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

DATE: September 18, 2014 TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Ray

Saracino , EPA Region 9 SUBJECT: September 18, 2014 , M eeting with Arizona Officials and Utilities Regarding

Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
**SUMMARY** A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on September 18, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants
. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2 , 2014 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014. **ATTENDEES External Stakeholders**  ADEQ: Steve Burr Tucson Electric Power: Erik Bakken, Jeff Yockey, M ike Sheehan Salt River Project: Kara Montalvo, Barbara Sprungl, Kell y Barr , Grant Smedley Arizona Corporation Commission: Steve Olea, Margaret ‘Tob y’ Little , Ed Stoneburg Arizona Electric Power Coop: Logan Gernet Arizona Public Service: Ann Becker, Mike Kafka , Nancy Nesky, Paul Smith , Charles Spell Pacificorp: Cathy

Woollums Tristate: Andy

Burger , Brian Nelson Sierra Southwest Co

- op: Michelle Freeark Jordan, Bischoff & Hiser: Eric Hiser **EPA** Jeremy Mark OAP, Clean Air Markets Division Brian Fisher OAP Beth Conlin OAP Nathan Topham OAQPS Mikhail Adamantiades Advisor Chris Sherry OAP Gabrielle Stevens OAP Deborah Jordan Director, R9 Air Division Amy Z impfer Associate Director, R9 Air Division Anita Lee R9 Ray Saracino R9**Attachment**

File: 2014

- 09
- 11 Arizona Questions About 111d Proposal
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                     2,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            275,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         289,000
<PP&E>                                 6,499,000
<DEPRECIATION>                         2,292,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         4,496,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 12,877,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                 410,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     27,000
<PREFERRED>                               27,000
<OTHER-SE>                            14,275,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           4,496,000
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                  1,150,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,839,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         667,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       768,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        2,506,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    2,506,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                           2,506,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             $(0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             $(0.10)
        


</TABLE>
#### FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK v. SEAGRIST et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

1. Discovery — Books of Account — Ability to Produce.

Where plaintiff was entitled to discovery and inspection of the books of the firm, the fact that the firm had dissolved, and all its books and papers relating to its business had been turned over to a corporation which succeeded to its business, was no defense to plaintiff’s application, the previous members of the firm having become the executive officers of the corporation, and there being no allegation that the books were not under their control, or that they were unable to produce them for inspection.

2. Same — Order—Modification.

Where plaintiff was entitled to discovery of the amount of wages paid defendant’s employés, and the number of persons employed during the continuance of certain indemnity policies, an order requiring defendant to produce its ledgers, cashbooks, timebooks, timesheets, and all other books showing the amount of wages paid to its employés during the period covered by the policies, was too broad, and should be modified so as to only require a production of cashbooks, timebooks. and time-sheets during such period.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York against Francis W. Seagrist, Jr., and others, composing the firm of F. W. Seagrist, Jr., & Co. From an order granting discovery of defendants’ books, defendants appeal. Modified.

*281Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, PATTERSON, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.

Charles C. Sanders, for appellants.

Charles C. Nadal, for respondent.

INGRAHAM, J.

The question upon this appeal is substantially the same as that presented in Casualty Co. v. F. W. Seagrist, Jr., Co. (decided herewith) 80 N. Y. Supp. 277. The only additional fact to which attention should be called is that it is alleged by the defendants that they have dissolved partnership, and that all of their books and papers relating to the copartnership business were turned over to the F. W. Seagrist, Jr., Company more than three years before this application was made. It appears, however, that the corporation succeeded to the business of the copartnership, and that the members of this copartnership are executive officers of the corporation. The defendants do not allege that these books are not under their control, or that there is any real obstacle in the way of their compliance with the order appealed from. We think, however, that the order is too broad, and that it should be modified by requiring the defendants to produce the cashbooks, timebooks, and timesheets used by them during the period covered by the policies of insurance, to wit, from March 21, 1895, to March 21, 1896, and from May 1, 1896, to May 1, 1898, and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal. All concur.
# C_2009082EN.01003501.xml

| 4.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/35

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2009 — Air One v Commission

(Case T-344/02) (1)

1

(2009/C 82/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 13

- 00497

- CV

CNMK TEXAS PROPERTIE S LLC d/b/a Cinemark Movies 12,

Appellant

v.

Sandra Rodriguez and R. s

Sandra ROD RIGUEZ and Ruperto R. Rodriguez,

Appellee s

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CVT00752 D4

Honorable Oscar J

. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 14, 2014

JUDGMENT VACATED ; REMANDED

The parties filed a joint motion to vacate the trial court’s judgment without regard to the

merits and remand this cause to the trial court for disposition in accordance with the parties’

settlement agreement . We grant the motion , vacate the trial court’s judgment and all pretrial and

trial ruling s incorporated and merged into that final jud g m en t , and remand for further proceedings.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
#### RAN v. TORCHIANI.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Payment—Evidence.

