alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**~vJ~I[)** r c tf/ fY<t
I (I STATE OF **MI~SOURI** Jeremiah
W (Jay) Nixon, GO\·ernor

• Sara Parker Pauley

, Director DEPARTiviENT

OF **~JATURAL** RESOURCES MAY
1 2 2011 Mr. Karl Brooks Regional Administrator U.S. EPA, Region VII

• 901 North Fifth Street Kansas City, KS 66101 Dear Mr. Brooks

:

www.dnr

. mo .gov RECEIVED MAY 1 9 2011 AWMD/APDB The Missouri Air Conservation Commission

is in the proceSs of revising the following regulations

for the Missouri State Implementation
Plan (SIP)

. This letter **r~u**

the U

. S
. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) parallel process the approval **oflh~ ~~:rnti1'ril'1rrrTnl'P>**  amendments
that were adopted by the Missouri Air Conservation Commissionon

, 2011. Please disregard the letter sent on Aprill3, 2011, that requested parallel processing
for the approval
of these regulations regarding only the incorporation

of federal requirements
that cover greenhouse
gas emissions. Following further discussions with your staff,
it appears Region VII is now in agreement

to act on the additional permitting rule amendments indicated below. The following are enclosed for your review

: 10 CSR 10-6.060 Construction Permits Required This amendment incorporates federal permitting requirements
that will cover greenhouse
gas emissions

at new construction projects that emit at least 100,000 tons per year or modifications

at existing facilities that increase greenhouse
gas emissions
by at least 75,000 tons per year and clarifies text. 10 CSR 10-6.065 Operating Permits This amendment incorporates federal permitting requirements

for greenhouse gas emissions, removes definitions that will now be found in regulation

10 CSR 10-6.020, streamlines
the public notice procedure

to align with the Federal Register, and allows the flexibility

to publish notices on the web. The text of the rulemakings
can also be viewed

at the Missouri Secretary
of State's website

at httr:/.'www.sos.mo.gov/admles

/ moreg!current

/ v36n4 /v3 6n4c

. pdf.(pages 784-800). The commission adopted the enclosed rule actions on April28, 2011, after considering comments received

at public hearing. The commission
has full legal authority

to develop rules pursuant

to Section 643.050 of the Missouri Air Conservation law. The state follows all 0 Recycled PaperMr.KarlBrooksPageTwoapplicableadministrativeproceduresinproposingandadoptingruleactions.Weunderstandthatallrequirementsofparagraph2.1ofAppendixVto40C.F.R.Part51mustbemetpriortopublicationofEPA'sfinalapprovalofMissouri'sSIPrevision.TheremainingSIPsubmittalelementswillbeprovidedwiththefinalSIPsubmittalwhentheruleispublishedintheCodeofStateRegulations(July31,2011}.Thankyouforyourattentiontothismatter.Ifyouhavequestionsregardingthismatter,pleasecontactMs.WendyVitwiththeDepartment'sAirPollutionControlProgram,P.O.Box176,JeffersonCity,MO65102orbyphoneat(573}751-4817.Sincerely,AIRPOLLUTIONCONTROLPROGRAMesL.KavanaughirectorJLK:pmkEnclosuresc:MissouriAirConservationCommission
#### Jacqueline Sager v. Jacob Sager.

Motion for an order directing payment of counsel fees denied. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### ANDREA, Respondent, v. CARTWRIGHT et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 4, 1905.)

Action by Jacob Andrea against Ellen Cartwright and another. No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
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

No. C 08-3596 RS (PR)

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

*E-Filed 5/27/10*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CHARLES LLOYD BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, Warden, 

Respondent. /

No. C 08-3596 RS (PR)

ORDER REQUESTING FURTHER

BRIEFING

A recent en banc decision from the Ninth Circuit addressed important issues relating

to federal review of parole decisions in California. See Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-55392, 

2010 WL 1664977 (9th Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). The Court requests that the parties

submit supplemental briefs (not to exceed 12 pages in length) explaining their views on how

the Hayward en banc decision applies to this parole denial habeas case. The Court sets the

following schedule:

1. Within 10 days of this order, respondent shall send to petitioner a copy of the

Hayward decision. 

2. Within 30 days of this order, respondent shall file with the Court and serve on

petitioner a supplemental brief on the impact of Hayward on this action. 

Case 3:08-cv-03596-RS Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 1 of 2
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

No. C 08-3596 RS (PR)

2 ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

3. Within 15 days thereafter, petitioner may file with the Court and serve on

respondent a supplemental brief on the impact of Hayward on this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May ___, 2010 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

27

Case 3:08-cv-03596-RS Document 10 Filed 05/27/10 Page 2 of 2
### §3715a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3715a was editorially reclassified as section 10111 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 312.515 Are there any exceptions to those actions?

