alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Alton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 22, 2010

s1115 

# Order

November 22, 2010

141497 & (46)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141497 COA: 290123 Wayne CC: 2008-010204 JOEL DAVID STRONG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to

remand is DENIED.
#### Douglas Rittenhouse, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Raymond S. Rittenhouse, an Infant, Appellant, v. Town of North Hempstead et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Motion by plaintiffs-appellants for reargument and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals referred to the *491court that rendered the decision of September 26, 1960. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur. Motion denied, without costs. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION
 
 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 Annual Report of Eastern Light Capital, Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard J. Wrensen, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and I, Andrea Barney, Principal Accounting Officer and Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)The Report fully compiles with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date: August 23, 2010
 /s/ Richard J. Wrensen
 Richard J. Wrensen
 President, Chief Executive Officer and
 Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 /s/ Andrea Barney
 Andrea Barney
 Principal Accounting Officer and Controller
You are here: EPA Home Air & Radiation Clean Air Markets

Clean air markets include various market-based regu latory programs designed to improve air quality by reducing outdoor concentrations of fine particles, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. This Web site provides the information and tools that are ne cessary to participate in any of these market-based programs.

Industry States and Regions Other Market Participants

Acid Rain Program NOx Trading Programs CAIR CSAPR US

- Canada

Assessments & Tools Progress Reports Interactive Mapping Power Plant Emission Trends 

### Quick Finder Acid Rain Air Transport CAMD Business System
CASTNET CSAPR ECMPS
eGRID Forms Integrated Planning Model Partnerships Progress Reports Report Emissions Surface Water Chemistry Transfer Allowances http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/ Lastupdated on Tuesday, April 29, 2014 

## Page 1 of 2 Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

6/ 3/2014 http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/Basics

Resources Partnerships

Trading Basics Buying Allowances Annual Auction

Rules, Policies and Instructions Protocol Gas Verification Program Air Emission Testing Bodies

Air Markets Program Data (AMPD) AMPD Tutorial CASTNET TIME/LTM Interactive Mapping

Acid Rain Smog Mercury Regional Haze/PM Climate Change

Acid Rain Program NOx Programs Multi

- Pollutant Analyses Air Quality and Ecological
Follow Us! You can follow EPA's Clean Air Markets on: Twitter Facebook What's New April 29, 2014 -The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit opinion vacating CSAPR. EPA is reviewing the opinion. At this time, CAIR remains in place and no immediate action from States or affected sources is expected. 

## Page 2 of 2 Clean Air Markets | Air & Radiation | US EPA

6/ 3/2014 http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/
Case 3:09-cv-01703-BZ Document 56 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:09-cv-01703-BZ Document 56 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2
### §2246. Report

There shall be included as part of the President's annual budget submittal to the Congress a detailed report on past and proposed expenditures and accomplishments under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 102–250, title III, §306, Mar. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 59.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                           1,975
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,342
<INVENTORY>                                     14,191
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               133,109
<PP&E>                                          71,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 179,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          174,446
<BONDS>                                        124,088
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                   (119,265)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   179,532
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,597
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,639
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,199)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,203)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   2,800
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       597
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3014 

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, regarding leasing of the Moses 

Allotments. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 21, 2005 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Act of August 9, 1955, regarding leasing 

of the Moses Allotments. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT RELATED TO MOSES ALLOT4 MENTS. 

5 The first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 (69 

6 Stat. 539; 25 U.S.C. 415), is amended by striking ‘‘and 

7 the lands comprising the Moses Allotment Numbered 10, 

8 Chelan County, Washington,’’ and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘and the lands comprising the Moses Allotment Numbered 
2 

•HR 3014 IH 

1 8 and the Moses Allotment Numbered 10, Chelan County, 

2 Washington’’. 

Æ
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY L. WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., successorin-interest to U.S. AIRWAYS, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20-15767 

D.C. No. 3:19-cv-08434-JSC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Jacqueline Scott Corley, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted April 20, 2021***

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. 

Anthony L. Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his diversity action alleging employment claims under California law. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 28 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-15767 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a 

motion to remand. D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 

974 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Williams’s motion to remand because 

defendant timely removed the action and the district court had subject matter 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (setting forth 

requirements for diversity jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) (notice of removal 

“shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or 

otherwise, of a copy of the [complaint]”); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe 

Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1999) (30-day deadline to remove is 

“triggered by” service of the summons and complaint). 