The inference, from repayment by plaintiff of loans made by defendant without any deduction of plaintiff’s claim, that such claim had been paid, is not cogent, where the repayment was in work.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.

*887Action by Emanuel Ran against Harry Torchiani. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF. and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Newman & Butler, for appellant.

Aaron Morris, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The record presents a simple conflict in the testimony given by the respective parties in their own behalf, and the probabilities are not sufficiently with the defendant to justify the reversal of the judgment, which is founded upon the justice’s estimate of the relative credibility of the witnesses whose testimony was given before him. Whether the statement introduced to show a settlement of accounts was inconsistent with the claim in suit depended upon the value of the plaintiff’s assertion that this claim was not embraced within the account deemed by the parties to be adjusted, and was reserved from the settlement; and, while a point is made by the defendant of the plaintiff’s “repayment” of loans made by the former without deducting the amount of this claim, it appears that the repayment was in the form of work, not cash, so the inference sought to be drawn is not cogent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
### §8123. Physical examinations

(a) An employee shall submit to examination by a medical officer of the United States, or by a physician designated or approved by the Secretary of Labor, after the injury and as frequently and at the times and places as may be reasonably required. The employee may have a physician designated and paid by him present to participate in the examination. If there is disagreement between the physician making the examination for the United States and the physician of the employee, the Secretary shall appoint a third physician who shall make an examination.

(b) An employee is entitled to be paid expenses incident to an examination required by the Secretary which in the opinion of the Secretary are necessary and reasonable, including transportation and loss of wages incurred in order to be examined. The expenses, when authorized or approved by the Secretary, are paid from the Employees' Compensation Fund.

(c) The Secretary shall fix the fees for examinations held under this section by physicians not employed by or under contract to the United States to furnish medical services to employees. The fees, when authorized or approved by the Secretary, are paid from the Employees' Compensation Fund.

(d) If an employee refuses to submit to or obstructs an examination, his right to compensation under this subchapter is suspended until the refusal or obstruction stops. Compensation is not payable while a refusal or obstruction continues, and the period of the refusal or obstruction is deducted from the period for which compensation is payable to the employee.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 544.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 771. | Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, §21, 39 Stat. 747. |
| | | June 26, 1926, ch. 695, §2, 44 Stat. 772. |
| | 5 U.S.C. 772. | Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, §22, 39 Stat. 747. |
| | 5 U.S.C. 773(a). | Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, §23, 39 Stat. 747. |
| | | June 26, 1926, ch. 695, §3, 44 Stat. 772. |
| | | Oct. 14, 1949, ch. 691, §208 "Sec. 23(a)", 63 Stat. 865. |

Statutes at Large

In subsections (a) and (c), the words "duly qualified" in former sections 771 and 772 are omitted as unnecessary in view of the definition of "physician" in section 8101.

In subsection (c) the words "fees for examinations" in former section 773(a) are substituted for "fees or examinations" since the word "or" was erroneously in the 1949 amendment. The words "any sum payable to the employee under section 771 of this title" in former section 773(a) are omitted as unnecessary because the same provision appeared in former section 771, which is carried into subsection (b).

Administration of this subchapter was transferred to the Secretary of Labor by section 1 of 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 19, 64 Stat. 1271 (see section 8145).

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
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 DYNASIL
CORPORATION OF AMERICA (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the
period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig
T Dunham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company and Richard A. Johnson, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his 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 result of operations of the Company.

                                    /s/ Craig T Dunham
                                   -------------------
                                   Craig T Dunham
                                   President and Chief
                                   Executive Officer

                                   /s/ Richard A. Johnson
                                   -------------------
                                   Richard A. Johnson
                                   Chief Financial Officer
August 16, 2010
### §6325. Absence resulting from hostile action abroad

Leave may not be charged to the account of an employee for absence, not to exceed one year, due to an injury—

(1) incurred while serving abroad and resulting from war, insurgency, mob violence, or similar hostile action; and

(2) not due to vicious habits, intemperance, or willful misconduct on the part of the employee.

The preceding provisions of this section shall apply in the case of an alien employee referred to in section 6301(2)(viii) of this title with respect to any leave granted to such alien employee under section 6310 of this title or section 408 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980.

(Added Pub. L. 90–221, §3(a), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 671; amended Pub. L. 96–54, §2(a)(41), Aug. 14, 1979, 93 Stat. 383; Pub. L. 99–399, title VIII, §804, Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 883.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 408 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980, referred to in text, is classified to section 3968 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–399 inserted sentence at end relating to alien employees.

1979—Pub. L. 96–54 substituted provisions relating to leave charged to an account of an employee for absence, for provisions relating to leave charged to an account of any officer or employee for absence, and designated qualifying provisions as cls. (1) and (2).

