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

DATE: 11/24/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA)

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to the Jacksonville Electric on October 28,

2014; specifically, regarding JEA’s questions about how to handle and account for their current and

anticipated out of state generation. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed 

on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

David McNeal/EPA R4

Keith Goff/EPA R4

Mikhail Adamantiades/EPA OAP

Nicholas Swanson/EPA OAP

Beth Conlin/EPA OAQPS

Lora Strine/EPA OAQPS

External Stakeholders

Bud Para/JEA

Nancy Kilgo/JEA
#### Theodore B. Wells, by his next friend, Herbert J. Wells, appellee, v. Ann Naylor Wells, appellant.

Gen. No. 35,086.

McSurely, J., dissents.

Opinion filed April 9, 1931.

Rehearing denied April 21, 1931.

Miller, Gorham & Wales, for appellant.

Stevens, Carrier & Griffith, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Matehett

delivered the opinion of the court.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10030 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Donovan Lemont Bookman,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05

- CR

- 15

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,**  and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Donovan Lemont Bookman was sentenced to 26 months of imprisonment after he pleaded true to violating certain terms of the supervised release imposed following his 2005 conviction for possession of

a firearm by a felon. On appeal, he challenges the constit utionality of

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 5, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10030 Document: 00516381882 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2022No. 22

- 10030

2 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), which mandates revocation of supervised release and

a term of imprisonment for any offender who violates certain conditions of supervised release, including prohibitions on possessing a controlled substance. Relying on Un ited States v. Haymond , 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), Bookman contends that § 3583(g) is unconstitutional because it requires revocation of a term of supervised release and imposition of a term of imprisonment without affording the defendant the constitutionally guaranteed right to

a jury trial. He concedes that his challenge is foreclosed by United States v.
Garner , 969 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1439 (2021), and he raises the issue to preserve it for further review. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance and, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief.

In Garner , we rejected the argument that Bookman has advanced and held that § 3583(g) is not unconstitutional under Haymond

. Se e Garner , 969 F.3d at 551

- 53. Thus, Bookman’s sole argument on appeal is foreclosed. Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is
**GRANTED** , its alternative motion for extension of time is **DENIED** , and the judgment of the district court is **AFFIRMED**

. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Case: 22-10030 Document: 00516381882 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2022
#### 604.7102-3 Approval.

The solicitation, contract, or contract modification being reviewed shall not be issued until all review comments requiring corrective action are satisfactorily resolved. Waivers shall not be granted except in unusual circumstances, and shall be approved in advance by the head of the contracting activity.
Government Regulatory

Impact Model

8/29/2006 

REVENUE BY YEAR

0

200400600800

1,0001,2001,400

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

$ millions
§ 1.335 Determining the amount of penalties and assessments. ( a ) In determining an appropriate amount of civil penalties and assessments, the ALJ and the judicial officer, upon appeal, should evaluate any circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the violation and should articulate in their opinions the reasons that support the penalties and assessments they impose. Because of the intangible costs of fraud, the expense of investigating such conduct, and the need to deter others who might be similarly tempted, ordinarily double damages and a significant civil penalty should be imposed.
( b ) Although not exhaustive, the following factors are among those that may influence the ALJ and the judicial officer in determining the amount of penalties and assessments to impose with respect to the misconduct (*i.e.*, the false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements) charged in the complaint: ( 1 ) The number of false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements;
( 2 ) The time period over which such claims or statements were made;
( 3 ) The degree of the respondent's culpability with respect to the misconduct;
( 4 ) The amount of money or the value of the property, services, or benefit falsely claimed;
( 5 ) The value of the Government's actual loss as a result of the misconduct, including foreseeable consequential damages and the costs of investigation;
( 6 ) The relationship of the amount imposed as civil penalties to the amount of the Government's loss;
( 7 ) The potential or actual impact of the misconduct upon national defense, public health or safety, or public confidence in the management of Government programs and operations, including particularly the impact on the intended beneficiaries of such programs;
( 8 ) Whether the respondent has engaged in a pattern of the same or similar misconduct;
( 9 ) Whether the respondent attempted to conceal the misconduct;
( 10 ) The degree to which the respondent has involved others in the misconduct or in concealing it;
( 11 ) Where the misconduct of employees or agents is imputed to the respondent, the extent to which the respondent's practices fostered or attempted to preclude such misconduct;
( 12 ) Whether the respondent cooperated in or obstructed an investigation of the misconduct;
( 13 ) Whether the respondent assisted in identifying and prosecuting other wrongdoers;
( 14 ) The complexity of the program or transaction, and the degree of the respondent's sophistication with respect to it, including the extent of the respondent's prior participation in the program or in similar transactions;
( 15 ) Whether the respondent has been found, in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding to have engaged in similar misconduct or to have dealt dishonestly with the government of the United States or of a State, directly or indirectly; and
( 16 ) The need to deter the respondent and others from any engaging in the same or similar misconduct.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ALJ or the judicial officer from considering any other factors that in any given case may mitigate or aggravate the acts for which penalties and assessments are imposed.
#### George W. Wehrmeyer et al., Respondents, v. State of New York et al., Appellants.

