alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §12642. Coordination of substance abuse treatment and prevention programs

The Attorney General shall consult with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in establishing and carrying out the substance abuse treatment and prevention components of the programs authorized under this Act, to assure coordination of programs, eliminate duplication of efforts and enhance the effectiveness of such services.

(Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXII, §320401, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2114.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 103–322, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1796, known as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1994 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 14222 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
DEP 

## HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

# & SAFE DRINKING WATER Hydraulic Fracturing Workshop March 30, 2011DEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management (717)783 - 5469 joslee@state.pa.us 

## Joseph J. Lee, Jr., P.G PresidentDEP 1. State Oil & Gas (O&G) regulations are adequate to

protect water resources 2. Well construction regulations are adequate for Hydraulic Fracturing (HF); However, development of adaptable BMPs would assist operators and states 3. There are environmental challenges for water and drinking water programs posed by gas shale development 4. We know surface water & ground water stressed by past mineral extraction in area of Marcellus Shale 5. We have holes in our understanding of ground water going forward 

## KEY MESSAGESDEP

### Depth to Marcellus Shale in feetDEPDEPDEP 

## Impacts on Water Resources



## What We Know

• Water withdraws for HF solutions: streams, CWS •Produced water containment, transport, treatment, discharge or disposal. 

### •Earth disturbance / construction, access & pipelines • Site waste – equipment maintenance repair & other operations.DEP 

## • Marcellus and Other Shale IssuesDEP 

## Water Pollution Causes:



## What We Know

• Loss of produced water or wastes at the surface • Improper well casing design or construction •Aquifer disturbance during drilling • Improper treatment •No evidence or concern in Pennsylvania that HF has caused direct migration of fluids to underground sources of drinking waterDEPDEPDEP 

# State Ground Water Quality



# Monitoring USGS Data

Series Report 314 (2009): Most available data from ground waterDEPDEP 

## • Abandoned Mine DrainageDEPDEPDEPDEPDEP • 10/2008 - Elevated total dissolved solids (TDS) > than SDWA standard (500 mg/l) • Potential sources of TDS in watershed include abandoned & active surface and deep coal mines, waste water and industrial discharges (receiving HF flow -back) • PA DEP reduced HF % flow at wastewater treatment plants • River under historic low flow conditions • TDS concentrations returned to normal in December 2008 after recovery of river flowDEPDEP 

## • Marcellus and Other Shale IssuesDEPDEPDEP Gas Well Water Well Intake Gas WellsDEPDEPDEP Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Management (717)783 - 5469 joslee@state.pa.us 

## Joseph J. Lee, Jr., P.G President
# L_2015020EN.01000101.xml

| 27.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 20/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 20/1

---

Information on the signing and provisional application of the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on reciprocal access to fishing in the Skagerrak for vessels flying the flag of Denmark, Norway and Sweden

The European Union and the Kingdom of Norway signed, on 15 January 2015 in Brussels, the Agreement on reciprocal access to fishing in the Skagerrak for vessels flying the flag of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (1).

1

The Agreement accordingly applies provisionally from 15 January 2015 pursuant to Article 9 thereof.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 224, 30.7.2014, p. 3.

1

---
#### Blake & Johnson *v.*The Lyon & Fellows Manufacturing Company.

Where the sureties to au undertaking upon appeal to this court from a final judgment fail to justify, the appellant may give a new undertaking at any time within the year allowed for appeal, and when given' the appeal becomes effectual; and if the respondent fails to except to the sureties within the time allowed, the new undertaking becomes perfect for the purposes of the appeal. (New Code, §§ 1325, 1326, 1327.)

(Argued December 10, 1878;

decided December 17, 1878.)

This was a motion to dismiss an appeal. The appeal was from a final judgment of General Term. An undertaking was given and copy thereof with notice of filing was served with notice of appeal. The sureties were excepted to and failed to justify. Within the year however allowed for appeal, a new undertaking was given, and copy with notice served, the sureties to the new undertaking were not excepted to. *Held,*as above.

*Nathaniel C. Moak*for motion.

*Walter S. Cowles*opposed.

*612*Per Guriam*

opinion for denial of motion to dismiss appeal. All concur.