The Peace Corps Director may waive with respect to a particular award, in writing, a suspension of payments under an award, suspension or termination of an award, or suspension or debarment of a recipient if the Peace Corps Director determines that such a waiver would be in the public interest. This exception authority cannot be delegated to any other official.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Muir, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from (1) a sentence of the County Court, Orange County, imposed February 18, 1976, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of 10 years and (2) an order of the same court, dated September 22, 1976, which denied his motion, made pursuant to CPL 440.10, to vacate the judgment of conviction. Appeal from the order dismissed. No certificate granting leave to appeal has been issued (see CPL 450.15). Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of three years. As so modified, sentence affirmed. The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Margett, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Titone, JJ., concur.
# CIT Y O FTUPEL O „,^^^,^„,^^^ ^ JAC K REED , JR. , MAYO R

## ...-i^ySPCRTATIO N ^ --•:^^ i OPERATION S B \ NO V iL . n 3 : [ ^ Novembe r7 , 201 1 Mr . Denni s DeVany , Chie f EA S & Domesti cAnalysi s Divisio n Offic e o fAviatio n Departmen t o fTransportatio n 120 0 Ne wJerse yAvenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : Tupel o Regiona l Airpor t (TUP ) Docke t DOT-OST-2009-030 5 Dea rMr . DeVany : W e hav e reviewe d EA S proposal s submitte d unde rDocke t DOT-OST-2009-030 5 fro m Seapor t Airline s Inc . an d Multi-Aer o Inc. , db a Ai rChoic e On e fo rTupelo , Mississipp i an d determine d tha t the yd o no t mee t th e curren t regulatoryrequirement s o f1 9 sea t aircraft . Furthermore , th e leve l o fservic e wil l b e a grea t disadvantag e t o an yairlin e an d ou rairpor t withou t support fro m Delt a Airlines , throug h codeshar e an d join t ticke t pricing , allowin g passenger s t o easil yflo wthroug h th e nationa l airport s system . W e appreciat e th e interes t o fthes e airlines , bu t d o no t endors e o rsupport thes e proposal s fo rsubsidize d essentia l ai rservic e t o th e communitie s o fTupelo , MS . W e reques t tha t hold-i n orde r2011-9- 5 serve d Septembe r13 , 201 1 tha t prohibite d Mesab a & Pinnacl e Airline s db a Delt a Connectio n fro m terminatin g schedule d airlin e servic e t o Tupelo , Mississipp i remai n i n effec t unti l furthe rnotice , o runti l suc h tim e a s a suitabl e replacemen t whic h satisfie s th e community' s need s ca n b e found . W e woul d lik e t o than k yo u fo ryou rcooperatio n an d assistanc e i n thi s matter . Respectfully , CITYO F TUPEL O

/ ^ ^ ^Jac k Ree d Jr . Mayo r I.AS ! IKO' i SIRt II• I'OSI ' ()t-l-l l 1 IIO XI4S S Ii t' l IU . MISSISSIPP I^SSO M IN' ' llll'lld M (i(>'slMO<i M . |-A \60. : S4 n:i) V 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          19,053
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                       156
<INVENTORY>                                      4,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,804
<PP&E>                                           1,097
<DEPRECIATION>                                     203
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,169
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,308
<SALES>                                         15,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,372
<CGS>                                            7,511
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,511
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,711
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,170
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,541
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,541
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
#### C. E. Vandervoort v Board of Commissioners of Pawnee County.

(Filed Feb. 11, 1899.)

*Error from the Probate Court of Pmonee County; before James P. Neal, Probate Judge.*

*John F. Stone, A. J. Biddisoh*and *Geo. S. Green,*for plaintiff in error.

*704
      *G. A. Houston, W. L. Eagleton*and *B. W. Morphis,*for defendant in error.

Action by Charles E. Vandervoort against the board of commissioners of Pawnee county. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Dismissed.

Per Curiam:

This case was bought here on an appeal

by the plaintiff in error from the probate court of Pawnee county. The record shows that the judgment was rendered in the probate court on the 31st day of August, 1897, and that on the same day a motion for a new trial was filed, considered, and overruled by the court; to which rulings and judgment of the court the plaintiff duly excepted, and brings the case here on a case-made for review. The record further show® that the petition in error was not filed in this court until the 21st day of September, 1898, being one year and 21 days after the rendition of the judgment and the final order of the probate court. Hence, as more than one year has intervened between the rendition of the judgment and the final order in the probate court and the filing of the petition in this- court, this court has no jurisdiction toi review such judgment and final order. Thie rule laid down in the case of *Hoffman v. Board of Com’rs.,*this volume, p. 225, followed. For the reasons herein stated, the petition in error must therefore be dismissed.
### §3796aa–3. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796aa–3 was editorially reclassified as section 10334 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4278 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4278

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to permit 
               requirements for dredged or fill material.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2012

 Mr. Hurt (for himself and Mr. Altmire) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to permit 
               requirements for dredged or fill material.