(Claim No. 38474.)

— Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum. Memorandum: We have heretofore in *Wineburgh*v. *State of New York*(20 A D 2d 961) passed upon several of the issues presented in this appeal. The lands appropriated herein are in the same subdivision as is the Wineburgh property. In fact the appropriated land of respondents is directly opposite on Highland (James) Avenue the land appropriated from Wineburgh. Near the center of Highland Avenue between the two properties is the tower discussed in the *Wineburgh*case (supra). Upon the trial herein there were ambiguous references to the location of the tower. Thus, one of the claimants in answer to a leading question asked by the court agreed that one could not drive “down there * * * because of the tower.” Following the trial the parties apparently recognized- the deficiencies in the record and ■ entered into a stipulation reciting, among other facts, that the northerly point of the tower was 20 feet south of the northerly boundary of Highland Avenue and the southerly point of the tower was 13 feet north of the southerly boundary of the same street. An expert called by claimants testified that the remaining land owned by claimants was deprived of all access by reason of the construction of the tower and expressed the opinion that the damage for the appropriated land was $14,250 with consequential damage to *750the remainder of $11,000 for a total of $25,250. The State’s expert valued the appropriated land at $6,800 and found no consequential damage. The trial court in its decision found that claimants’ access to their remaining lands had been impaired and fixed the damages in the sum of $16,250 *“*for land taken and consequential damages”. Thus, the failure of the court to state separately the found direct and consequential damages subjects the decision to the deficiencies that we have pointed out in a series of recent cases *(Chisholm-Ryder Co.*v. *State of New York,*21 A D 2d 748; *Ahleim*v. *State of New York,*21 A D 2d 747; *Wineburgh*v. *State of New York,*20 A D 2d 961, *supra).*Upon remand the trial court should make appropriate findings as to the separate items of damage. In view of the piecemeal fashion in which the proof was submitted the record is far from satisfactory as to the degree of claimants’ access to their remaining and unappropriated lands following the construction of the tower and transmission line in Highland Avenue. We are not directing a new trial but the parties, if they so desire, should have an opportunity to submit additional proof on this subject in the light of our decision in *Winebwrgh*v. *State of New York (supra).*(Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims for claimants on a claim for permanent appropriation of realty.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
#### § 1131.45 Market administrator's reports and announcements concerning classification.

