alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §14043h–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14043h–4 was editorially reclassified as section 21305 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### City of Buffalo, Respondent, v. Ferry-Woodlawn Realty Company, Inc., et al, Appellants.

Motion granted and appeal from order entered March 22, 1960 dismissed, without costs as academic,
§ 224.29 Sanctions. ( a ) The ALJ may sanction a person, including any party or representative for: ( 1 ) Failing to comply with an order, rule, or procedure governing the proceeding;
( 2 ) Failing to prosecute or defend an action; or
( 3 ) Engaging in other misconduct that interferes with the speedy, orderly, or fair conduct of the hearing.
( b ) Any such sanction, including but not limited to those listed in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, shall reasonably relate to the severity and nature of the failure or misconduct.
( c ) When a party fails to comply with an order, including an order for taking a deposition, the production of evidence within the party's control, or a request for admission, the ALJ may: ( 1 ) Draw an inference in favor of the requesting party with regard to the information sought;
( 2 ) In the case of requests for admission, deem each matter of which an admission is requested to be admitted;
( 3 ) Prohibit the party failing to comply with such order from introducing evidence concerning, or otherwise relying upon, testimony relating to the information sought; and
( 4 ) Strike any part of the pleadings or other submissions of the party failing to comply with such request.
( d ) If a party fails to prosecute or defend an action under this part commenced by service of a notice of hearing, the ALJ may dismiss the action or may issue an initial decision imposing penalties and assessments.
( e ) The ALJ may refuse to consider any motion, request, response, brief or other document which is not filed in a timely fashion.
Attachment A - Summary of Relevant Economic Feasibility ($/ton) Control CostsAvg. Expected Values($/ton)Limiting/Marginal values($/ton)CommentsReferenceRegulatory Body/RuleSO2NOxSO2NOxFR Notice 6JULY05 Final RuleBART100 - 1000 100 - 1000 70 FR 39135BART 281 - 1296 70 FR 39135 Table 3BART919 70 FR 39133BARTGuidelines disparagingly reference "thousands of dollars per ton"in commenting on the need toexceed MACT and its generalunreasonableness.70 FR 25210 CAIR CAIR 1300 Estimated Marginal cost 2009FR Notice 5MAY04 Proposed RuleBART(proposed rule) 200-1000BART proposed lists this as values for 90-95% SO2 control,which is still assumed, or .1to .15 lb/MMBtu. Dropped fromfinal to give states flexibility to require more. Says for scrubbers,bypasses aren't BART, only 100% scrubbing is BART.BART(proposed rule)0.2 lb/MMBtu for NOx is assumed reasonable. Recognizes thatsome sources may need SCR to get this level. For those, statediscretion of the cost vs. visibility value is necessary.Midwest RPO Report ReferencingCAIRCAIR(using IPM) 1000 1500CAIR ( 2009 in 1999$) 900 2400CAIR ( 2015 in 1999$) 1800 3000CAIR (depending onNat'l emissions)1200 - 3000 1400- 2100This was modeled with TRUM (Technology RetrofittingUpdating Model) to develop the marginal values.Kammer EPA Decision Kammer Decision > 1000 > 1000LADCO Midwest RPO BoilerAnalysisLADCO/Midwest RPO 1240 - 3822 607 - 4493MANE-VU BART ControlAssessmentMANE-VU 200 - 500 200 - 1500Bowers vs. SWAPCA Bowers vs. SWAPCA 300 300 1000 1000954-1134 was ruled too much, in favor of 256-310 for SO2. Thisdid consider incremental value. Sections XVII to XIXWRAP Trading ProgramMethodologyWRAP 3000EPA - Referenced byWrapReferences EPA-600S\7-90-018. Low is <$500/ton, Moderate is$500-3000/ton, High is over $3000/tonThe dollars per ton estimates cited above were obtained from BART guidance, documentation of similar regulatory programs such as CAIR,and relevant court decisions. These materials indicate that most EPA sanctioned documents, including the final BART ruling, concretelysupport an average expected reasonable cost range of $1,300to $1,800 per ton of NOx removed and a range of $1,000 to $1,300 per ton ofSO2removed. The BART presumptive limits were set based on cost effective controls that were on average less than these ranges. Asanexample, the presumptive SO2limit was established based on an average cost effectiveness of less than $1,000/ton. As the cost analysisextends into RPO, WRAP and other regionalplanning documentation, the cost ranges becomemore variable and difficult to predict. Forease of comparison, the federally established ranges for NOx and SO2were used as a BART cost threshold basis.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Emergent Group Inc. (the “registrant”)
on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, Bruce
J. Haber, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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, as amended; and





(2) The
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
registrant.