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

#### Effective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–54 effective July 12, 1979, see section 2(b) of Pub. L. 96–54, set out as a note under section 305 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 90–221, §3(c), Dec. 23, 1967, 81 Stat. 671, provided that: "The amendment made by subsection (a) of this section [enacting this section] shall take effect as of the first day of the first pay period which began on or after January 1, 1965."
### §7211. Employees' right to petition Congress

The right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a Member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or Member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title VII, §703(a)(3), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1217.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions of this section were contained in section 7102 of this title prior to the general amendment of chapter 71 of this title by Pub. L. 95–454, title VII, §701, Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1191.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 1101 of this title.
### §7904. Employee assistance programs relating to drug abuse and alcohol abuse

(a) The head of each Executive agency shall, in a manner consistent with guidelines prescribed under subsection (b) of this section and applicable provisions of law, establish appropriate prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation programs and services for drug abuse and alcohol abuse for employees in or under such agency.

(b) The Office of Personnel Management shall, after such consultations as the Office considers appropriate, prescribe guidelines for programs and services under this section.

(c) The Secretary of Health and Human Services, on request of the head of an Executive agency, shall review any program or service provided under this section and shall submit comments and recommendations to the head of the agency concerned.

(Added Pub. L. 99–570, title VI, §6004(a), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–159.)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6031

WILLIAM H. BRANCH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-02-1642-AM) Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 22, 2003 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William H. Branch, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William H. Branch, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). This Court may only grant a certificate of appealability if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Branch has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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. DISMISSED
### §103305. Travel expenses incident to study of battlefields

Mileage of officers of the Army and actual expenses of civilian employees traveling on duty in connection with the studies, surveys, and field investigations of battlefields shall be paid from the appropriations made to meet expenses for those purposes.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3166.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 103305 | 16 U.S.C. 458. | Mar. 8, 1928, ch. 152, 45 Stat. 249. |

Section
### **CHAPTER 3201—POLICY AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS**

Sec.
320101.
Declaration of national policy.
320102.
Powers and duties of Secretary.
320103.
Cooperation with governmental and private agencies and individuals.
320104.
Jurisdiction of States in acquired land.
320105.
Criminal penalties.
320106.
Limitation on obligation or expenditure of appropriated amounts.
#### Juan De Leon, as Administrator of the Estate of Ruben De Leon, Deceased, Respondent, v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered April 7, 1977, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or *666disbursements, and a new trial ordered on the issue of damages only unless plaintiff-respondent shall, within 20 days after service upon him of a copy of the order entered hereon, serve and file in the office of the clerk of Trial Term, Bronx County, a written stipulation to reduce the verdict upon all three causes of action to the sum of $63,000 *in toto,*and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiff-respondent shall so stipulate, the judgment as so amended is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We deem the verdict as rendered excessive to the extent indicated. Further, a specific award for "character and habits” is unauthorized in any amount. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Evans, Markewich, Yesawich and Sullivan, JJ.
### §5903. Regulations

The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe such regulations as it considers necessary for the administration of this subchapter.

(Added Pub. L. 90–83, §1(40)(A), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 206; amended Pub. L. 96–54, §2(a)(2), Aug. 14, 1979, 93 Stat. 381; Pub. L. 101–509, title V, §529 [title II, §202(b)], Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1427, 1456.)

| Section of title 5 | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5903 | 5: 5901(d). | [None.] |

The regulatory authority contained in 5 U.S.C. 5901(d), the source statute for which was section 404 of the act of September 1, 1954, ch. 1208, 68 Stat. 1115, applies also to section 405 of that act (added by section 407 of the act of July 18, 1966, Public Law 89–504, 80 Stat. 299). Section 405 is codified as 5 U.S.C. 5902 by this bill.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–509 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section read as follows: "The President shall prescribe regulations necessary for the uniform administration of this subchapter."

1979—Pub. L. 96–54 substituted "President" for "Director of the Bureau of the Budget".

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

#### Effective Date of 1990 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–509 effective on such date as the President shall determine, but not earlier than 90 days, and not later than 180 days, after Nov. 5, 1990, see section 529 [title III, §305] of Pub. L. 101–509, set out as a note under section 5301 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1979 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 96–54 effective July 12, 1979, see section 2(b) of Pub. L. 96–54, set out as a note under section 305 of this title.
#### Morris Bauman, Respondent, v. Lynn Bauman, Appellant. Lynn Bauman, Appellant, v. Morris Bauman, Respondent.

In consolidated separation actions, by the husband on the ground of abandonment and by the wife on the ground of cruelty, abandonment and refusal to cohabit, the wife appeals from so much of two orders of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, both dated February 8, 1962, as, *pendente*lite: (1) awarded custody of their infant child Jeffrey, to the husband; (2) limited to $25 per week the allowance for the support of the infant Sara-Beth, a child of the wife’s prior marriage adopted by the husband; (3) denied the wife’s application for temporary alimony in each action; and (4) denied counsel fees in her action. Orders, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs (see *Goldberg*v. *Goldberg,*4 A D 2d 884). No opinion. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.