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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1009

DORA ELLEN CAUDLE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court.

(Tax Ct. No. 024408-14L)

Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dora Ellen Caudle, Appellant Pro Se. Janet A. Bradley, Bridget 

Maria Rowen, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dora Ellen Caudle appeals from the tax court’s orders 

upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s proposed levy 

action with respect to her income tax liability for the 2008 tax 

year, and denying her motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the tax court. Caudle v. Comm’r, No. 

024408-14L (U.S.T.C. Aug. 7, 2015 & Sept. 22, 2015). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                      ----------------------------------


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-86189) filed on August 30, 1999 and amended
September 17, 1999 and Form S-8 (No. 333-82325) filed on July 6, 1999 of Wyndham
International, Inc. of our reports dated February 15, 2000 except as to the
information in Note 21 for which the date is March 27, 2000 relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this
Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 29, 2000
#### MYERS, Respondent, v. PRITCHARD, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Theodore W. Myers against Reuben L. *1137Pritchard.

R. L. Pritchard, for appellant.

B. N. Cardozo, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
# FY 2019

# Sheet2

# Sheet3
From: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Higgins, Cortney" < Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov >

Cc: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/15/2012 07:43 AM

Subject: RE: EO 12866 review

- NESHAP Portland Cement Interagency Review response

Hello Cortney

This is not a new requirement

- it's just an assumption of how the plants operate. We were trying to add

additional discussion on how the PM CEMS is problematic since fac ilities operate at even lower levels

than the actual limit, thereby having even more issues with using the PM CEMS. So, are you saying you

would prefer we put this in parentheses, or do you want to have the call today to discuss?

In addition, to stay in co mpliance, sources would be required to operate at average levels of .02 to .03

lb/ton clinker, which equates to 3 to 5 mg/dscm.

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS

- US EPA

RTP NC 27711

91 9/541

- 2825

From: "Higgins, Cortney" < Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov >

To: Sharon Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 06/14/2012 05: 16 PM

Subject: RE: EO 12866 review

- NESHAP Portland Cement Interagency Review response

Sharon

– to clarify, the inserted text is highlighting the point that in order to comply with the prior

standard of 0.04, sources would need to on average be at 0.02 to 0.03? It might be helpful to add a

parenthetical explaining the compliance margin assumption.

Thanks,

CortneyFrom: Higgins, Cortney

Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 5:10 PM

To: Sharon Nizich

Cc: Barnett.Keith@epamail.epa.gov ; Charlotte Bertrand

( Bertrand.Charlotte@epamail.epa.gov )

Subject: RE: EO 12866 review

- NESHAP Portland Cement Interagency Review response

HI Sharon,

This seems like a new requirement

– can we have a conversation tomorrow (I’m free from 10

- 2 and 3

- 5)

to talk about the insert on page 47 :

In addition, to stay in compliance, sources would be required to operate at average levels of .02 to .03

lb/ton clinker, which e quates to 3 to 5 mg/dscm.

Thanks,

Cortney

From: Sharon Nizich [mailto:Nizich.Sharon@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 11:02 AM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Cc: Tom Walton; A my Lamson; Steven Silverman; Laney, Michael N.; Keith Barnett;

Charlotte Bertrand; Beth Wittig; Wendy Blake

Subject: EO 12866 review

- NESHAP Portland Cement Interagency Review response

Hello Cortney

Please find attached revisions to subject package. Sen ding you the redline version so you can track your

comments. Note we have added additional discussion on 1) soliciting comments on SS work practices

(page 91), and 2) oxygen correction factors for raw material dryers (page 119).

(See attached file: EO1286 6_NESHAP FOR Portland Cement S 2060 AQ93 06112012_version

_w_OMB_comments_MASTER Jun 14 2012 1100 am.docx)

Sharon V. Nizich

Minerals and Manufacturing Group (MMG)

Sector Policies and Programs Division

OAQPS

- US EPA

RTP NC 27711

919/541

- 2825
- 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 |
|                                        |

## Annual Performance Report

The 2022-23 Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) annual performance report (APR) is available as of January 24, 2024. All EOC grantees are required to submit their 2022-23 APRs via the TRIO APR Web Portal at https://trio.ed.gov. Grantees must submit their reports by February 28, 2024. To access all relevant documents including the APR form and instructions, please CLICK HERE.  