May
19, 2008


/s/
      Bruce J. HaberBruce
      J. HaberChief
      Executive Officer
§ 518.46 Procurement records. Procurement records and files for purchases in excess of the small purchase threshold shall include the following at a minimum: ( a ) Basis for contractor selection,
( b ) Justification for lack of competition when competitive bids or offers are not obtained, and
( c ) Basis for award cost or price.
### §§9461 to 9465. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §902(e)(1), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 560

Section 9461, Pub. L. 96–398, title III, §305, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1588, set forth provisions respecting State administration of programs, and authorized agreements, etc., for implementation.

Section 9462, Pub. L. 96–398, title III, §306, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1590, related to processing of applications by State mental health authorities.

Section 9463, Pub. L. 96–398, title III, §307, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1592, set forth provisions relating to requirements for applications.

Section 9464, Pub. L. 96–398, title III, §308, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1594, related to Indian tribes and organizations.

Section 9465, Pub. L. 96–398, title III, §309, Oct. 7, 1980, 94 Stat. 1595, related to procedures for consideration of grant or contract application.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 902(h) of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date of 1981 Amendment note under section 238l of this title.
Exhibit 31.1



                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Jimmy Whang, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K in respect of the
          STRATS(SM) Trust For IBM Corporation Securities, Series 2004-7 (the
          "Trust") and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or
          servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year
          covered by this annual report of the Trust;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
          whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this
          annual report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
          required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
          trust agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these
          reports;

     4.   I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          Depositor and the Trustee under the trust agreement and based upon
          my knowledge and the annual compliance review required under that
          agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the Depositor and
          Trustee have each fulfilled its obligations under that agreement;
          and

     5.   The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
          compliance by the Trustee and the Depositor with the minimum
          servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an
          independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
          compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
          Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the trust agreement
          that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.

Date: March 30, 2006

/s/ Jimmy Whang
--------------------
Name:   Jimmy Whang
Title:  Director
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Asprilla DELGADO, also known as Baby, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-20044

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 18, 2007.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Yolanda E. Jarmon, Law Offices of Yolanda Jarmon, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Asprilla Delgado on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 *258L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Asprilla Delgado has filed a response. Our independent review of the brief, the record, and Asprilla Delgado’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this appeal. Accordingly, the 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 *258published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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

LORRAINE PLACIDO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA, NORTEL

NETWORKS LONG TERM

DISABILITY PLAN,

Defendant. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 09-00668 WHA

ORDER CONTINUING

CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

The Court CONTINUES the case management conference to JULY 8, 2010, AT 11:00 A.M.

A joint case management statement is due at least seven days prior. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00668-WHA Document 57 Filed 06/15/10 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [AK-910-1310PP-ARAC] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of public meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Alaska Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held February 8-9, 2005, at the Anchorage Federal Building, located at 7th and C Street, beginning at 8:30 a.m. The public comment period will begin at 1 p.m. February 8. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Teresa McPherson, Alaska State Office, 222 W. 7th Avenue #13, Anchorage, AK 99513. Telephone (907) 271-3322 or e-mail                         *tmcphers@ak.blm.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Alaska. At this meeting, topics we plan to discuss include: 
    - Status of land use planning in Alaska
    - Off-highway vehicle use designations on BLM-administered lands
    - Wildland fire management on BLM-administered lands
    - National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska integrated activity plans
    - North Slope Science Initiative
    - Other topics the Council may raise

All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allotted for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, transportation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact BLM. 

Dated: December 14, 2004. 

George P. Oviatt, 

Acting Associate State Director. 

[FR Doc. 04-27924 Filed 12-21-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
§ 15.110 HUD response to appeals. ( a ) *In general.* ( 1 ) The appellate official will conduct a de novo review of the entire record and applicable law when making a decision.
( 2 ) The decision on the appeal will be made in writing and will be considered the final action of HUD. ( i ) A decision affirming an adverse determination, in whole or in part, will contain a statement of the reason(s) for the affirmation, including any FOIA exemption(s) applied, and will inform the appellant of the FOIA provisions for potential court review of the decision.
( ii ) If the adverse determination is modified on appeal, in whole or in part, a written decision will be sent to the appellant and the FOIA request will be reprocessed in accordance with the appeal decision.
( iii ) Adverse decisions will include the name and contact information of dispute resolution services that offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies as a nonexclusive alternative to litigation.
( b ) *Appeal of a denial of record request.* Upon appeal of a denial of a record request, the appellate official will issue a decision that either: ( 1 ) Overturns the adverse determination, in whole or in part, and remands the request to the appropriate office. The requester will be notified of the rationale for the determination in writing. The original office will then reprocess the request in accordance with the appeal determination and respond directly to the requester; or
( 2 ) Affirms the adverse determination and declines to provide the requested records to the appellant.
( c ) *Appeal of a fee determination.* Upon appeal of a fee determination, the appellate official will issue a decision that either: ( 1 ) Waives the fee or charges the fee that the appellant requested;
( 2 ) Modifies the original fee charged and explains why the modified fee is appropriate; or
( 3 ) Advises the appellant that the original fee charged was appropriate and gives the reason behind this determination.
( d ) *Appeal of a denial of expedited processing.* Upon appeal of a denial of an expedited processing request, the appellate official will issue a decision that either: ( 1 ) Overturns the adverse determination and grants the expedited processing request; or
( 2 ) Affirms the decision to deny expedited processing.
Section II A Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter 

