alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:20-cr-00002-AW-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 02/26/20   Page 1 of 4

Case 1:20-cr-00002-AW-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 02/26/20   Page 2 of 4

Case 1:20-cr-00002-AW-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 02/26/20   Page 3 of 4

Case 1:20-cr-00002-AW-GRJ   Document 1   Filed 02/26/20   Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to: 

Adkins, 7:20cv012

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS ORDER NO. 7

This Order addresses Plaintiff’s objections and counter-designations to 

Defendants’ affirmative deposition designations and Defendants’ objections to 

Plaintiff’s counter-designations thereto for the following witness depositions:

1. Brandon Adkins (09/16/2020)

SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 7:20-cv-00012-MCR-GRJ Document 109 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6373

DANNY HOWDYSHELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-03-22)

Submitted: August 29, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny Howdyshell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Danny Howdyshell seeks to appeal the district court’s order

construing his pleading, styled as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000), as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and

transferring it to the district in which Howdyshell is confined,

the Eastern District of Virginia. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Howdyshell seeks to appeal is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order. See In re Carefirst of Md., Inc., 305 F.3d 253, 262 (4th

Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. 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
<PAGE>   1



                                                                 EXHIBIT 23-1


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
The Navigators Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries:

We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-51608
on Form S-8 of The Navigators Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries of our report dated
March 14, 1997 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of The Navigators
Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows and
related schedules for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 Annual Report on Form
10-K of The Navigators Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries.  Our report refers to The
Navigators Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries change in their method of accounting
for certain investments in debt and equity securities in 1994.





                                                     /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

New York, New York
March 28, 1997
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 1012

In re: STEVE HALE , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

. ( 3:13

- cr - 00280

- MOC

- DSC

- 1; 3:18

- cv - 00383

- MOC )

Submitted : June 18, 2020 Decided: June 22, 2020

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion

.

Steve Hale , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stev e H ale petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S. C. § 2255 (201 8 ) motion . He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals
t hat on January 22, 2020, the district court denied relief on Hale’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Hale’s case , we deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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.
PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Tony Aquila, Chief Executive Officer of SoleraHoldings, Inc., certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof Solera Holdings, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:May 13, 2008

 
|       |       |                        |
|------------|------------|-----------------------------|
|       |       | /s/ Tony Aquila             |
| ** ** | ** ** | **Tony Aquila**             |
| ** ** | ** ** | **Chief Executive Officer** |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6373
DANNY HOWDYSHELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-22) Submitted: August 29, 2003 Decided: October 7, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Howdyshell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Danny Howdyshell seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his pleading, styled as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) and transferring it to the district in which Howdyshell is confined, the Eastern District of Virginia. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Howdyshell seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See In re Carefirst of Md., Inc. , 305 F.3d 253, 262 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
#### § 1735.73 Loan design.

When loan funds are requested for an acquisition, details of the proposed acquisition shall be included in the Loan Design. See 7 CFR part 1737.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2150 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a five-year extension 

to the homeless veterans reintegration programs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. COOK (for himself, Mr. FLORES, Mr. DENHAM, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD, and Mr. TAKANO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a 

five-year extension to the homeless veterans reintegration 

programs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeless Veterans’ 

5 Reintegration Programs Reauthorization Act of 2013’’. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2150 IH

1 SEC. 2. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF HOMELESS VETERANS 

2 REINTEGRATION PROGRAMS. 

3 Section 2021(e)(F) of title 38, United States Code, 

4 is amended by striking ‘‘2013’’ and inserting ‘‘2018’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
May 22, 2015 

 

Robert Mays 

1110-A Broad Street 

Camden, SC 29020 

Dear Mr. Robert Mays: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your April 7, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA2015-917), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent 

does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the 

request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### The State ex rel. Carlisle Retailers, Inc., Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio; Rinyo, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Carlisle Retailers, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 119.]

(No. 97-507

Submitted July 15, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Greiner, Carotin & Spector*and *Thomas M. Carotin,*for appellee.

*Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A.,*and *Rachel B. Jajfy,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. The order of the Industrial Commission is reinstated.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cook, J., dissents.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2193 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2193

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the financing of 
                             the Superfund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2013

 Mr. Pallone introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the financing of 
                             the Superfund.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Superfund Polluter Pays Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SUPERFUND TAXES.

    (a) Excise Taxes.--Section 4611(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Application of Hazardous Substance Superfund Financing 
Rate.--The Hazardous Substance Superfund financing rate under this 
section shall apply after December 31, 1986, and before January 1, 
1996, and after the date of the enactment of this subsection and before 
January 1, 2019.''.
    (b) Corporate Environmental Income Tax.--Section 59A(e) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
    ``(e) Application of Tax.--The tax imposed by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, and before 
January 1, 1996, and to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this subsection and before January 1, 2019.''.
    (c) Technical Amendments.--
            (1) Section 4611(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
        amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or exported from'' in paragraph 
                (1)(A),
                    (B) by striking ``or exportation'' in paragraph 
                (1)(B), and
                    (C) by striking ``and Exportation'' in the heading.
            (2) Section 4611(d)(3) of such Code is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or exporting the crude oil, as 
                the case may be'' in the text and inserting ``the crude 
                oil'', and
                    (B) by striking ``or exports'' in the heading.
    (d) Effective Dates.--
            (1) Excise taxes.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
        and (c) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
        Act.
            (2) Income tax.--The amendment made by subsection (b) shall 
        apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### James B. CRISWELL, Claimant-Appellant, v. Gordon H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2007-7195.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 4, 2007.