See § 1000.45.
Exhibit 10.47  February 14,
2005  Kevin R. Sayer  Re:          Retention Agreement  Dear Kevin:  As you are aware, following the departure of Rick Belluzzo and Doug
Harrington, there are some significant organizational changes occurring here at
Specialty Laboratories (Specialty).  To encourage your support and as a further incentive for you to stay
with the company as a valued employee, subject to the conditions specified in
this letter, we are offering you an incentive bonus of $150,000 as specified
below.  Payment of such bonus is
expressly contingent on your continued employment with Specialty through at
least May 15, 2005.  If you are still
employed with Specialty on May 15, 2005, and have not been terminated for Cause
(as defined in your Employment Agreement dated April 12, 2004) prior to May 15,
2005, Specialty will pay you the $150,000 incentive bonus (less required
deductions) in a lump sum.  Should you
resign or be terminated for Cause before May 15, 2005, you will not be eligible
for the incentive bonus.  If you are
involuntarily terminated other than for Cause prior to May 15, 2005, you will
receive the $150,000 incentive bonus, as well as any severance pay owed to you
under you Employment Agreement.  You will naturally still be subject to Specialtys standard policies
and procedures, and all other terms of your Employment Agreement with Specialty
will remain in full effect.  If you are in agreement with the terms herein, please countersign
below.   Sincerely,/s/ Nicholas R. SimmonsNicholas R. Simmons, Esq., forRichard K. Whitney, Chairman of the Board of Directors


/s/ Kevin R. Sayer
  
  14 February 2005Kevin R. Sayer
  
  Date
#### In the Matter of Virginia M. Dale, Appellant, v. Kenneth W. Martin, Respondent.

Motion granted to the extent that the appeal will be heard upon five typewritten copies of appellant’s brief and upon the original papers on file in the Wayne County Family Court Clerk’s office and otherwise the motion is denied without prejudice to make an application to the Wayne County Family Court for its decision as to whether a copy of the transcript of the minutes should be furnished, without charge, pursuant to *Jenks*v. *Murphy*(21 A D 2d 346).
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Teen Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Videos      

# Teen Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Videos

The Choose Your Path activity includes two interactive videos that allow teens to assume the role of the main character and make decisions about whether to abuse certain prescription drugs. 

http://teens.drugabuse.gov/peerx/choose-your-path?utm_source=FindYouthInfo.gov&utm_medium=Federal%20Links&utm_campaign=Reports-and-Resources
steam_record - Re: RRI Coolwater Generating Station - ICR Extension Request 

 

Greetings, 

This e-mail is a confirmation that your extension request for the steam electric effluent 

guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. Please be aware that submittal of an extension request to EPA does not alter the due date

of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agrees to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, 

-----"Swift, Stephen G." <SSwift@rrienergy.com> wrote: ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Swift, Stephen G." <SSwift@rrienergy.com> 

Date: 07/08/2010 04:24PM 

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Swift, Stephen G." <SSwift@rrienergy.com>

Date: 7/9/2010 12:50 PM

Subject: Re: RRI Coolwater Generating Station - ICR Extension Request

Attachments: RRI Coolwater Extension Req.pdf

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C371B10DO... 6/29/2011
cc: "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com>, "Frank, Stephen" 

<SFrank@rrienergy.com>, "Whelan, Kerry M." <KWhelan@rrienergy.com>, "Ott, Robert N." 

<RNOtt@rrienergy.com> 

Subject: RRI Coolwater Generating Station - ICR Extension Request 

Please see the attachment for our extension request for the ICR we recently received. 

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C371B10DO... 6/29/2011
9.307 Government administration procedures. ( a ) Before the contractor ships the first article, or the first article test report, to the Government laboratory or other activity responsible for approval at the address specified in the contract, the contract administration office shall provide that activity with as much advance notification as is feasible of the forthcoming shipment, and— ( 1 ) Advise that activity of the contractual requirements for testing and approval, or evaluation, as appropriate;
( 2 ) Call attention to the notice requirement in paragraph (b) of the clause at 52.209-3, First Article Approval—Contractor Testing, or 52.209-4, First Article Approval—Government Testing; and
( 3 ) Request that the activity inform the contract administration office of the date when testing or evaluation will be completed.
( b ) The Government laboratory or other activity responsible for first article testing or evaluation shall inform the contracting office whether to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the first article. The contracting officer shall then notify the contractor of the action taken and furnish a copy of the notice to the contract administration office. The notice shall include the first article shipment number, when available, and the applicable line item number. Any changes in the drawings, designs, or specifications determined by the contracting officer to be necessary shall be made under the Changes clause, and not by the notice of approval, conditional approval, or disapproval furnished the contractor.
[48 FR 42142, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 82 FR 4713, Jan. 13, 2017]
**Exhibit 32-1****Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code**     The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofExelon Corporation for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, that (i) the reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Exelon Corporation.     Date: October 26, 2005 /s/John W. Rowe   John W. Rowe  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
14.1  Code of
Ethics








