alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Control No.____________



### CASH INCENTIVE AGREEMENT

I, _____________________________, the owner ( ) and/or joint owner ( ), and/or principal driver ( )

being fully advised agree to the following:

( ) To accept a total of $20.00 per day, not to exceed $599, in addition to the use of a loaner

vehic le.

( ) To accept a total of $50.00 per day, not to exceed $599, in lieu of a loaner vehicle.

while the vehicle described herein, MAK E_______________________

MODEL______________YEAR_____VIN_________________________

is in possession of Jacobs , a contractor to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

.

NOTE: It is understood that the total value of the incentive offered will be dependent upon the time the

vehicle is being held for testing not to exceed $599. This means that EPA will keep your car

until testing is complete but your incentive will not exceed $599.

Privacy Act Statement

Title 42, United States Code, Section 7451, Compliance by vehicles and engines in actual use

, authorizes the collection of this information. The primary use is to provide an instrument by which

individuals may indicate interest in and eligibility for part icipating in EPA’s Light

- Duty In

- Use Testing

Program. Additional disclosures of this information may be made pursuant to published routine

uses, including to appropriate agencies for law enforcement purposes and to contractors working for

EPA who have a n eed to know in the course of that work.

Providing the requested information is voluntary, but failing to do so will result in EPA’s inability to

approve your participation in the Light

- Duty In

- Use Testing Program.

Public reporting burden for this collec tion of information is estimated to vary from 1 to 60 minutes per

response, with an average of 30 minutes per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing an d reviewing the

collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Chief, Information Policy

Branch, PM

- 223, U.S. Environmental P rotection Agency,40l M St., S.W. Washington, DC. 20460; and to

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC.

20503.

PARTICIPANT:

_________________________________________ ____________ Signature Date

JACOBS REPRESENTATIVE:

________________________________________ ____________

Signature Date

OMB No. 2060

- 0086 Expires ( ### )

EPA Form #5900

- 309
#### Northwestern Telegraph Company et al., Appellants, v. Western Union Telegraph Company, Respondent.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Van Yoorhis, JJ. [194 Misc. 352.] [See *post,*p. 998.]
### §10108. Applicability to transportation

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to affect Federal, State, or local laws pertaining to the transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste.

(Pub. L. 97–425, §9, Jan. 7, 1983, 96 Stat. 2206.)
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 36

 37

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/15

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7983

JAMES OPLETON BRADLEY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

R. DAVID MITCHELL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-01-599-3-2-MU)

Submitted: March 12, 2002 Decided: April 29, 2002

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Opleton Bradley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James Opleton Bradley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court that

Bradley’s petition was untimely filed. See Bradley v. Mitchell,

No. CA-01-599-3-2-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Nov. 9, 2001; entered Nov. 14,

2001). 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
### Part A—Establishment of Compensation Program and Compensation Fund
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

ANTIONE DIRAY JOHNSON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT PATTON, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 17-6158 

(D.C. No. 5:17-CV-00346-C) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Antione Diray Johnson, an Oklahoma state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a 

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 

unauthorized second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. He 

also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). We deny a COA and IFP and 

dismiss the appeal. 

Johnson was convicted of armed robbery, and his convictions and sentences were 

affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. His applications for 

post-conviction relief in the state courts were unsuccessful. His previous § 2254 petition 

 *

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, 

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value 

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

October 11, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

was denied by the district court, and this court denied his application for a COA. 

Johnson v. Patton, 634 F. App’x 653, 655 (10th Cir. 2015). Johnson’s current § 2254 

petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was successive. See In re Cline, 

531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“A district court does not have 

jurisdiction to address the merits of a second or successive . . . § 2254 claim until this 

court has granted the required authorization.”). 

To obtain a COA, Johnson must show “that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right 

and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in 

its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Johnson makes no argument as to how the district court erred in dismissing his 

unauthorized second or successive § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Because 

reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court was correct in its procedural 

ruling dismissing the petition, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. 

Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s request for a COA. We also deny his motion to 

proceed IFP. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
#### § 1027.11 Non-waiver of rights.

An employee's involuntary payment of all or any part of a debt collected under these regulations will not be construed as a waiver of any rights that the employee may have under 5 U.S.C. 5514 or any other provision of law.
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF BIDGIVE INTERNATIONAL INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of BidGive International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,  David M. Rees, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, that:   1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company  Date: April 13, 2011/S/ David M. ReesDavid M. Rees
Chief Executive Officer This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2016

To provide that the Secretary of Defense may provide public identification 

of military casualties no sooner than 24 hours after notification of 

next-of-kin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2003

Mr. JONES of North Carolina (for himself and Mr. GALLEGLY) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To provide that the Secretary of Defense may provide public 

identification of military casualties no sooner than 24 

hours after notification of next-of-kin.

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 ‘‘Military Family Peace5 of-Mind Act’’.
2

•HR 2016 IH 

1 SEC. 2. PUBLIC IDENTIFICATION OF MILITARY CASUALTIES 

2 NO SOONER THAN 24 HOURS AFTER NOTIFI3 CATION OF NEXT-OF-KIN. 

4 The Secretary of Defense may not publicly release the 

5 name or other personally identifying information of any 

6 member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps 

7 who while on active duty or performing inactive duty train8 ing is killed or injured, whose duty status becomes un9 known, or who is otherwise considered to be a casualty 

10 until a period of 24 hours has elapsed after the notifica11 tion of the next-of-kin of such member.

Æ
No: II-14-044 August 19, 2014

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Schedules Public Meeting to Discuss Certificate 

Termination for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting to discuss its process for 

terminating the certificate authorizing uranium enrichment operations at USEC Inc.’s Paducah, Ky.,

Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

 The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, Aug. 28 at 7 p.m. at the McCracken County Public Library, 

555 Washington St., in Paducah. The public is invited to attend and is encouraged to provide comments 

and ask questions during the meeting.

 The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant was built by the U.S. government in the 1950s to enrich 

uranium for military purposes. In the 1960s, it began enriching uranium for commercial nuclear reactors. 

Uranium enrichment no longer occurs at the facility, prompting USEC to request the termination of its 

certificate of compliance, which in essence is its license to possess and process uranium.
|                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   |  |
| Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): | January 13, 2016 (January 13, 2016) |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | CLARCOR Inc. |   |
|   | (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) |   |

|                                                                 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                 |  |  |
| Delaware                                                        |  1-11024 | 36-0922490 |
| (State or other jurisdiction ofincorporation or organization)   |  (Commission File Number) | (I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.) |
|                                                            |   |   |
| 840 Crescent Centre Drive, Suite 600, Franklin, Tennessee 37067 |
| (Address of principal executive offices)                        |

|                                                           |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                           |  |
| Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: | 615-771-3100 |

|                                                                                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                     |
| No Change                                                                           |
| (Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report.) |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
|   |   |
| o      | Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
|   |   |
| o      | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
|   |   |
| o      | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
|   |   |
| o      | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |
|   |   |
|   |   |

----

|                  |
|------------------|
|                  |  |  |  |
| January 13, 2016 |   | By | /s/ DAVID J. FALLON |
| (Date)           |   |   | David J. Fallon |
|             |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer |
|             |   |   |   |
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3614

___________ Debby Rose, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Cox Health Systems, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee, * * Wal-Mart Supercenter, * * Defendant, * * Springfield-Greene County * Health Department, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 6, 2010 Filed: May 26, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- Debby Rose appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her disability-discrimination action. After reviewing the record de novo, and viewing it in the light most favorable to Rose, see Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 486 F.3d 480, 482 (8th Cir. 2007) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was proper. For the reasons stated by the district court, we agree that there was insufficient evidence to show that Rose was a qualified individual with a disability or a person “regarded as” disa bled. Accordingly, we affirm. See8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Rose’s pending motion to supplement the record with documents that were not befo re the district court, see United States v. Drefke , 707 F.2d 978, 983 (8th Cir. 1983) (appellate c ourt must review case on record before district court), and deny her pending motion to stay.