*321James B. Criswell, of Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Roger A. Hipp, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keis-ler, Acting Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were Michael J. Timinski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Martie Adelman, Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

Before MAYER and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.*

*

 Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

James B. Criswell appeals the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision denying his claim for an effective date prior to August 21, 1997, for a 50% combined disability rating for his service-connected cold-injury residuals of the hands and feet. *Criswell v. Nicholson,*20 Vet.App. 501 (2006). Because we lack authority to review either “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case” absent a constitutional issue, 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2), we *dismiss*his appeal.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsProbability techniques for reliability analysis of composite materialsTraditional design approaches for composite materials have employed deterministic criteria for failure analysis. New approaches are required to predict the reliability of composite structures since strengths and stresses may be random variables. This report will examine and compare methods used to evaluate the reliability of composite laminae. The two types of methods that will be evaluated are fast probability integration (FPI) methods and Monte Carlo methods. In these methods, reliability is formulated as the probability that an explicit function of random variables is less than a given constant. Using failure criteria developed for composite materials, a function of design variables can be generated which defines a 'failure surface' in probability space. A number of methods are available to evaluate the integration over the probability space bounded by this surface; this integration delivers the required reliability. The methods which will be evaluated are: the first order, second moment FPI methods; second order, second moment FPI methods; the simple Monte Carlo; and an advanced Monte Carlo technique which utilizes importance sampling. The methods are compared for accuracy, efficiency, and for the conservativism of the reliability estimation. The methodology involved in determining the sensitivity of the reliability estimate to the design variables (strength distributions) and importance factors is also presented.Document ID19940033122Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsWetherhold, Robert C.*(State Univ. of New York Buffalo, NY, United States)*Ucci, Anthony M.*(State Univ. of New York Buffalo, NY, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1994Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberE-8664NASA-CR-195294NAS 1.26:195294Accession Number94N37633Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG3-862PROJECT: RTOP 510-01-50Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19940033122.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

September 01, 2020

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Clerk - Northern District of Florida

U.S. District Court 

111 N ADAMS ST

TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301

Appeal Number: 20-12107-CC

Case Style: Independent Party of Florida, et al v. Secretary, State of Florida

District Court Docket No: 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF

A copy of this letter, and the judgment form if noted above, but not a copy of the court's 

decision, is also being forwarded to counsel and pro se parties. A copy of the court's decision 

was previously forwarded to counsel and pro se parties on the date it was issued.

The enclosed copy of the judgment is hereby issued as mandate of the court. The court's opinion 

was previously provided on the date of issuance.

Sincerely,

DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court

Reply to: Lois Tunstall

Phone #: (404) 335-6191

Enclosure(s) 

MDT-1 Letter Issuing Mandate

Case: 20-12107 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 1 of 1

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 54 Filed 09/01/20 Page 1 of 2
INDEPENDENT PARTY OF FLORIDA, 

PARTY FOR SOCIALISM AND LIBERATION, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

versus 

SECRETARY, STATE OF FLORIDA,

In Her Official Capacity, 

Defendant - Appellee.

__________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Florida 

__________________________________________ 

JUDGMENT

It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the opinion issued on this date in this appeal is 

entered as the judgment of this Court. 

Entered: August 03, 2020

For the Court: DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court 

By: Djuanna H. Clark

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Eleventh Circuit

______________ 

No. 20-12107 

______________ 

District Court Docket No. 

4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF

ISSUED AS MANDATE 09/01/2020

Case: 20-12107 Date Filed: 09/01/2020 Page: 1 of 1

Case 4:20-cv-00110-MW-MAF Document 54 Filed 09/01/20 Page 2 of 2
**The Quiet Revolution**

*The Quiet Revolution*,   revised August 1998, is an introduction to Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)   and features several examples of how HCPs can work to allow development on private   land to coexist with species and habitat conservation. In addition to brief   case studies, *The Quiet Revolution* includes helpful contact information   and answers to commonly asked questions. Thirty-two pages, with full-color photos.   To obtain a printed copy, call 1-800-344-WILD. 
Page numbers in this electronic   version may not match the printed version due to the size of the file and formatting   requirements. The files below are in .pdf format. To view these files, you will   need Acrobat Reader which is available for **free** fromAdobe,   Inc. )-  Table     of Contents, Introduction
-  Introduction,     Balcones Canyonlands, and Plum Creek examples
-  Karner     Blue, and Potlach Corporation, and Orange County
-  Murray     Pacific Corporation, Small Landowner, and International Paper
-  Washington     County, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Questions and Answers,     Contact Information

Go to our Habitat     Conservation Planning page.    Go to our Endangered Species Program     home page.