    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 ``Preserving Rural Resources Act of 
2012''.

SEC. 2. PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

    Section 404(f) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1344(f)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Except as provided in 
        paragraph (2) of this subsection, the discharge'' and inserting 
        ``The discharge''; and
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``having as its purpose 
        bringing an area of the navigable waters into a use to which it 
        was not previously subject, where the flow or circulation of 
        navigable waters may be impaired or the reach of such waters be 
        reduced,'' and inserting ``having as its purpose bringing an 
        area into a use not described in paragraph (1)''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                         59,358
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,358
<CGS>                                           39,952
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,245
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,186
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,406
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,780
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,780
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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 the Quarterly Report of Monster Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew J. McKelvey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | By: | /s/WILLIAM M. PASTORE                                                                        
| |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |     | William M. Pastore
      President and Chief Executive Officer
      Dated: December 13, 2006

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Monster Worldwide, Inc. and will be retained by Monster Worldwide, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
#### Max Andrews, Respondent, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 36167.)

Appeal from a judgment entered on a decision rendered after trial in the Court of Claims. The State appropriated for highway purposes .019 of an acre of claimant’s land on which billboards were erected. After appropriation it is established that claimant removed the billboards. Claimant’s proof was that before the taking his land was worth $9,400 and after it, $7,050, a difference of $2,350. The State’s proof was that before the taking the land was worth $4,500 and after, $4,000; and the $500 resulting differential was apportioned as being $200 for the land and $300 for consequential damage to the billboards which had to be reconstructed on the property. The Court of Claims was of opinion that *“*The cost of removal [of the signs] would exceed *694the value of the improvement ” and found the value of the property before the taking was $15,400 and after, $11,900. The award was $3,500. We are unable to find justification for this sum in the record. Some evidence of cost of removal of the signs was offered; but it was theoretical and the actual cost from claimant’s books was not shown. In this state of the record the damage for the taking does not in our view exceed $500 as demonstrated in the State’s proof. Judgment modified on the law and the facts to reduce the award to $500, and as thus modified, affirmed.
Case 3:08-cv-03683-BZ Document 43 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-03683-BZ Document 43 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Shawntrique Hernandez et al., Respondents, v Gabriel Almanzar et al., Appellants.

[821 NYS2d 30]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered June 30, 2005, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants dismissing the complaint.

The first-named plaintiff seeks to recover for “serious injury” within the meaning of the No-Fault Law (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]) that she allegedly suffered in an automobile accident on February 9, 2002. In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants submitted reports of an orthopedist and a neurologist, each of whom opined, based on his examination of plaintiff, that she had not suffered a serious injury within the meaning of the statute. Defendants also submitted the transcript of plaintiffs deposition, at which she acknowledged that, besides the February 2002 accident, she had been injured in two other automobile accidents, in October 1999 and January 2003. Plaintiff opposed defendants’ motion with the affirmed report of neurologist Dr. Aric Hausknecht, dated April 19, 2005. Based on his examination of plaintiff, Dr. Hausknecht reported certain alleged range-of-motion deficits due to neck and back injuries he attributed to the February 2002 accident. Although Dr. Hausknecht acknowledged that plaintiff had been injured in the October 1999 and January 2003 accidents, he did not explain the basis for his claim that the deficits he allegedly found in April 2005 — more than three years after the subject accident in February 2002 — were proximately caused by that accident, rather than by the October 1999 accident, and were only exacerbated (not caused in the first instance) by the January 2003 accident. Accordingly, plaintiff failed to come forward with evi*361dence sufficient to prove *“a*serious injury *causally related*to the [subject] accident” *(Pommells v Perez, 4*NY3d 566, 579 [2005] [emphasis added]).

To the extent Dr. Hausknecht’s conclusions were based on the unaffirmed reports of plaintiffs treating physicians, such reports do not constitute admissible evidence, and therefore do not suffice to defeat a well-supported summary judgment motion. The defense experts’ review of such unaffirmed reports (as noted in their reports) did not open the door to plaintiffs’ reliance on them, since defendants did not submit such reports in support of the motion, nor did their experts rely on them in forming their conclusions. In any event, such reports, which were created within two months after the February 2002 accident, are not probative of the existence of a permanent injury.

Finally, plaintiffs proof was also insufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether she was prevented from performing substantially all of her usual activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the subject accident. In this regard, we note that plaintiff testified that she missed only two to three weeks of class as a result of the accident. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.