In his opening brief, Williams fails to raise, and therefore has waived, any 

challenge to the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings. See Indep. 

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not 

consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); 

Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by 

argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).

Williams’s motion for publication of the decision is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3071 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3071

  To permit the individuals currently serving as Executive Director, 
   Deputy Executive Directors, and General Counsel of the Office of 
                Compliance to serve one additional term.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 2005

    Mr. Ney (for himself and Ms. Millender-McDonald) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To permit the individuals currently serving as Executive Director, 
   Deputy Executive Directors, and General Counsel of the Office of 
                Compliance to serve one additional term.

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

SECTION 1. PERMITTING CURRENT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE 
              DIRECTORS, AND GENERAL COUNSEL OF OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE TO 
              SERVE ONE ADDITIONAL TERM.

    (a) Executive Director.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(3) of the 
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1382(a)(3)), the 
individual serving as Executive Director of the Office of Compliance as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act may serve one additional term.
    (b) Deputy Executive Directors.--Notwithstanding section 302(b)(2) 
of such Act (2 U.S.C. 1382(b)(2)), any individual serving as a Deputy 
Executive Director of the Office of Compliance as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act may serve one additional term.
    (c) General Counsel.--Notwithstanding section 302(c)(5) of such Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1382(c)(5)), the individual serving as General Counsel of the 
Office of Compliance as of the date of the enactment of this Act may 
serve one additional term.
                                 <all>
```
### §4370h. Availability of funds for facilities

For fiscal year 2009 and thereafter, the Science and Technology, Environmental Programs and Management, Office of Inspector General, Hazardous Substance Superfund, and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program Accounts, are available for the construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities provided that the cost does not exceed $85,000 per project.

(Pub. L. 111–8, div. E, title II, Mar. 11, 2009, 123 Stat. 729.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009, and also as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, and not as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which comprises this chapter.
### §9818. Coordination and eligibility

(a) The Secretary shall take all necessary and appropriate steps to encourage Federal departments and agencies and State and local governments to make grants, provide technical assistance, enter into contracts, and generally support and cooperate with community development corporations and local cooperative associations.

(b) Eligibility for assistance under other Federal programs shall not be denied to any applicant on the ground that it is a community development corporation or any other entity assisted under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §629, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 497.)
**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**

| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,                and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                March 30, 2007 | /s/                Crit S. DeMent                                              |
|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | Name:                Crit S. DeMent                                                 |
|                                | Title:                Chief Executive Officer of the General                Partner |
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Raymond Carabello, Appellant, v. W. Cecil Johnston, as Director of Dannemora State Hospital, Respondent.

This is an appeal from an order denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the matters contained therein had already been decided by the Appellate Division upon appeal. (14 A D 2d *778.)*The petitioner seeks relief upon the theory that his confession, used against him on his original trial, was obtained from him by *“*physical and mental torture ”. However, it appears from the papers on appeal and petitioner’s brief that he was on trial for murder in the first degree and during the trial pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Accordingly, the allegedly coerced confession has no bearing upon his conviction and the order of Special Term should be affirmed. Order unanimously affirmed. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
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

ROBERT DALTON RUSH,

Petitioner,

 vs.

BEN CURRY, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-2266 CRB (PR)

ORDER REQUESTING

SUPPLEMENTAL 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. 

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. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.09\Rush, R1.or1.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-02266-CRB Document 12 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 1
### Archive of digital CHIRP seismic reflection data collected during USGS Cruise 06SCC03 offshore of Cheniere Caminada, Louisiana, July 2006

By: Arnell S. Harrison**Shawn V. DadismanNick F. FerinaDana S. Wiese

