alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3564 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3564

To make a technical correction to the Act providing for the designation 
                     of the David Berger Memorial.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2005

Mrs. Jones of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                       the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make a technical correction to the Act providing for the designation 
                     of the David Berger Memorial.

    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 ``David Berger Memorial Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DAVID BERGER MEMORIAL, OHIO.

     Section 116 of Public Law 96-199 (16 U.S.C. 431 note; 94 Stat. 71) 
is amended in the first sentence by striking ``at the Jewish Community 
Center in Cleveland Heights, Ohio,'' and inserting ``in northeastern 
Ohio''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth
below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a14(b) or Rule 15d14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Ray C. Dillon, the Chief Executive Officer, and Clefton D. Vaughan, the Chief Financial Officer, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



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



/s/ Ray C. DillonRay C. DillonChief Executive OfficerMay 6, 2005/s/ Clefton D. VaughanClefton D. VaughanChief Financial OfficerMay 6, 2005
#### LATTIMER, Appellant, v. McKINNON et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 4, 1905.)

Action by Olive C. Lattimer against Frank IT. McKinnon, Walter R. Burrows, and Joseph IT. Clark, as trustee in bankruptcy of Frank H. McKinnon and Walter R. Burrows.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

HOUGHTON, J., dissents.
§ 724.17 Procedure for assessment of individual civil penalty. ( a ) *Notice.* The Office shall serve on each individual to be assessed an individual civil penalty a notice of proposed individual civil penalty assessment, including a narrative explanation of the reasons for the penalty, the amount to be assessed, and a copy of any underlying notice of violation and cessation order.
( b ) *Final order and opportunity for review.* The notice of proposed individual civil penalty assessment shall become a final order of the Secretary 30 days after service upon the individual unless: ( 1 ) The individual files within 30 days of service of the notice of proposed individual civil penalty assessment a petition for review with the Hearings Division, Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of the Interior, 801 North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 22203 (Phone: 703-235-3800), in accordance with 43 CFR 4.1300 *et seq.;* or
( 2 ) The Office and the individual or responsible corporate permittee agree within 30 days of service of the notice of proposed individual civil penalty assessment to a schedule or plan for the abatement or correction of the violation, failure or refusal.
( c ) *Service.* For purposes of this section, service shall be performed on the individual to be assessed an individual civil penalty, by certified mail, or by any alternative means consistent with the rules governing service of a summons and complaint under rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Service shall be complete upon tender of the notice of proposed assessment and included information or of the certified mail and shall not be deemed incomplete because of refusal to accept.
[53 FR 3674, Feb. 8, 1988, as amended at 56 FR 28445, June 20, 1991; 67 FR 5204, Feb. 5, 2002]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 (the Report), as filed by Novatel Wireless, Inc. (the Company) with the Securities and Exchange Commission, each of the undersigned officers of the
Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officers knowledge:

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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.



|                       |  |                                                  
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 5, 2010 |  | /s/ PETER LEPARULO                               
|                       |  | Peter Leparulo                                   
|                       |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer             
|                       |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                    
|                       | 
|                       |  | /s/ KENNETH LEDDON                               
|                       |  | Kenneth Leddon                                   
|                       |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                       |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)     

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 4-256




---



##### 



1




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



rd
   4




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



10




---



##### 



11




---



##### 



12




---



##### 



THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANYBy: /s/Paul A. StadnikiaName:

    Paul A. StadnikiaTitle:

    Assistant Treasurer
  By:  /s/Sandra Kay EnnisName:

    Sandra Kay EnnisTitle:

    Corporate Secretary
 13




---



##### 



THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY,N.A., as TrusteeBy: 
/s/J. Michael BanasName: 


J. Michael BanasTitle: 
Vice President
  By:  



/s/Alexis M. JohnsonName: 
Alexis M. JohnsonTitle: 
Authorized Officer
 14




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
  NO. R-___
    $CUSIP
          
 A-1




---



##### 



A-2




---



##### 



A-3




---



##### 



A-4




---



##### 



A-5




---



##### 



A-6




---



##### 



A-7




---



##### 



THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY[Corporate Seal]By:Name:Title:
  By:Name:Title:
 A-8




---



##### 



THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
as TrusteeBy:Authorized Signatory 
 A-9




---



##### 



(Please insert Social Security or Other Identifying Number of Assignee)(Please print or type name and address, including zip code of assignee)
  
  A-10
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER> 1
   <NAME> BERWYN FUND

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                       34,088,881
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                      39,252,321
<RECEIVABLES>                                  209,753
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                       0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,462,074
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                       105,207
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                       47,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                            152,478
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                    31,777,695
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                        2,429,635
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                                0
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                            0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                       (61,174)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                     5,163,440
<NET-ASSETS>                                39,309,596
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                              427,112
<INTEREST-INCOME>                               45,611
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                 660,066
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                      (187,343)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                      (61,174)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                  (2,837,951)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                      (2,899,125)
<EQUALIZATION>                            (20,465,548)
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                            0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                        210,352
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                  1,488,224
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                    (23,552,016)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                            0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                          476,594
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                660,066
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                        47,599,250
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                            16.96
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                 (0.08)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                         (0.70)
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                            0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                              16.18
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   1.39


</TABLE>
#### § 7.2 Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this part.

