alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7865

CLEVELAND LEWIS WILLIAMS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus DARNELL MCCALL, Chief of Police Anderson City Detention Center; BOBBY GUNNER, Correction Officer; ANGELA WHITE, Nurse; ALLEN MCALISTER, a/k/a Gofer, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-01-4275-8-12BI) Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 20, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland Lewis Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Frederick Lindemann, Michael Brian Wren, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Cleveland Lewis Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Williams v. McCall , No. CA-01-4275-8-12BI (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
TO: Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM: Ryan Novak, ERG

DATE: September 30, 2015

SUBJECT: Index for Supporting Documentation for the Lake Sinclair, GA Case Study 

Model (DCN SE05594)

This document serves as the index for the supporting documentation for the Lake 

Sinclair, GA Case Study Model, developed as part of the Environmental Assessment for the 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point 

Source Category (EA Report), Document No. EPA-821-R-15-006 (DCN SE04527). The 

supporting documentation for this case study includes the files listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Supporting Documentation for the Lake Sinclair, GA Case Study Model

Attachment 

ID Document Name Brief Description

A1

Attachment 1: Pollutant 

Loadings and Design 

Workbook - SE05595A1

Documentation of the modeling scope, design, steam electric power 

plant loadings, STORET monitoring data, and DMR/TRI point source 

loadings evaluated for the Lake Sinclair, GA case study model. Refer 

to the ‘ReadMe’ tab of the workbook for additional information about 

the contents of each tab.

A2

Attachment 2: WASP 

Model Input and Output 

Files - SE05595A2

These files represent the WASP model input and output files for the 

Lake Sinclair, GA case study model. The WASP input file (.wif) for 

each pollutant and scenario represents the settings and inputs used to 

execute case study modeling. The EFDC hydrodynamic data 

represents the flow data used for the Lake Sinclair, GA WASP model. 

The output data represent the daily water column concentrations in 

each segment of the WASP model, for each pollutant, for baseline 

and each regulatory option.

A3

Attachment 3: Water 

Quality Benchmark 

Exceedance Analysis -

SE05595A3

The water quality analysis for the Lake Sinclair, GA case study 

model. These results were generated by running a script on the raw

WASP model output (see Attachment 2). The output from this script 

indicates the percent of daily average concentrations that each 

segment exceeded the water quality benchmarks evaluated in the EA.

A4

Attachment 4: Wildlife 

and Human Health 

Impacts Analysis -

SE05595A4

The wildlife and human health analysis for the Lake Sinclair, GA

case study model. This workbook includes the all-segment average 

water column concentration output, generated by the WASP model, 

that were evaluated against the threshold concentrations determined 

to trigger wildlife or human health benchmark exceedances.
Editorial Note on Part 922
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 922 appear at 62 FR 3789, Jan. 27, 1997 and at 62 FR 67724, Dec. 30, 1997.

§ 922.107 Permit procedures. ( a ) Any person in possession of a valid permit issued by the Director, in consultation with the ASDOC, in accordance with this section and subpart D of the part may conduct an activity otherwise prohibited by §§ 922.103, 922.104, and 922.105 in the Sanctuary.
( b ) Permit applications shall be addressed to the Director, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries; ATTN: Sanctuary Superintendent, American Samoa National Marine Sanctuary, P.O. Box 4318, Pago Pago, AS 96799.
[88 FR 966, Jan. 6, 2023]
### Division C—Social Impact Demonstration Projects
EXHIBIT 32.2


Written Statement of the Chief Financial Officer


of CNA Financial Corporation


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350


(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of CNA Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:


|  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|• | the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2016filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

|  |                                                                                                                                                     
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|• | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:February 15, 2017By/s/ D. Craig MenseD. Craig MenseChief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Felix Walls, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 59734;

First District (4th Division)

July 10, 1974.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago, for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago, for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. JUSTICE JOHNSON.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Clink, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 613]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered July 15, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s convictions stem from a robbery committed in Queens on November 2, 2002. In an unrelated incident, the defendant was arrested in Brooklyn on November 26, 2002 when he was found in possession of a black handgun while riding in a black Honda Civic with tinted windows. The People, asserting that the gun and the car were distinctive and were very similar to the gun and car used in the November 2, 2002 robbery, sought to elicit testimony as to the circumstances surrounding the November 26, 2002 arrest on the theory that it tended to connect the defendant to the robbery. The Supreme Court admitted such evidence, reasoning that it fell within the “identity” exception to the *Molineux*rule regarding evidence of uncharged crimes *(see People v Molineux,*168 NY 264, 291, 293 [1901]).