______________________________
§ 1018.26 Advisory functions. ( a ) Unless otherwise specifically provided by statute, advisory committees shall be utilized solely for advisory functions.
( b ) The Commission shall ensure that the advice and recommendations of advisory committees shall not be in-appropriately influenced by the Commission, its staff, or by any special interest, but will be the result of the advisory committee's independent judgment.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 65227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25071]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--International Staple, Nail, and Tool 
Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 8, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the International Staple, 
Nail, and Tool Association (``ISANTA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: International 
Staple, Nail, and Tool Association, La Grange, IL. The nature and scope 
of ISANTA's standards development activities are: To develop, plan, 
establish and coordinate voluntary consensus standards applicable to 
safety requirements for portable hand-held compressed air powered tools 
which drive fasteners such as nails and staples on a national level 
(American National Standards). Through its standards development 
activities, ISANTA seeks to establish safety requirements for the 
design, construction, use and maintenance of portable hand-held 
compressed air-powered tools to guard against the injury of tool users 
and bystanders in the workplace. ISANTA also provides guidelines to 
manufacturers, owners, employers (including self-employed contractors), 
supervisors, purchasers, operators and other persons concerned with or 
responsible for safety in the workplace and assists in the promulgation 
of appropriate safety directives and safety training programs.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25071 Filed 11-9-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
  (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Can/Am Autosales,
  Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, as
  filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Triantafyllos
  Groumoutis President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
  to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Triantafyllos Groumoutis
  Triantafyllos Groumoutis, 
  President and Chief Financial Officer

Dated: August 19, 2004

---
### SUBCHAPTER VIII—CRITICAL DEFENSE HOUSING AREAS
### Part B—Government Program With Industry Assistance
### subpart ii—aids education and training centers
### SUBCHAPTER II—GRANTS FOR PLANNING, PROVISION OF SERVICES, AND CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF FACILITIES FOR PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
### §10247. Environmental impact statement

#### (a) In general

Issuance of a construction authorization for a repository or monitored retrievable storage facility under section 10245(b) of this title shall be considered a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

#### (b) Preparation

A final environmental impact statement shall be prepared by the Secretary under such Act and shall accompany any application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction authorization.

#### (c) Adoption

(1) Any such environmental impact statement shall, to the extent practicable, be adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in accordance with section 1506.3 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, in connection with the issuance by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of a construction authorization and license for such repository or monitored retrievable storage facility.

(2)(A) In any such statement prepared with respect to a repository to be constructed under this subchapter at the Yucca Mountain site, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission need not consider the need for a repository, the time of initial availability of a repository, alternate sites to the Yucca Mountain site, or nongeologic alternatives to such site.

(B) In any such statement prepared with respect to a repository to be constructed under this subchapter at a site other than the Yucca Mountain site, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission need not consider the need for a repository, the time of initial availability of a repository, or nongeologic alternatives to such site but shall consider the Yucca Mountain site as an alternate to such site in the preparation of such statement.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title IV, §407, as added Pub. L. 100–202, §101(d) [title III], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–104, 1329–121; Pub. L. 100–203, title V, §5041, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–246.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§4321 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Pub. L. 100–202 and Pub. L. 100–203 added identical sections.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
of Corio, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-103843, 333-63322, 333-81600 and 333-45948) and the
registration statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-110065) of Corio, Inc. of our report
dated January 26, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
Corio, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive loss, and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003 and
the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December
31, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K/A of Corio, Inc.

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill and
other acquired intangible assets in 2002.

/s/    KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
June 1, 2004

---