1.04
Business Ethics and Conduct





The
successful business operation and reputation of the Company is built upon the
principles of fair dealing and ethical conduct of our employees. Our reputation
for integrity and excellence requires careful observance of the spirit and
letter of all applicable laws and regulations, as well as a scrupulous regard
for the highest standards of conduct and personal integrity.





The
continued success of the Company is dependent upon our customers' trust and we
are dedicated to preserving that trust. Employees owe a duty to the Company, its
customers, and shareholders to act in a way that will merit the continued trust
and confidence of the public.





The
Company will comply with all applicable laws and regulations and expects its
directors, officers, and employees to conduct business in accordance with the
letter, spirit, and intent of all relevant laws and to refrain from any illegal,
dishonest, or unethical conduct.





In
general, the use of good judgment, based on high ethical principles, will guide
you with respect to lines of acceptable conduct. If a situation arises where it
is difficult to determine the proper course of action, the matter should be
discussed openly with your immediate supervisor and, if necessary, with the
Human Resources Department for advice and consultation.





Compliance
with this policy of business ethics and conduct is the responsibility of every
Company employee. Disregarding or failing to comply with this standard of
business ethics and conduct could lead to disciplinary action, up to and
including possible termination of employment.
Exhibit 32.2
                            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 Thomas Equipment, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Luigi
Lobasso, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and 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:  September 28, 2005                By: /s/ LUIGI LOBASSO
                                         --------------------------------------
                                             Luigi Lobasso
                                             Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>              MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                          8,036
<SECURITIES>                   48,632
<RECEIVABLES>                  14,674<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    0
<PP&E>                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 71,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               0
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                          447
<OTHER-SE>                    (31,216)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   71,759
<SALES>                           146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  146
<CGS>                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (6)
<INCOME-TAX>                   (7,548)<F2>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             7,542
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                    7,542
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                    0.16
<FN>
<F1> Receivables include investment management fees receivable of $148 and
a receivable from Home Holdings, Inc. of $14,526.
<F2> Income-tax includes a 1977 income tax refund of $7,613, which has been
recognized as an income tax benefit in the Statement of Operations and a state
tax provision of $65.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1001.52 Adjusted Class I differentials.

See § 1000.52.
Sanitized – Attachment 016 

Page 1 of 2
Sanitized – Attachment 016 

Page 2 of 2
§ 12.1 General. ( a ) *Scope.* This part sets forth the terms and conditions under which a person who produces an agricultural commodity on highly erodible land or designates such land for conservation use, plants an agricultural commodity on a converted wetland, or converts a wetland shall be determined to be ineligible for certain benefits provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and agencies and instrumentalities of USDA.
( b ) *Purpose.* The purpose of the provisions of this part are to remove certain incentives for persons to produce agricultural commodities on highly erodible land or converted wetland and to thereby— ( 1 ) Reduce soil loss due to wind and water erosion;
( 2 ) Protect the Nation's long-term capability to produce food and fiber;
( 3 ) Reduce sedimentation and improve water quality; and
( 4 ) Assist in preserving the values, acreage, and functions of the Nation's wetlands.
[61 FR 47025, Sept. 6, 1996, as amended at 76 FR 82077, Dec. 30, 2011]