Reactants 

Solvent

Rea Bag Conden

ser

Wastewat

Recovere

Reactor 

cleaned with 

Solvent 

Final 

Packaging:

Tran

Grindin

g:

Air 

1

2

5

3

4

4
Process Summary: 

Reactants and solvent are charged to the reactor and heated to form the New Chemical 

Substance (NCS). At the end of the reaction the volatiles are evaporated and sent to a 

solvent recovery system. Filter 1 prevents any of the NCS from reaching the solvent 

recovery system. The reactor is cleaned with water which is transferred to temporary 

storage before being transported to a wastewater treatment facility (2). After the 

volatiles have been removed, the NCS is either discharged directly to the final 

packaging or discharged to temporary storage and transferred to a grinding system 

before packaging (3). Air filter 5 traps dust generated during the grinding and packaging 

operation. Process samples are taken of the NCS before and after grinding at points 4A

and 4B.

Worker Exposure and Environmental Release:

Filter Changing:

Worker exposure to the NCS is expected to occur when filters 1 and 5 are 

changed. Workers will be expected to use the following equipment for protection: Work 

Uniform and/or Tyvek Coveralls Suit, Gloves, Safety Shoes, Safety 

Glasses/Goggles/Face Shield, Dust Mask or Half-Face Respirator.

Filter 1 will be changed approximately every 250 batches, and approximately 110 

kg of NCS will be released to municipal waste each time the filter is changed. Changing 

filter 1 is expected to take approximately 4 hours and involve 1 – 2 different workers per 

site per year. 

Filter 5 will be changed approximately 2 -3 times per year, and approximately 15 

kg of NCS will be released to municipal waste each time the filter is changed. Changing 

filter 5 is expected to take approximately 20 minutes and involve 1-2 different workers 

per site per year. 

Reactor Cleaning:

The reactor will be cleaned with heated water every 10 – 20 batches. Each cleaning is 

expected to release approx. 5 kg of NCS to a wastewater treatment facility (2). 

Reactor Discharge and Grinding:

Worker exposure to the NCS is expected to occur during discharge from the reactor and 

during grinding and packaging (3). Discharging the reactor is expected to involve 1 – 2 
workers per site. Grinding is expected to involve 1 worker. The air in the grinding area 

will be passed through at particle filter (5) and the workers will be provided with safety 

equipment such as the following: Work Uniform and/or Tyvek Coveralls Suit, Gloves, 

Safety Shoes, Safety Glasses/Goggles/Face Shield, Dust Mask or Half-Face 

Respirator. Process samples of the NCS before and after grinding will be taken at points 

4A and 4B. Sampling is expected to take 2 minutes at each point and involve 1 worker.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7339

LEE ODIS ALFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARTIN J. MCDADE; FRANKLIN FREEMAN,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JAMES B. HUNT; JUANITA H. BAKER,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District Judge.

(CA-95-369)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Odis Alford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action and dismissing several

claims for Appellant's failure to comply with the district court's

order to particularize them. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Alford v.

McDade, No. CA-95-369 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 16, 1995). 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
### SUBCHAPTER XIII—STATE CONTROL OF NOXIOUS PLANTS ON GOVERNMENT LANDS
#### In the Matter of John H. Tanges et al., Respondents, against Stanley I. Schonbrun, Appellant.

— -In a special proceeding supplementary to judgment, the judgment debtor appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rassau County, entered January 15, 1960, adjudging him in contempt ■of court and fining him $880.79, plus $100 ,as counsel fees and $20 as costs, ■for violating the restrictive provisions ,of a subpoena duly issued and served ■upon him by the judgment creditors. The order permits the judgment debtor ■to purge himself by paying the said amounts within 20 days, and upon Ms failure to do so, directs Mm to be committed. The basis for the contempt proceeding is that between the time of the service of the subpoena and the time he was finally examined, he received and disposed of $880.79, the loan value of a policy -of insurance on his life, of which his wife was the beneficiary, m violation of the restrictive provisions of section 781 of the Civil Practice Act, which was imprinted .on the subpoena. Order affirmed, with costs. Ro opinion. Rolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE SRI RECEIVABLES PURCHASE CO., INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,981
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,970
<BONDS>                                         30,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,636
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    74,606
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,587
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,870
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,060
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,922
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,922
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>