The evidence concerning the defendant’s November 26, 2002 arrest was admissible as probative of the defendant’s identity as a participant in the robbery charged in this case *(see People v Gordon,*308 AD2d 461 [2003]; *People v Powell,*107 AD2d 718 [1985]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion *863in determining that the probative value of the evidence outweighed the potential prejudice to the defendant *(see People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 242, 247 [1987]). Moreover, the court properly explained to the jury the purpose for which the evidence was being introduced, and repeatedly instructed the jury not to consider such evidence as establishing the defendant’s criminal propensity *(see People v Tosca,*98 NY2d 660 [2002]; *People v Satiro,*72 NY2d 821 [1988]).

The prosecutor’s summation comment regarding the out-of-state license plate on the defendant’s car was not prejudicial to the defendant. The defendant’s remaining challenges to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Campbell,*29 AD3d 601 [2006]; *People v Woody,*9 AD3d 439, 440 [2004]) and, in any event, are without merit *(see People v Valdes,*291 AD2d 513 [2002]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.
### §10172a. Siting a second repository

#### (a) Congressional action required

The Secretary may not conduct site-specific activities with respect to a second repository unless Congress has specifically authorized and appropriated funds for such activities.

#### (b) Report

The Secretary shall report to the President and to Congress on or after January 1, 2007, but not later than January 1, 2010, on the need for a second repository.

#### (c) Termination of granite research

Not later than 6 months after December 22, 1987, the Secretary shall phase out in an orderly manner funding for all research programs in existence on December 22, 1987, designed to evaluate the suitability of crystalline rock as a potential repository host medium.

#### (d) Additional siting criteria

In the event that the Secretary at any time after December 22, 1987, considers any sites in crystalline rock for characterization or selection as a repository, the Secretary shall consider (as a supplement to the siting guidelines under section 10132 of this title) such potentially disqualifying factors as—

(1) seasonal increases in population;

(2) proximity to public drinking water supplies, including those of metropolitan areas; and

(3) the impact that characterization or siting decisions would have on lands owned or placed in trust by the United States for Indian tribes.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title I, §161, as added Pub. L. 100–202, §101(d) [title III, §300], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–104, 1329–121; Pub. L. 100–203, title V, §5012, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–231.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 100–202 and Pub. L. 100–203 added identical sections.
Exhibit 31.2

FORM 10-Q CERTIFICATION

I, Darwin L. Stump, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant;

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;

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 of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I are 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 we have:

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 third fiscal quarter of 2004 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors auditors and the audit committee of the board of directors of the Managing General Partner of the registrant:

(a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls 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.

 

Date:  November 10, 2004            
 /s/ Darwin L. Stump                           

Darwin L. Stump

Chief Financial Officer of the 

Managing General Partner of the Registrant
#### Jerome Taishoff, Appellant, v. Jacob Burns, Respondent.

Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Yan Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3422 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3422

To require the Secretary of Defense to transfer at least 10 percent of 
  certain military equipment returning from Iraq to Federal and State 
                               agencies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2011

Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself and Mr. Carter) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Defense to transfer at least 10 percent of 
  certain military equipment returning from Iraq to Federal and State 
                               agencies.

    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 ``Send Equipment for National Defense 
Act'' or the ``SEND Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF USED MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO STATE AND FEDERAL 
              AGENCIES.