*Applicant.* An individual or organization that manufactures or controls the assembly of a product and that applies to MSHA for approval of that product.

*Approval.* A document issued by MSHA which states that a product has met the requirements of this part and which authorizes an approval marking identifying the product as approved.

*Authorized company official.* An individual designated by applicant who has the authority to bind the company.

*Critical characteristic.* A feature of a product that, if not manufactured as approved, could have a direct adverse effect on safety and for which testing or inspection is required prior to shipment to ensure conformity with the technical requirements under which the approval was issued.

*Equivalent non-MSHA product safety standards.* A non-MSHA product safety standard, or group of standards, that is determined by MSHA to provide at least the same degree of protection as the applicable MSHA product technical requirements in the subparts of this part, or can be modified to provide at least the same degree of protection as those MSHA requirements.

*Extension of approval.* A document issued by MSHA which states that the change to a product previously approved by MSHA under this part meets the requirements of this part and which authorizes the continued use of the approval marking after the appropriate extension number has been added.

*Post-approval product audit.* Examination, testing, or both, by MSHA of approved products selected by MSHA to determine whether those products meet the applicable technical requirements and have been manufactured as approved.

*Technical requirements.* The design and performance requirements for a product, as specified in a subpart of this part.

*Test procedures.* The methods specified in a subpart of this part used to determine whether a product meet the performance portion of the technical requirements.

[53 FR 23500, June 22, 1988; 53 FR 25569, July 7, 1988, as amended at 68 FR 36418, June 17, 2003]
#### George Accomando et al., Appellants, v. Joseph J. Johnke, Respondent.

Motion by appellants for reargument or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, denied. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### SUBCHAPTER I—AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATION OF CONTROLS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AARON HALL,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

LINDA SANDERS, Warden,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 12-56379

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-06357-CJC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 24, 2013** 

Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Aaron Hall appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 habeas corpus petition, see Mora-Meraz v. Thomas, 601 F.3d 933, 939 (9th

FILED

OCT 02 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-56379

Cir. 2010), and we affirm.

Hall argues that his right to due process was violated by a Disciplinary

Hearing Officer’s (“DHO”) determination that he committed the prohibited act of

“possession, manufacture, or introduction of a hazardous tool.” The record reflects

that the proper constitutional safeguards were met and that “some evidence”

supports the DHO’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985)

(requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary

decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974) (setting forth due

process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings that implicate a liberty

interest). Hall specifically contends that prison officials failed timely to advise him

of his right to remain silent during the prison investigation and sought to coerce a

confession. Even assuming some error in the DHO’s use of Hall’s admission, the

DHO’s determination that he possessed the items was sufficiently supported by the

evidence. Furthermore, contrary to Hall’s contention, Officer Coleman’s

involvement in the investigation did not violate prison rules. See 28 C.F.R.

§§ 541.14-.16 (2010). 

Finally, Hall’s contention that he sought the testimony of Officer Perkins at

his disciplinary hearing is not supported by the record.

Hall’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.
### §2514. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title X, §1077, Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1596, which related to reports to Congress on the modification of the force structure for the strategic nuclear weapons delivery systems of the United States, was transferred to section 493 of Title 10, Armed Forces, by Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, §1031(b)(3)(B)(i)–(iii), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1918.
NUMBER 13-14-00688-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE RAMIRO R. GARZA JR.

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Relator, Ramiro R. Garza Jr., proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus in the above cause on December 2, 2014 requesting relief from confinement. The 

Court requests that the real party in interest, Jessica Marie Arredondo, or any others 

whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the 

petition for writ of habeas corpus on or before the expiration of seven days from the date 