## GPRA Reports

The U.S. Department of Education’s annual *Government Performance and Results Act* (GPRA) report for the Educational Opportunity Centers (EOC) program contains outcome data for two measures—postsecondary enrollment and percentage of participants classified as both low-income and potential first-generation college students—and one measure of program efficiency.  To obtain the narrative report(s) and/or data table(s), click on the link(s) below.

## Grantee-Level Performance Results:

## 2020-21

                - Narrative Report     MS Word  (103K)
                - Data Tables    MS Excel  (67K)

## 2021-22

                - Narrative Report     MS Word  (99K)
                - Data Tables    MS Excel  (75K)

TRIO 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
- 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 Elementary and Secondary Education Home |
|                                                   |

The following Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), while drafted for the FY 2018 Emergency Impact Aid program, are applicable in FY 2019. Please note, however, that the list of eligible applicants in question A-3 of the FAQs is out of date. The applicable list of eligible applicants for the FY 2019 funding can be found under the Eligibility tab off the program’s homepage.

Frequently Asked Questions, 2019 Program
PDF

----

 

 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
Case 1:01-cv-01537-PLF Document 128 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 1 of 2Case 1:01-cv-01537-PLF Document 128 Filed 09/10/2009 Page 2 of 2
#### Odell REED, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Julia LAFOON, Nurse at Brunswick Correctional Center; she is sued in her individual and official capacity; Alvin E. Harris, Doctor at Brunswick Correctional Center; he is sued in his individual and official capacity; K. Runion, Warden at Brunswick Correctional Center; he is sued in his individual and official capacity; Fred Schilling, Health Service Director for Virginia Department of Corrections; he is sued in his individual and official capacity; Gene M. Johnson, Director for the Virginia Department of Corrections; he is sued in his individual and official capacity, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 07-6650.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2007.

Decided: Nov. 13, 2007.

Odell Reed, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*284Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Odell Reed, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Reed v. Lafoon,*No. 1:07-cv-00186-CMH (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 28, 2007 & entered Apr. 2, 2007). We deny Reed’s motion to submit new evidence and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7145

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAMES DEVON POWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-01-295; CA-03-862-H-5)

Submitted: December 10, 2004 Decided: December 29, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Andrew McBride, Beverly Hills, California, for Appellant.

Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Devon Powell seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Powell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability,

and we dismiss the appeal. 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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MAURICE LAND

,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee. §

§

§ No. 143 , 2021

§

§ Court Below

— Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. ID No. 14080076 75 A ( S )

§

§

§

Submitted: August 30 , 2021

Decided: November 5 , 2021

Before VALIHURA

, VAUGHN

, and TRAYNOR

, Justices.

ORDE R

A fter careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the appellee’s

motion to affirm, and the record on appeal

, we conclude that the judgment below

should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons assigned in the Superior

Court’s April 15, 2021 order den ying the appellant’s secon d motion for

postconviction relief. The appellant’s re

- packaging and re

- litigat ion of surveillance

video claims that were raised before and during trial did not constitute new evidence

creating a strong inference of his actual innocence

. 1

1 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2) (i) (providing that a second or subseq u e n t motion for postconviction

relief will be summarily dismissed unless the movant was convicted after trial and plead s with

particularity new evidence creating a strong inference of actual innocence)

.2

NOW, T HEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is

GRANTED and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice
From: "Baldi, Sara Marie" <SMBaldi@rrienergy.com> 

To: "Thomas Finseth" <Thomas.Finseth@erg.com>, <alicea.jezebele@epa.gov>, <swietlik.william@epa.gov>, "Becky 

Schwantes" <Becky.Schwantes@erg.com>, "Deborah Bartram" <Deborah.Bartram@erg.com> 

CC: "Jacklin, Mark J" <mjacklin@rrienergy.com>, "Kosinski, John" <jkosinski@rrienergy.com>, "Hill, Donna B." 