Motion denied.
§ 835.605 OPM action as a result of consideration of evidence submitted as a result of the notice of intent. ( a ) *Consideration of evidence.* If, as a result of the Notice of Intent, OPM receives notice that the debtor will submit additional evidence or receives additional evidence from the debtor within the prescribed time period, any notice to the IRS will be stayed until OPM can— ( 1 ) Consider the evidence presented by the debtor; and
( 2 ) Determine whether or not all or a portion of the debt is still past due and legally enforceable; and
( 3 ) Notify the debtor of its determination.
( b ) *Notification to the debtor.* Following review of the evidence, OPM will issue a written decision notifying the debtor whether OPM has sustained, amended, or canceled its determination that the debt is past-due and legally enforceable. The notice will advise the debtor of any further action to be taken and explain the supporting rationale for the decision.
( c ) *OPM action on the debt.* ( 1 ) OPM will notify the debtor of its intent to refer the debt to the IRS for offset against the debtor's Federal income tax refund, if it sustains its decision that the debt is past-due and legally enforceable. OPM will also notify the debtor whether the amount of the debt remains the same or is modified.
( 2 ) OPM will not refer the debt to the IRS for offset against the debtor's Federal income tax refund, if it reverses its decision that the debt is past-due and legally enforceable.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2040 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2040

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2003

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 to 
extend certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and certain 
  irrigation water contractors in the States of Wyoming and Nebraska.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN IRRIGATION PROJECT CONTRACTS.

    Section 2 of the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1998 
(112 Stat. 2816, 114 Stat. 1441, 1441A-70) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``December 31, 2003'' 
        and inserting ``December 31, 2005''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``beyond 
                December 31, 2003'' and inserting ``beyond December 31, 
                2005''; and
                    (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``prior to 
                December 31, 2003'' and inserting ``before December 31, 
                2005''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 16, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00203

- CR

IN RE: CLYDE URA CAIN, SR.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Clyde Ura Cain, Sr., proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, asking

this Court to direct the 228th Ju dicial District Court of Harris County 1 to rule on his motion to

compel the District Clerk of the 228th Judicial District Court to produce and make available to

him the records from that court’s cause number 578,488.

In his petition for writ of mandamus , Cain states his motion was placed in the mail on

October 8, 2014. Cain alleges the trial court has neither acknowledged receipt of nor ruled on

his motion. He

, therefore

, requests that this Court order the 228th Judicial District Court to rule

on his motion.

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or

county court in the court of appeals district.” T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221(b) (West 2004).

The 228th Judicial District Court of Harris County is not within this Court’s district. We

,

therefore

, do not have mandamus jurisdiction over that court. Accordingly, we have no authority

to consider Cain’s petition on its merits.

1 Cain’s 1991 appeal from his conviction under trial court cause number 578,488 in the 228th Judicial District Court

of Harris County was transferred from the First Court of Appeals to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant

to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West 2013). That appeal has lon g since

concluded. Cain does not currently have an appeal pending before this Court.3 We dismiss t he petition for writ of mandamus

.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: December 2 , 2014

Date Decided: December 3 , 2014

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32.2


                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 Amendment No. 2 to the Quarterly Report of Manchester
Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending February 28,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned, Richard D. Gaines, Acting Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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 Registrant.



Date:  June 29, 2006                 By:  /s/ Richard D. Gaines
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Richard D. Gaines
                                          Title: Acting Chief Financial Officer,
                                                 Secretary and Director
No. I-07-070 

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331 

December 27, 2007

NRC TO CONTINUE ENHANCED OVERSIGHT OF INDIAN POINT IN 2008 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will continue to conduct additional inspections at 

the Indian Point nuclear power plant throughout 2008 to ensure issues associated with on-site 

groundwater contamination and the facility’s new siren system are being properly addressed. 

Entergy Nuclear operates Indian Point, which is located in Buchanan (Westchester County), 

N.Y. 

Overall, the NRC considers Entergy’s operation of Indian Point to be acceptable, with 

both operating units currently in the category of oversight that would typically result in a 

baseline, or routine, level of inspections. The NRC’s Action Matrix, available at 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/actionmatrix_summary.html , shows both 

Indian Point 2 and 3 at present in the “Licensee Response Column.” 

However, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins, in a request to the agency’s 

Executive Director for Operations, Luis A. Reyes, wrote that ongoing issues involving 

groundwater contamination at the site and the performance of the new Alert and Notification 

System (ANS) present “unique challenges” to the NRC’s regulatory oversight of the plant. 

“This inspection program deviation is needed to ensure that in 2008 the NRC can 

continue to inspect Entergy’s resolution of the groundwater remediation efforts, installation and 

testing of the ANS, and communicate the issues to interested stakeholders,” Mr. Collins wrote. 

“This level of inspection effort is in addition to the four Resident Inspectors assigned to the 

Indian Point site.” 

Mr. Reyes approved the formal request, in the form of a “deviation memo,” on Dec. 20. 

The deviation memo marks a continuation of additional NRC oversight at Indian Point 

that was first approved in October 2005 and then renewed in December 2006, providing more 

resources for inspecting the plant in 2006 and 2007, respectively. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov
In the near future, Entergy is expected to submit to the NRC a final report regarding its 

efforts to characterize on-site groundwater contamination. With regard to the new siren system, 

the NRC continues to work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the State of New 

York and local counties to monitor Entergy’s progress in resolving technical issues that must be 

addressed before the system can be placed into operation. 

A copy of the deviation memo will be posted on the NRC web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/indian-point-issues.html . 

### 

 

 NRC news releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html . The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
§ 610.305 Standards. An administrative order may be issued under this subpart when: ( a ) Normal operations of an establishment are interrupted by events beyond the control of management or employees;
( b ) For managerial reasons, the closing of an establishment or portions thereof is required for short periods; or
( c ) It is in the public interest to relieve employees from work to participate in civil activities which the Government is interested in encouraging.
( d ) The circumstances are such that an administrative order under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section is not appropriate and the agency under its regulations excuses, or is authorized to excuse, without charge to leave or loss of pay, employees paid on an annual basis.
[33 FR 12474, Sept. 4, 1968, as amended at 34 FR 2479, Feb. 21, 1969]
CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

EXHIBIT 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS
I, Clyde Parks, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Moliris Corp, D/B/A
Advantage Packaging;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrant's Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

November 19, 2004

/s/ Clyde Parks
---------------------------
Clyde Parks
Principal Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

LENARD FREDRICK COLLETT,

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2605 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 68 DB 2019

Attorney Registration No. 150064

(Montgomery County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 7

th day of June, 2019, upon consideration of the Recommendation 

of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint Petition in Support of 

Discipline on Consent is granted, and Lenard Fredrick Collett is suspended on consent 

from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of six months. He shall comply with all 

the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. 

Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 

208(g).
#### Mary LINKER-FLORES and Anastacio Flores *v.*ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HUMAN SERVICES

CA 03-1099

149 S.W.3d 884

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 4, 2004

*Anne Orsi Smith,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Mary Linker-Flores’s counsel, Anne Orsi Smith, moves this court to be relieved as counsel in the appeal of Appellant’s termination of parental rights. Smith bases her motion on the assertions that she can find no meritorious grounds for appeal and that she would incur substantial costs and expend great time, without the expectation of a flail recovery, in the pursuit of an appeal.

In 1989, the Arkansas General Assembly adopted the view that counsel shall be provided for indigent parents in termination cases “at all stages of the proceedings.” 1989 Ark. Acts 273, § 15, now codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-316(h)(1) (Supp. 2003); *see also Brown v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs.,*330 Ark. 497, 954 S.W.2d 270 (1997). Because Appellant is entitled to representation on appeal, we deny Smith’s motion to be relieved. Further, we order the parties to this matter to brief the issue of whether counsel representing a parent in a termination proceeding should be required to file a no-merit brief, comparable to that required under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738 (1967), where there appears to be no meritorious grounds for appeal. This motion will be treated as a case and an appropriate briefing schedule will be established by the clerk of this court.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1960 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1960

    To provide benefits to public safety officers who die or become 
               disabled as a result of certain injuries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2003

   Mr. Baca introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide benefits to public safety officers who die or become 
               disabled as a result of certain injuries.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Public Safety Officer Protection Act 
of 2003''.

SEC. 2. BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN INJURIES.

    Subpart 1 of part L of the title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``SEC. 1206. BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN INJURIES.

    ``Notwithstanding the rules and regulations issued pursuant to this 
subpart, if a public safety officer develops cancer and either dies or 
becomes permanently and totally disabled as a result of the cancer, 
such officer's death or disability shall be presumed to be the direct 
and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of 
duty. An officer described in the preceding sentence or such officer's 
family, as the case may be, shall be eligible for benefits under this 
subpart''.
                                 <all>
```