of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

3rd day of December, 2014.
§ 586.202 How will BOEM decide whether to issue an Alternate Use RUE? ( a ) We will consider requests for an Alternate Use RUE on a case-by-case basis. In considering such requests, we will consult with relevant Federal agencies and evaluate whether the proposed activities involving the use of an existing OCS facility can be conducted in a manner that: ( 1 ) Ensures safety and minimizes adverse effects to the coastal and marine environments, including their physical, atmospheric, and biological components, to the extent practicable;
( 2 ) Does not inhibit or restrain orderly development of OCS mineral or energy resources;
( 3 ) Avoids serious harm or damage to, or waste of, any natural resource (including OCS mineral deposits and oil, gas, and sulfur resources in areas leased or not leased), any life (including fish and other aquatic life), or property (including sites, structures, or objects of historical or archaeological significance);
( 4 ) Is otherwise consistent with subsection 8(p) of the OCS Lands Act; and
( 5 ) DOI can effectively regulate.
( b ) Based on the evaluation that we perform under paragraph (a) of this section, BOEM may authorize, reject, or authorize with modifications or stipulations, the proposed activity.
From: Benson, Thomas (ENRD)
To: Kordzi, Joe
Cc: Dunn, Jason (ENRD) ; Schoellkopf, Lynde ; Sterling, Carolyn (ENRD) ; ENRD-NOX Case Emails Subject: RE: Dr. Phyllis Fox"s rebuttal report for the Cinergy case
Date: Monday, August 24, 2015 11:17:08 AM
Attachments: 2309Cinergy.ecl.pdf ENV_ENFORCEMENT-#1295245-v1-cinrem_fox_taylor_rebuttal_report_AS_SERVED.PDF Fox Taylor Expert Report.pdf Cinergy Protective Order.pdf

Hi Joe,

Following up on our conversation, I have attached both of Dr. Fox’s Cinergy expert reports. These reports can be used for regulatory purposes and cannot be shared outside EPA. I’ve also attached the protective order that governs the use of confidential material in the Cinergy case.

Finally, I’ve attached the transcript of Dr. Fox’s court testimony in Cinergy. This transcript is not confidential and can be used without restriction. Dr. Fox’s testimony begins on p. 302. She summarizes her opinion and bases on FGD removal efficiency beginning at p. 332.

Good luck and let me know if you have any further questions.

Best,
Tom

Thomas A. Benson Senior Attorney Environmental Enforcement Section U.S. Department of Justice 202-514-5261

U.S. Mail Address: P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 Overnight Mail Address: 601 D Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004

From: Kordzi, Joe [mailto:Kordzi.Joe@epa.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 12:00 PM

To: Benson, Thomas (ENRD) <TBenson@ENRD.USDOJ.GOV>
Cc: Dunn, Jason (ENRD) <JDunn@ENRD.USDOJ.GOV>; Schoellkopf, Lynde <Schoellkopf.Lynde@epa.gov> Subject: Dr. Phyllis Fox's rebuttal report for the Cinergy case Importance: High

Hi Tom,

I left you a VM about this. Sorry to bother you while you’re on vacation. I’m an engineer in EPA’s Region 6 office and we’re out on proposal for a rule that would require SO2 scrubbers on 15 coalfired power plant units under our regional haze regulations. We are scheduled to go final by 12-9-

15. We’re retained the services of Dr. Phyllis Fox to address some of the comments we received. She told me she’d like to incorporate her Rebuttal Report for the Cinergy case because she believes
it contains valuable information we could use to address some of the comments we received claiming the level of control we proposed is too high. I’d like to have a conversation with you about whether we can use this report, and to what extent it may be protected. As usual, we are really pressed for time so pls either email me or call me at 214-665-7186 as soon as you can. Thanks.

Jason – I’ve also left you a VM in case you can help. Thanks.

Lynde Schoellkopf is my attorney.

Joe Kordzi EPA Region 6

" . . . and miles to go before I sleep." - Robert Frost
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

SUPREME COURT

October 12, 2010

CORONA CONSTRUCTION INC.,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, SC: 141596

CoA: 295576

v Wayne CC: 08

- 109892

- CK

CHERYL GRAY, GREGORY GRAY A ND

GRAY & GRAY PRODUCTIONS, INC.

Defendants

- Appellants.

__________________________________

STATEMENT OF JUSTICE CORRIGAN DENYING MOTION FOR

DISQUALIFICATION

C ORRIGAN , J., denies defendants ’ motion to disqualify her from hearing this case

and states as follows:

Defendant s seek my disqualification because I once served as a law clerk for the

trial judge’s father. That fact is not a basis on which my impartiality might reasonably be

questioned. Accordingly, defendants have not identified a ground for my recusal.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1204-1 Places to give notice and file maps.

Operators shall give notice of mine closures and file copies of maps with the Coal Mine Safety and Health District Office for the district in which the mine is located.

[35 FR 17890, Nov. 20, 1970, as amended at 60 FR 33723, June 29, 1995; 71 FR 16669, Apr. 3, 2006]
M. P. No. 77-115.

#### Lester Fayerweather *v.*R. I. State Board of Elections.

*Keven A. McKenna,*for petitioner.

*Julius C. Michaelson,*Attorney General, *Stephen F. Achille,*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the writ shall issue forthwith.
#### § 57.4331 Surface firefighting drills.

Emergency firefighting drills shall be held at least once every six months for persons assigned surface firefighting responsibilities by the mine operator.