    (a) In General.--Not later than one year after eligible equipment 
returns to the United States from Iraq, and in accordance with 
subsections (b) and (c) of section 2576a of title 10, United States 
Code, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer at least 10 percent of 
such eligible equipment to Federal and State agencies.
    (b) Preference.--In considering applications for the transfer of 
eligible equipment, the Secretary shall give preference to Federal and 
State agencies that will use the eligible equipment primarily for the 
purpose of strengthening border security along the southern border of 
the United States.
    (c) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirement under 
subsection (a) with respect to eligible equipment that the Secretary 
determines the Department of Defense needs for immediate use, if the 
Secretary certifies such determination to Congress.
    (d) Eligible Equipment Defined.--In this section, the term 
``eligible equipment'' means equipment that the Secretary determines 
would be suitable for use by Federal and State agencies in law 
enforcement activities, including--
            (1) surveillance unmanned aerial vehicles, including the 
        MQ-9 Reaper (also known as the ``Predator B'');
            (2) night-vision goggles; and
            (3) high mobility multi-purpose wheel vehicles (commonly 
        known as ``humvees'').
                                 <all>
```
§ 1500.12 Products declared to be hazardous substances under section 3(a) of the act. ( a ) The Commission finds that the following articles are hazardous substances within the meaning of the act because they are capable of causing substantial personal injury or substantial illness during or as a proximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use: ( 1 ) Charcoal briquettes and other forms of charcoal in containers for retail sale and intended for cooking or heating.
( 2 ) Metal-cored candlewicks that have a lead content of more than 0.06 percent of the total weight of the metal core, and candles made with such wicks.
( b ) [Reserved]
[38 FR 27012, Sept. 27, 1973, as amended at 68 FR 19147, Apr. 18, 2003]
CHAIRMAN 

G. Steven Burrill 

VICE CHAIRMAN 

Bill Lochte 

TREASURER 

Barry McLeane 

SECRETARY 

John McGraw 

DIRECTORS 

Emil Bakka 

Ed Bluthardt 

Mary Cole Laub 

Lori Collins 

Emerson Coy 

·Bob, Egan 

)oe{aux 

Dick {einimku{Je/,;;,; 

August 3, 2012 

U. S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Essential Air Service Division 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dcfr:. osr .. 1.JJ' 1-or OC\ 

PO Box 1621 

Eagle River, WI 54521 

(866) 306-3690 toll free 

(715) 337-0061 office 

www.vilascountyedc.org 

vilasedc@yahoo.com 

Attn: Mr. Dennis J. DeVany, Chief Essential Air Service Division 

RE: Docket OST-2011-0109 Rhinelander, Wisconsin 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

On behalf of the Vilas County Economic Development Corporation, I ask you to 

favorably consider the proposal of SkyWest Airlines to provide essential air 

transportation services to Rhinelander, WI. SkyWest Airlines has a strong 

history of providing reliable Essential Air Service so critical to regions like that 

of northern Wisconsin and the U.P. of Michigan served by the 

Rhinelander/Oneida County Airport. 

VCEDC is a public/private partnership for economic development whose 

charge is to assist area businesses to compete and grow in today's market 

piace. Complete commercial air service is vital to the Vilas County economy; 

and job growth in our internationally competitive manufacturing, wholesaling 

and construction firms such as Pukalllumber, Ahlborn Equipment, 

Cornerstone Custom Builders, Kwaterski Bros Wood Products, AED Superstore 

and Oldenburg Group. All need reliable air service to major airline hubs. 

Destination tourism in Vilas County is the largest local economic engine. 

Second home ownership in Vilas County makes up 60% of the housing market 

and over 80% of the county's assessed value. The region is the destination of 

thousands of second homeowners from the Minneapolis and Chicago markets. 

SkyWest Airlines will provide those "weekend warriors" with an alternative 
P a e I 2 

means of transportation much shorter than the five to seven hour auto commute. 

We strongly urge your support of the SkyWest Airlines application to provide Essential Air 

Services to Rhinelander/Oneida County Airport. 

Respectfully, 

G. Steven Burrill 

Chairman, Vilas County Economic Development Corporation 

2
**Exhibit 31.2**

I, Michael I. Williams,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maine & MaritimesCorporation (the registrant);

2. Based on my knowledge,this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

 (a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

 (b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on our evaluation; and

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

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s boardof directors:

 (a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 (b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: May 11, 2006                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                             |   |
| /s/ MICHAEL I. WILLIAMS                          |   |
| Michael I. Williams                              |   |
| Senior Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer, |   |
| Treasurer and Assistant Secretary                |   |

 

----
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*James Jackson, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 59570;

First District (2nd Division)

August 6, 1974.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Daniel Miranda, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Alan L. Fulkerson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

PER CURIAM.
### §11611. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–150, title I, §101(e), Aug. 8, 2014, 128 Stat. 1815

Section, Pub. L. 105–277, div. G, title XXVIII, §2803, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–846; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(7) [div. A, title II, §202], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–420; Pub. L. 107–228, div. A, title II, §212, Sept. 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 1365, related to report on compliance with the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.
§ 1027.9 Refunds. ( a ) CPSC will promptly refund to an employee any amounts deducted to satisfy debts owed to CPSC when the debt is waived, found not owed to CPSC, or when directed by an administrative or judicial order.
( b ) Another creditor agency will promptly return to CPSC any amounts deducted by CPSC to satisfy debts owed to the creditor agency when the debt is waived, found not owed, or when directed by an administrative or judicial order.
( c ) Unless required by law, refunds under this paragraph shall not bear interest.