of the page.

On page 5, in the citation from Jones v. Bock, the single quotation mark after “of” 

is changed to a double quotation mark, and the double quotation mark after “succeed” is 

deleted.

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6848 Doc: 39 Filed: 08/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 1
### SUBCHAPTER XII—MISCELLANEOUS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6135

WILLIE COLEY,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, 

District Judge. (2:14-cv-00120-AWA-DEM)

Submitted: March 15, 2016 Decided: March 23, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Coley, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Coley seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on 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. 

 * This case is back before us following a limited remand for 

a determination as to the timeliness of Coley’s notice of 

appeal. The district court determined that Coley gave his 

notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on January 16, 

2015, which makes it timely under Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 

(1988).
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Coley 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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 332.101 General policy of competition. ( a ) Examinations for entrance into the competitive service shall be open competitive, except that OPM may authorize noncompetitive examinations when sufficient competent persons do not compete.
( b ) An examination for promotion, demotion, reassignment, transfer, or reinstatement may be a noncompetitive examination.
Editorial Note on Part 352
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 352 appear at 69 FR 2050, Jan. 13, 2004.

§ 352.207 Exercise or termination of reemployment rights. ( a ) *Exercise.* The time limits for application for reemployment under this subpart are: ( 1 ) Within 30 calendar days before the expiration of the term of reemployment rights;
( 2 ) Within 30 calendar days after receipt of notice of involuntary separation;
( 3 ) At least 30 calendar days in advance of the person's scheduled entry into active military duty. In this case he shall be reemployed and separated, furloughed, or granted leave of absence for military service by the reemploying agency; or
( 4 ) At any time before the expiration of the term of reemployment rights with the written consent of the current employing agency if application for reemployment is made within 30 days after date of separation, or after receipt of advance notice of proposed demotion by the current employing agency.
( b ) *Termination.* An employee's reemployment rights terminate if: ( 1 ) He fails to apply within the time limits stated in paragraph (a) of this section;
( 2 ) He resigns without the written consent of the current employing agency; or
( 3 ) Within 10 calendar days, he fails to accept an offer of reemployment made under § 352.208 which is determined to be a proper offer of reemployment by the reemploying agency or by the Merit Systems Protection Board on appeal.
**Exhibit 23.1** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the    Registration Statements on    Form S-8    (Nos.    333-70203,333-73053,333-45276,333-45284,333-126939,    and    333-128126)    and in the Registration Statements on    Form S-3    (Nos.    333-64544    and    333-135285)    of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated    February 28, 2008 relating to the financial statements,    financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal    control over financial reporting, which appears in this    Form 10-K. /s/  PricewaterhouseCoopers    LLP    Raleigh, North Carolina    February 28, 2008
June 29, 2015

Raymesh Cintron

PO Box 9020648

San Juan, PR 00902

Dear Mr. Cintron:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 23, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

2428), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division
#### § 359.504 Appeals.

An action taken under § 359.501 is not appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board under 5 U.S.C. 7701.