alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
GOVERNOR OF MISSOURI
 

JEFFERSON CITY
 

JEREMIAHW. (JAYINIXON P.O. Box 720 

GOVERNOR 65102 (573) 751-3222 

July 15,2010 

Karl Brooks, Ph.D. 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region VII 

901 North 5th Street 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

Dear Dr. Brooks: 

Thank you for your agency's request for the State ofMissouri's position on EPA 

initiating actions to list the Washington County Lead-Furnace Creek Site on the Superfund 

National Priorities List (NPL). I understand a letter dated July 14; 2010 from Mark N. 

Templeton, Director ofthe Department ofNatural Resources, concurs with EPA's actions to 

proceed with listing the Washington County Lead Furnace Creek Site on the Superfund National 

Priorities List. 

It is my understanding that through the listing of the Washington County Lead Furnace 

Creek Site on the Superfund National Priorities List federal funds will be made available for the 

site. The expenditure ofthese federal funds will provide positive environmental outcomes and 

economic benefits to communities located in the Washington County Lead-Furnace Creek site. 

The state and local economies will be stimulated by the influx of dollars and also by the potential 

beneficial reuse ofthese properties. Therefore, as Governor I concur with the department's 

recommendation. 

If you have any questions, please contact Mark N. Templeton, Director, Missouri 

Department ofNatural Resources, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 or by phone at 

(573) 522-6221. 

www.governor.mo.gov 
,;>~;~~:"~;~,,,~c; ~;'l;'};;
 

~~~'1~~t~
 

(~/....• <';".~' ;.~/":.. 'D~~T Jeremiah W Oay) Nixon, Governor • Mark N. Templeton, Director 

QE;; (',,~~{JT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
 

-----\~~ttfl ~dmmo~'

JUL 14 2010 

Karl Brooks, Ph.D.
 

Regional Administrator
 

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
 

Region 7
 

901 North 5th Street
 

Kansas City, KS 66101
 

Dear Dr. Brooks: 

Thank you for your agency's request for the State ofMissouri's position on whether the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should proceed with actions which could ultimately 

lead to inclusion ofthe Washington County Lead Furnace Creek Site (site) on the Superfund 

National Priorities List (NPL). 

As the Director ofthe Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, I agree that further 

environmental investigation and remediation are warranted at the site for protection of public 

health, particularly children's health, and the environment. Therefore, I support and encourage 

the EPA's efforts in proceeding with actions, which could ultimately lead to inclusion ofthe site 

on the NPL. I ask that you continue to maintain close communications with the Department's 

Division ofEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) as you proceed through this process. 

If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Leanne Tippett Mosby, Acting Director, Division 

ofEnvironmental Quality, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176 or by phone at (573) 

751-0763. 

Sincerely, 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mark N. Templeton
 

Director
 

c: Leanne Tippett Mosby 

o Recycled Paper
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andres Delarosa, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 309]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered December 21, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The record, viewed as a whole, establishes that defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal encompassed all aspects of the case, including the suppression ruling *(see, People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831; *People v Allen,*82 NY2d 761). Accordingly, defendant’s challenge to the suppression hearing ruling is foreclosed. In any event, defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe. JJ.
§ 1506.10 What information is included in a written demand for payment? ( a ) The Bill for Collection or demand letter shall inform the debtor of: ( 1 ) The amount, nature and basis of the debt;
( 2 ) The right of the debtor to inspect and copy records related to the debt;
( 3 ) The right of the debtor to discuss and propose a repayment agreement;
( 4 ) Any rights available to the debtor to dispute the validity of the debt or to have recovery of the debt waived (citing the available review or waiver authority, the conditions for review or waiver, and the effects of the review or waiver request on the collection of the debt);
( 5 ) The applicable standards for imposition of interest charges and penalty charges and administrative costs that may be assessed against a delinquent debt;
( 6 ) The date by which payment should be made to avoid late charges (*i.e.* interest, penalties, and administrative costs), which may be not more than 30 days from the date that the demand letter is mailed or hand-delivered;
( 7 ) The name, address, and telephone number of a person or office within USADF available to discuss the debt;
( 8 ) The intention of USADF to enforce collection if the debtor fails to pay or otherwise resolve the debt, by taking one or more of the following actions: ( i ) Offset from Federal payments otherwise due to the debtor, including income tax refunds, salary, certain benefit payments, retirement, vendor payments, travel reimbursement and advances, and other Federal payments;
( ii ) Referral to a private collection agency;
( iii ) Report to credit bureaus;
( iv ) Administrative wage garnishment;
( v ) Referral to the Department of Justice for litigation action if the debt cannot be collected administratively;
( vi ) Transfer of any debt delinquent for more than 180 days to the Department of Treasury for collection; and
( vii ) Other actions authorized by the FCCS and applicable law.
( 9 ) Any rights available to the debtor to dispute the validity of the debt or to have recovery of the debt waived (citing the available review or waiver authority, the conditions for review or waiver, and the effects of the review or waiver request on the collection of the debt);
( 10 ) The instructions for making electronic payment; and
( 11 ) Requirement that the debtor advise USADF of any bankruptcy proceeding.
( b ) USADF may omit from the written demand for payment one or more of the provisions contained in paragraphs (a)(8) through (11) of this section if USADF determines that any provision is not legally required given the collection remedies to be applied to a particular debt, or which have already been provided by prior notice, applicable agreement, or contract.
( c ) USADF will respond promptly to communications from the debtor. Responses will generally be made within 30 days of the receipt of the communication from the debtor.
§ 1429.8 Stay of action taken by Grievance Board; requests. ( a ) A request for a stay shall be entertained only in conjunction with and as a part of an exception to an action taken by the Grievance Board under part 1425 of this subchapter. The filing of an exception shall not itself operate as a stay of the action involved in the proceedings.
( b ) A timely request for a stay of an action taken by the Grievance Board to which an exception has been filed shall operate as a temporary stay of the award. Such temporary stay shall be deemed effective from the date of the action and shall remain in effect until the Board issues its decision and order on the exception, or the Board or its designee otherwise acts with respect to the request for the stay.
( c ) A request for a stay of an action taken by the Grievance Board will be granted only where it appears, based upon the facts and circumstances presented, that: ( 1 ) There is a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal; and
( 2 ) A careful balancing of all the equities, including the public interest, warrants issuance of a stay.
#### § 144.151 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the agency shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600 to 101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
### §285j. Purpose of Institute

The general purpose of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (hereafter in this subpart referred to as the "Institute") is the conduct and support of research, training, health information dissemination, and other programs with respect to neurological disease and disorder and stroke.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title IV, §457, as added Pub. L. 99–158, §2, Nov. 20, 1985, 99 Stat. 857; amended Pub. L. 100–553, §2(3), Oct. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 2769; Pub. L. 100–607, title I, §101(3), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3049; Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2613(b)(2), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4238; Pub. L. 101–93, §5(a), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 611.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1989—Pub. L. 101–93 substituted "disease and" for "disease and and".

1988—Pub. L. 100–553 and Pub. L. 100–607 made identical amendments, substituting "Neurological Disorders" for "Neurological and Communicative Disorders" and "and disorder and stroke" for "disorder, stroke, and disorders of human communication". Pub. L. 100–690 amended this section to read as if the amendments by Pub. L. 100–607 had not been enacted.

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

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

For effective date of amendment by Pub. L. 100–690, see section 2613(b)(1) of Pub. L. 100–690, set out as an Effect of Enactment of Similar Provisions note under section 285m of this title.
§ 247.776 Exemption from the definition of “broker” for banks effecting certain excepted or exempted transactions in a company's securities for its employee benefit plans. ( a ) A bank that meets the conditions for an exception or exemption from the definition of the term “broker” except for the condition in section 3(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(4)(C)(i)), is exempt from such condition to the extent that it effects a transaction in the securities of a company directly with a transfer agent acting for the company that issued the security, if: ( 1 ) No commission is charged with respect to the transaction;
( 2 ) The transaction is conducted by the bank solely for the benefit of an employee benefit plan account;
( 3 ) Any such security is obtained directly from: ( i ) The company; or
( ii ) An employee benefit plan of the company; and
( 4 ) Any such security is transferred only to: ( i ) The company; or
( ii ) An employee benefit plan of the company.
( b ) For purposes of this section, the term *employee benefit plan account* has the same meaning as in § 247.760(h)(4).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lonnie Albert BURKE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-50580