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds311

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

In July of 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted a geophysical survey offshore of Cheniere Caminada, Louisiana. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital CHIRP seismic reflection data, trackline maps, navigation files, GIS information, Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs, observer's logbook, and formal FGDC metadata. Gained digital images of the seismic profiles are also provided.

The archived trace data are in standard Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) SEG-Y format (Barry and others, 1975) and may be downloaded and processed with commercial or public domain software such as Seismic Unix (SU). Example SU processing scripts and USGS software for viewing the SEG-Y files (Zihlman, 1992) are also provided.

#### Study Area
### RE: Changes to Section IV which we just discusse d Laity, James A.

to: Lydia Wegman, Mancini, Dominic J.

06/02/2010 03:16 PM

Cc: James Hemby, Richard Wayland, N ealson Watkins, Padmini Singh, Kevin McLean, Sara Schneeberg,
Tricia Crabtree, Michael Stewart, Lewis Weinstock, Charlotte Be rtrand, Bridgid Curry

Show Details

Lydia, As you said, these are all editorial/clarifying changes and they look fine to us. We note a few grammatical

typos in the attached which you may want to correct.

From: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov [mailt o:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 2:23 PM

To: Laity, James A.; Mancini, Dominic J.

Cc: Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov; Wayland.Richard@epam ail.epa.gov; Watkins.Ne alson@epamail.epa.gov; Singh.Padmini@epamail.epa.gov; Mclean.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov; schneeberg.sara@epamail.epa.gov; Crabtree.Tricia@epamail.epa.gov; St ewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov; We instock.Lewis@epamail.epa.gov; Bertrand.Charlotte@epa mail.epa.gov; Curry.Bri dgid@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Changes to Section IV which we just discussed

Jim (and Dom),

Please find attached a redline versi on of section IV of the SO2 preamble. Our monitoring team has made some clarifying and editorial changes to improve the transparency of the monitoring preamble and reg text. There are no substantive changes. Needless to say, I wanted you to have the redli ne version so you could see what has been changed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks a lot.

Lydia 

### Page 1 of 1

6/2/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\tcrabtre\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web7314.htm
§ 266.612 Insurance endorsement. ( a ) *Initial endorsement.* The Commissioner shall indicate his or her insurance of the mortgage by endorsing the original credit instrument.
( b ) *Final endorsement.* When all advances of mortgage proceeds have been made and all other applicable terms and conditions have been complied with to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, the Commissioner shall indicate on the original credit instrument the total of all advances that have been approved for insurance and again endorse such instrument.
( c ) *Effect of endorsement.* From the date of initial endorsement, the Commissioner and the HFA shall be bound by the provisions of this subpart to the same extent as if they had executed a contract including the provisions of this subpart and the applicable sections of the Act.
### §618f. Repayment of advances for flood control

The first $25,000,000 of advances made to the Colorado River Dam Fund for the project shall be deemed to be the sum allocated to flood control by section 617a(b) of this title and repayment thereof shall be deferred without interest until June 1, 1987, after which time such advances so allocated to flood control shall be repayable to the Treasury as the Congress shall determine.

(July 19, 1940, ch. 643, §7, 54 Stat. 777.)
December 10. 1940 

Hon. J. S. Ho&man Opinion No. V-731 

District Attorney 

9th Judicial District Re: Yhethcr the additioasl 10% 

Coaroe. Texas license fee required by Article 6675a-8c, V.C.S.. must 

be paid for vehicles power.7 

ed by other than Diesel motors or engines which burn 

butane gas or say distillate 

Dear Sir: other than gasoline. 

You have requested the opinion of this office on the 

above-captioned matter. 

Article 6675a-%c, V.C.S., provides for an additional 

license fee for certain vehicles and reads as follows: 

‘It is expressly provided that the license fees 

for all vehicles using or being propelled by Diesel 

motors or engines shall be the fees provided above, 

plus an additional tea (10%) per cent. It is further 

provided that the County Tax Collector, in issuing 

the license receipts for motor vehicles provided 

for in this Act, shall clearly indicate on the license 

receiot the type of motor by which the vehicle is 

propelled when such motor is powered by Diesel 

fuel, butane gas, or any distillate other than gasoline. ” Acts 1929, 41st Leg..~2ad C.S. p. 172, ch. 88. 

g 8c. added Acts 1941. 47th Leg., p. 144, ch. 110, g 10. 

. 

This particular provision of the laws regulating vehicles has not been.coastrued by the courts. We are of the opinion that the plain and unambiguous language of the first sentence 

of Article 6675a-8c limits its applicability to “vehicles using or 

being propelled by Diesel motors or engines.” 

SUMMARY 

The additional license fee required by Article 

6675a-8c, V.C.S., need not be paid for vehicles powered by other than Diesel motors or engines which 
. 

Hon. J. S. Hollemaa, Page 2 (V-731) 

burn butane gas or any distillate other than gesoline. 

Yours very truly 

APPROVED: ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS 

MC/JCP 

Assistant