<DBHILL@southernco.com>, "Aldridge, Elizabeth" <ealdridge@hunton.com>, "Baldi, Sara Marie" <SMBaldi@rrienergy.com> 

Date: 8/27/2010 2:49 PM 

Subject: RE: Draft Keystone Sampling Plan 

Attachments: Draft Keystone Sampling Plan_rri comments.DOC 

Good afternoon, folks. 

I apologize for not returning comments sooner. Attached is a mark-up 

of the draft sampling plan for Keystone facility scheduled for the week 

of September 12th. I believe that the ESPs are designed to remove 99.5 

percent of the flyash from the flue gas but am in the process of 

confirming this. The remaining questions from ERG in the plan have 

been addressed. 

Does Tuesday morning, the 31st, work for a conference call with you, 

UWAG folks, and the appropriate plant personnel to discuss the logistics 

of the sampling? Plant folks include Mark Jacklin, the POC for 

Keystone, and John Kosinski, the FGD manager. 

Thanks. Have a great weekend! 

Sara Marie Baldi 

 

RRI Energy, Inc. 

work: 724-597-8633 

cell: 724-263-9276 

fax: 724-597-8870 

 

 

________________________________ 

From: Thomas Finseth [mailto:Thomas.Finseth@erg.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:06 PM 

To: Jacklin, Mark J; Baldi, Sara Marie 

Cc: alicea.jezebele@epa.gov; swietlik.william@epa.gov; Becky Schwantes; 

Deborah Bartram 

Subject: Draft Keystone Sampling Plan 

 

Hi Sara Marie and Mark, 

 

Attached please find a draft of the sampling plan for the planned EPA 

sampling episode at the Keystone Generating Station. Please note there 

are several highlighted questions for the plant in the text of the 

sampling plan. EPA would like to receive any comments and answers to 

these questions by August 18th. 

 

Additionally, we would like to have a conference call with the plant 

prior to the sampling episode to discuss the planned sampling approach, 

logistics, and schedule for the sampling episode. I expect that the 

conference call would take about an hour. As part of the 

logistics/schedule, we will discuss the timing for our arrival at the 

plant on Sunday, September 12th. 

 

Please let us know what times work best for a conference call with the 

plant the week of August 16th or the week of August 30th. Additionally, 

please let me or Ron know if you have any questions about the sampling 
plan, or if you have any concerns regarding the timing for your reviews. 

 

Thanks, 

 

 

TJ Finseth 

ERG 

14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 

Chantilly, VA 20151 

(703) 633-1698 (phone) 

(703) 263-7479 (fax) 

thomas.finseth@erg.com
IA 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 13 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to the authority of Congress and the States to regulate contributions 

and expenditures intended to affect elections and to enact public financing systems for political campaigns. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Mr. PHILLIPS, Mr. MCGOVERN, and Ms. JAYAPAL) 

submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to the authority of Congress and the 

States to regulate contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections and to enact public financing 

systems for political campaigns. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 13 IH 

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

2 for ratification: 

3 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. Congress and the States may regulate 

5 and impose reasonable viewpoint-neutral limitations on the 

6 raising and spending of money by candidates and others 

7 to influence elections. 

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. Congress and the States may regulate 

9 and enact systems of public campaign financing, including 

10 those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth 

11 by offsetting the raising and spending of money by can12 didates and others to influence elections with increased 

13 public funding. 

14 ‘‘SECTION 3. Congress and the States shall have 

15 power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate 

16 legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons 

17 and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, 

18 including by prohibiting such entities from spending 

19 money to influence elections. 

20 ‘‘SECTION 4. Nothing in this article shall be con21 strued to grant Congress or the States the power to 

22 abridge the freedom of the press.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS