alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6645
MICHAEL ANTHONY DUNCAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versusBISHOP L. ROBINSON, Secretary; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-822-JFM) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: February 26, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Anthony Duncan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* We note that, before Appellant files any subsequent habeas petitions in the district court, he must seek authorization to file a successive petition with this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244, 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his second petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. * Duncan v. Robinson , No. CA-97-822- JFM (D. Md. Mar. 31, 1997). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### 29.401-2 Construction contracts performed in North Carolina.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.229-2, North Carolina State and Local Sales and Use Tax, in solicitations and contracts for construction to be performed in North Carolina. If the requirement is for vessel repair to be performed in North Carolina, the clause shall be used with its *Alternate I.*
#### 2817.104 General.

The SPE is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 17.104(b).
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:37
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:38
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:39
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:40
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:41
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:42
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:43
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:44
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:45
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:46
Case: 1:12-cv-05617 Document #: 12 Filed: 08/31/12 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:47
- "Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program: Applying for MSEIP in FY 2023"Pre-Application Webinar: April 19-21, 2023 MS PowerPoint (1.4M)
- "Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program:Applying for MSEIP in FY 2015"Pre-Application Webinar: April 28-29, 2015 MS PowerPoint (3.7M)
- "Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program:Applying for MSEIP in FY 2011”Pre-Application Webinar: July 27-28, 2011 MS Word (37K) | PDF (819K)
- Office of Postsecondary Education - Applicant and Grantee Resources

Institutional Service Home
Full Document PDF (9.14M)

Message From the Secretary PDF (609K)

**Management's Discussion and Analysis**PDF (1.58M)

- About the Management's Discussion and Analysis/About the Department    PDF (251K)
- The Department's Approach to Performance    PDF (292K)
- Financial Highlights    PDF (422K)
- Secretary's Statement of Assurance/Analysis of Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance    PDF (293K)
- Forward-Looking Information    PDF (287K)

**Financial Section**PDF (2.39M)

- Message from CFO    PDF (434K)
- About the Financial Section    PDF (228K)
- Financial Statements    PDF (236K)
- Notes to Financial Statements    PDF (576K)
- Required Supplementary Information    PDF (251K)
- Report of the Independent Auditors    PDF (803K)

**Other Information**PDF (2.94M)

- Office of the Inspector General's Management and Performance Challenges for Fiscal Year 2021   PDF (675K)
- Summary of Financial Statement Audit and Management Assurances    PDF (206K)
- Payment Integrity Information Act Reporting    PDF (249K)
- Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustment for Inflation    PDF (224K)
- GONE Act of 2016 and Education's Grant Closeout Process    PDF (219K)

**Appendices**PDF (2.73M)

| Properties: | Title: U.S. Department of Education FY 2020  Agency Financial Report          |
|-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        | Author:  U.S.  Department of Education, Office of the Chief Financial Officer |
Ms. Friedman:

Jeff McKinney of Eramet Marietta Inc. forwarded me your request for clarification regarding ENVIRON’s analysis of EPA’s

activated carbon injection requirement and I have checked with the appropriate ENVIRON staff.

ENVIRON concluded that EMIs Furnace #1 could be approximated to a 70 MW unit based on the relative exhaust flows

(i.e., flue gas flow for 500 MW unit is 2,068,502 acfm according to S&L study and EMI Furnace #1 exhaust flow is 282,090

acfm). The scaling is then expressed as (500*282,090)/(2,068,502) = 68.18, which was rounded to 70 MW.

If you have any additional questions regarding EMI’s comments, please forward them directly to Casey Bradford and to

John Rego • Environmental, Health & Safety

901 LAKESIDE AVENUE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114

DIRECT 216586.7542 FAX 216.579.0212 JREGOJONESDAY.COM

This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential, or protected by attorney-client

or other privilege. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your system without copying it and notifysender by reply e-mail, so that our records can be corrected.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHELE F. O'BRYAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. 12 C 5305

)

POSTRACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )

DONALD HEIDRICH, MARK AUBRY, )

WILLIAM WASHBURN and STEVEN )

GONZALO, )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________________ )

)

POSTRACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )

)

Counter-Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MICHELE F. O'BRYAN and DOUGLAS )

SPITZ, )

)

 Counter and )

Third-Party Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Michele O'Bryan ("O'Bryan") has filed her Answer plus an affirmative defense to the

Counterclaims brought against her in this action. This memorandum order is issued sua sponte

to address one problematic aspect of that responsive pleading.

In each of Answer ¶¶3, 13 and 22 O'Bryan's counsel has coupled a denial with a

disjunctive disclaimer under Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b)(5) as to certain allegations of the

Counterclaims. Although federal practice does permit some internally inconsistent pleading

Case: 1:12-cv-05305 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/17/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:276
under appropriate circumstances, what has been attempted here is not one of them. 

Accordingly each of those hybrid assertions is stricken. O'Bryan is granted until

December 27, 2012 to choose which of those two inconsistent alternatives should be asserted in

the three paragraphs referred to above, in compliance with the subjective and objective good faith

demanded by Rule 11(b).

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: December 17, 2012

- 2 -

Case: 1:12-cv-05305 Document #: 44 Filed: 12/17/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:277
#### Joseph Scala, Respondent, v. Max Bass, Defendant, and Salvatore Scala et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. William Schreiber, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party-Defendants.

In a severed third-party action against United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, a liability insurance carrier and third-party defendant, the said insurance company appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 20, 1963, which denied, without prejudice, its motion: (a) to further amend its second amended answer so as to plead noncoverage; or (b) for a direction that proof of such noncoverage is admissible under the denials pleaded in the second amended answer. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, proof of non-coverage, if otherwise competent and material, may be received, under the circumstances of this record, under a general denial *(Tolmie*v. *Fidelity & Cas. Co.,*95 App. Div. 352, affd. 183 N. Y. 581). The third-party defendant is not foreclosed, by its failure to appeal from the previous order striking out its defense of noncoverage, from offering such proof under the denials contained in its second amended answer. (For prior related decisions, see 17 Misc 2d 981, 23 Misc 2d 83, 13 A D 2d 968, 19 A D 2d 559.) Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
# Chiricahua National Monument

Visitors e xpect beautiful views, not haze.

Apache Generating Station is located less than 40 miles from the Monument.

Photos of Hatchett Peak vista taken by Colorado State University, as part of a series taken at 3 p.m. during the years 1986

- 89 to show various levels of haze in this class 1 airshed.

Conditions like this still persist. ( http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Datawarehouse/IMPROVE/Data/Photos/CHIR_HP/start.htm )
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

## FY 2023

Number of New Awards:  16Average Award:  $556,915Total new awards:  $8,910,642 

## FY 2022

Number of New Awards:  14Average award:  $525,000Total new awards:  $8,027,942

## FY 2021

Number of New Awards:  16Average award:  $441,500Total new awards: $6,873,010 

## FY 2020

Number of new awards: 16  Average award: $441,500  Total new awards funded: $6,954,250

###  For Historical Purposes Only - Previous CEVSS Funding 

## FY 2019

Number of new awards: 0  Total new award funding: 0 (no appropriation)

## FY 2018

Number of new awards: 0  Total new award funding: 0 (no appropriation)

## FY 2017

Number of new awards: 0  Total new award funding: 0 (no appropriation)

## FY 2016

Number of new awards: 0Total new award funding: 0 (no appropriation)

## FY 2015

Number of new awards: 13Average award: $330,000Total new awards funded: $4,961,846

## FY 2011

Number of new awards: 0Total new award funding: 0 (no appropriation)

FIPSE Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Grillo, James [James.Grillo@ct.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:28 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: Original Montville permit 2010

Attachments: 107-0056 Evaluation for Major Sources _Jan 19 2010_.pdf; 107-0056 Final Memo _April 

6.pdf; 107-0056 Permit _Issued 4-6-2010_.pdf

Shareerah,

I will send you two emails so not to get the files mixed up between the two permit reviews.

Attached are the final permit, technical evaluation, and final memo for the original permit that was issued in 2010.

Just so you know, this source is an existing No. 6/natural gas fired 82 MW EGU that was proposed to be converted to a

42 MW biomass base load plant with the ability to peak at 82 MW on fossil fuel.

If you have any questions let me know.

Jim

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:36 AM 

To: Grillo, James 

Subject: RE: 

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your response. Yes, I would like the original permit and recent modification. I appreciate your help.

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

Permits Office, Air Division 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Grillo, James [mailto:James.Grillo@ct.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 4:56 AM 

To: Kelly, Shaheerah 

Subject: 

Shaheerah, 

 

Gary Rose forwarded your request for information on the Montville biomass project. There was a major-modification 

recently, May 20th, done to that permit incorporate CO2e PSD/BACT as our state rules did not exempt biomass from GHG 

PSD. 