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 2007.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lonnie Albert Burke, Jr., Federal Public Defender’s, Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Lonnie Albert Burke, Jr., has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Burke has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
The HONORABLE RODNEY S. WEBB, Chief Judge, United States District 1

Court for the District of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1038

___________

Alan Geatz, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way * District of North Dakota.

Employees *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: June 22, 1998

 Filed: July 6, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alan Geatz appeals from the district court&s dismissal of his complaint with

1

prejudice for insufficient process and failure to state a claim. After careful review of

the record and the parties& briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### § 249.501a Form BDW, notice of withdrawal from registration as broker-dealer pursuant to § 240.15b6-1, § 240.15Bc3-1, or § 240.15Cc1-1 of this chapter.

(a) This form shall be used for filing a notice of withdrawal as broker-dealer pursuant to Rule 15b6-1 (§ 240.15b6-1 of this chapter), Rule 15Bc3-1 § 240.15B3-1 of this chapter), or Rule 15Cc1-1 (§ 240.15Cc1-1 of this chapter). Under sections 15(b), 15B, 15C, 17(a), and 23(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR part 240), and the rules and regulations thereunder, the Commission is authorized to solicit the information required to be supplied by this form from registrants desiring to withdraw their registration as a broker-dealer. Disclosure of the information specified in this form is mandatory prior to processing of applications for withdrawal, except for social security account numbers, disclosure of which is voluntary. The information will be used for the primary purpose of determining whether it is in the public interest to permit a broker-dealer to withdraw his registration. This notice will be made a matter of public record. Therefore, any information, given will be available for inspection by any member of the public. Because of the public nature of the information the Commission can utilize it for a variety of purposes, including referral to other governmental authorities or securities self-regulatory organizations for investigatory purposes or in connection with litigation involving the Federal securities laws and other civil, criminal or regulatory statutes or provisions. Social security account numbers, if furnished, will assist the Commission in identifying registrants and, therefore, in promptly processing applications for withdrawal. Failure to disclose the information requested by Form BDW, except for social security account numbers, may result in the registrant not being permitted to withdraw his registration.

(b) Interim Form BDW shall be used for application for registration as broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or to amend such application, only by order of the Commission. In the event broker-dealers are required to comply with their filing obligations on Interim Form BD, the form will be made available at the Commission's Publication Office at (202) 942-4040.

[52 FR 16844, May 6, 1987]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form BDW, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL M. NAVARRO,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-0241 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING APPOINTMENT

OF COUNSEL

(Docket Nos. 9, 10, 11)

This is a habeas case filed by a state prisoner proceeding pro se. 

Notwithstanding the instruction not to file any further requests for appointment of

counsel, petitioner has filed such a request for a fourth time. His request is DENIED (docket

number 21) for the same reasons that his first three requests were denied. Appointment will be

ordered sua sponte should the circumstances of the case so warrant. Any further request for

appointment of counsel will be returned to petitioner. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.08\NAVARRO0241.ATY.wpd 

Case 3:08-cv-00241-WHA Document 25 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3934 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3934

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Acid Yellow 151.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2012

   Mr. Watt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Acid Yellow 151.

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

SECTION 1. ACID YELLOW 151.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Acid Yellow 151,    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        (Cobaltate(2-),                                                    31/2014.......
                        bis[2-[2-[5-
                        (aminosulfonyl)-2-
                        (hydroxy-
                        kO)phenyl]diazeny
                        l-kN1]-3-(oxo-kO)-
                        N-
                        phenylbutanamidat
                        o(2-)]-, hydrogen
                        (1:2)) (CAS No.
                        12715-61-6)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3204.12.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered June 24 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00436
- CV
THE JAGO TIMES GROUP PUBLICATIONS, LLC A ND RAJA A. KHANZADA, Appellant s V. ANWER CHUGTAI, Appellee On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 09353



### O RDER
T he clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated April 29, 2019, we notified the Dallas County District Clerk that the cl erk’s record was past due and directed the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record within thirty days. To date, the clerk’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) the clerk’s record or (2) written verification that appellant Raja A. Khanzada has been found not entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We notify appellants that if we receive verification the clerk’s record has not been paid for or that arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record have not been made and that Raja A. Khanzada hasnot been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs, we will, without further notice,

dismiss the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b)

. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to:

Felicia Pitre Dallas County District Clerk All parties

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Gerald Britton, Respondent, v. Ruberoid Company et al., Appellants, and A. O. Smith Corp. et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by Ruberoid and its carrier from decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which found them partly liable for compensation payments to claimant. The claimant sustained injuries to his back on July 21, 1953 and March 30, 1954 while working for A. O. Smith Corp., respondent herein. Subsequently, while working for the appellant Ruberoid on June 12, 1955 and on December 8, 1955, he allegedly sustained further back injuries. The Referee determined the subsequent injuries were all associated with the original injury of July 21, 1953 but, on review, the board *567modified that .decision and found the disability was causally related to each of the accidents and assessed 25% against each. The claimant testified at considerable length to the various happenings to his back commencing in 1953 and culminating in December, 1955. He was asked on cross-examination: *“*Q. And after the December [1955] incident both legs were much worse? A. And my neck and arms, upper back, lower back.” While there was some variance as to the medical reports filed, the record supports the factual finding of a fourth accident and medically that each accident caused further complaints relating to his back condition. One of the doctors stated that all of the incidents were incidental and that he could not say that any one of them was entirely responsible for the complaints of the claimant following the December, 1955 incident. In a recent ease, *Matter of Hogan*v. *Weldmaster Co.*(11 A D 2d 557) we discussed back injury cases and the difficulty which arises as to whether subsequent incidents are new accidents or aggravations associated with the primary injury and the category applicable is usually governed by the factual situation in the individual cases. Here, while the fourth accident (Dec. 8, 1955) was not reported by the claimant as such, he was never thereafter able to return to his work, except for one day, of which the employer had knowledge and his testimony as to accident and resulting physical complaints amply supported the findings of the board. If there is substantial evidence to support such factual findings, the determination of the board is final. *(Matter of Palmero*v. *Gallucci,*6 A D 2d 911, affd. 5 N Y 2d 529.) Decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent A. O. Smith Corp. and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company against the appellants.