Let me know if you would like both the original permit and recent modification along with the supporting documentation 

or only the original permit that you referenced in your request. Also, this plant has not been constructed at time, so none 

of the emission rates have been verified. 
2

 

Jim 

 

James A. Grillo 

Air Pollution Control Engineer

CT Dept. of Energy and Environmental Protection

Bureau Of Air Management 

Ph: 860-424-3570

E-mail: james.grillo@ct.gov

Website: http://www.ct.gov/deep

From: Kelly, Shaheerah [mailto:Kelly.Shaheerah@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 4:15 PM 

To: Rose, Gary 

Subject: MONTVILLE POWER LLC-NRG ENERGY facility 

Dear Gary Rose,

You are listed as the contact for the MONTVILLE POWER LLC‐NRG ENERGY facility (RBLC # CT‐0156) in the EPA RACT/BACT/LAER

Clearinghouse (RBLC). I would like to obtain a copy of the final PSD permit issued on 4/6/2010. I would also like to obtain a copy of

the statement of basis and any document that responds to public comments. Please send me these documents or let me know how I

can obtain these documents.

Feel free to contact me for questions.

Thank you.

************************************ 

Shaheerah Kelly

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

Permits Office, Air Division 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov
# C_2017109EN.01000101.xml

| 7.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8397 — Partners Group/Cerba Healthcare)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2017/C 109/01)

On 30 March 2017, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8397. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32017M8397. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT
NO. 32





CERTIFICATION
OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. §1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


§906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with the Form 10-K of Colony Bankcorp, Inc. (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Al D. Ross, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Terry L. Hester, Chief Financial and
Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of our knowledge and belief that:





(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.








/s/ Al D. RossAl
      D. RossPresident
      and Chief Executive OfficerMarch
      13, 2009/s/ Terry L. HesterTerry
      L. HesterChief
      Financial and Accounting OfficerMarch
      13,
2009





This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### In the Matter of Ruth Roth, Respondent, v Edward A. Lipton, Appellant.

Judgment (denominated an order) of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered July 26, 1978, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to delete the words "first and final” with respect to the accounting provided for in the first decretal paragraph, and to delete the last decretal paragraph, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The trustee, a member of the Bar, had a long-standing friendly relationship with the settlor (life beneficiary) and remaindermen of a trust that was informally administered. Nonetheless, the beneficiaries are entitled to an accounting to the best of the trustee’s ability to make it. The order entered was not in accord with the opinion at Special Term. The accounting provided for should not have been characterized as "first and final”, nor should there have been a provision for substitution of the trustee. The matter of a substitution is one that can be considered by the court if a motion is made to that effect after the accounting has been settled. The fact that provision is made for an accounting does not of and in itself in any way raise any question as to the good faith of the trustee. The accounting in accordance with the order at Special Term, as herewith modified, shall be made within 60 days of the service of a copy of the order entered herein with notice of entry. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Fein, Markewich and Bloom, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Helen Moore, Appellant, v. Wassaic Sales et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

This appeal by the claimant is from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board that “ the claimant was hired as a domestic worker and was not an employee of Wassaic Sales.” The claimant was hired as a substitute for the regular housekeeper, who was on vacation, to work for Mr. and Mrs. William P. Smith. While the testimony of the claimant was somewhat equivocal, in response to a question as to her daily wage and her work, she stated: “ It isn’t exactly housework. I don’t go for housework, I go for companion and convalescent cases. I don’t go in for housework because it is too heavy for me She further stated that on occasions she received phone calls, took messages and assisted customers of Wassaic Sales on behalf of her employer, who was the general manager of Wassaic Sales. The board considering this testimony and the record as a whole, could and did find her employment was that of a domestic and caring for Mr. Smith’s invalid wife. The fact that there was an office and the claimant received calls and attended to other details would not necessarily make her an employee of Wassaic Sales. Mr. Smith testified that the claimant was hired as a substitute for the regular housekeeper and that she was to do “ Anything that came into the house to be attended to; business, collections, take care of my wife, cooking, anything”. Under such circumstances, the board was not bound to find that the employer of the claimant was Wassaic Sales. The issue was factual and there is substantial evidence to sustain the finding that the claimant was a domestic. There was considerable testimony as to when the claimant was put on the payroll of Wassaic Sales. It is not disputed that the regular housekeeper was never on the payroll of Wassaic Sales until after this particular accident. The testimony is that the claimant was put on the payroll in July — the accident- happened on July 15 — and the board could readily find from a review of this particular testimony that being placed on the payroll of Wassaic Sales took place following the accident. It was a question of credibility within the sole province of the board. The appellants rely upon *Matter of Sabre*v. *Marie Sheridan, Inc.*(6 A D 2d 953) but in that case the board found that there was a relationship of employer and employee against the noninsured employer and we reversed and remitted on the question of that relationship. Here, the board did not reach the question of employer-employee relationship but dismissed the claim on the finding that the claimant was a domestic worker. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.