alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ja,10 STq,,, S 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

?< WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

q< PROSEG

~

\O' 

JUL 1 9 2011 

J.R. Stroble 

Director, National TRU Program 

Carlsbad Field Office 

Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Dear Mr. Stroble: 

We received your letter dated July 19, 2011, requesting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA's) concurrence on the draft expa.nsion certification memo the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) plans 

to issue to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). We 

concur with CBFO's draft expansion certification memo allowing INL CCP to expand INL's 

certification to use filters when assaying certain contact-handled waste using the Waste Assay Gamma 

System in accordance with EPA's approval on June 23, 2011 (See EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, II-A4- 

150). 

In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 194.8 (69 FR 42571-42583), on 

January 16, 2007, EPA approved the RH TRU waste characterization program at INL (See EPA Air 

Docket No. A-98-49,11-A4-72). 

The EPA limitations applicable to the characterization of' RI I TRU waste are appropriately included in 

Attachment 4 of the draft expansion certification memo. The waste characterization equipment, 

procedures and processes included in the memo are consistent with EPA's existing approvals at the site. 

Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft expansion certification memo for 

INL CCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (202) 343-9422 or Rajani 

Joglekar at (202) 343-9462. 

Sincerely, 

~ 

~ 

Edward Feltcorn 

Center for Waste Management and Regulations 

~~} Recycled/Recyclable 

~

Printed wlth Soy/Cenola Ink on paper that 

contalns at least 50% recycled 11ber 
cc: (Electronic Distribution) 

Ed Ziemianski, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO NTP 

Court Fesmire, CBFO NTP 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA 

Tom Peake, EPA 

Raymond Lee, EPA
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2298 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation 

with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to conduct a study on the public health and environmental impacts of the 

production, transportation, storage, and use of petroleum coke, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2013 

Mr. PETERS of Michigan (for himself, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DINGELL, and Mr. KILDEE) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to conduct a study on the 

public health and environmental impacts of the production, transportation, storage, and use of petroleum coke, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Petroleum Coke Trans5 parency and Public Health Study Act’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 2298 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds the following: 

3 (1) In Detroit, piles of petroleum coke have 

4 been stored in the open air on the banks of the De5 troit River. 

6 (2) Domestic production of petroleum coke is 

7 expected to increase if the Keystone XL pipeline is 

8 constructed. 

9 (3) State regulators, communities, and industry 

10 stakeholders would benefit from a complete under11 standing of petroleum coke and the potential impact 

12 on public health related to the production, transpor13 tation, storage, and use of petroleum coke. 

14 SEC. 3. STUDY OF PETROLEUM COKE PUBLIC HEALTH AND 

15 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. 

16 Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 

17 of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 

18 in consultation with the Administrator of the Environ19 mental Protection Agency, shall transmit to Congress the 

20 results of a study regarding the public health and environ21 mental impacts of the production, transportation, storage, 

22 and use of petroleum coke. 

23 SEC. 4. CONSOLIDATION OF PETROLEUM COKE RESEARCH. 

24 Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment 

25 of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

26 shall compile and publish on a publicly available website 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 2298 IH

1 the results of all federally conducted research related to 

2 the public health and environmental impacts of the pro3 duction, transportation, storage, and use of petroleum 

4 coke. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 29.6040 Strength (tensile).

The stress a tobacco leaf can bear without tearing. (See chart.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fernando Flores, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 31, 1978, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and new trial ordered. Defendant’s testimony concerning the homicide was that the victim was trying to take money from him and threatened to shoot him if he did not comply. The deceased had, on two prior occasions, successfully taken money from the defendant in this manner. The court instructed the jury on one prong of the justification defense, to wit, the defendant’s "reasonable and honest belief that his life was at peril and to the * * * need for him to defend himself.” It did not include the justified use of force to resist force in the course of a robbery attempt. This was reversible error (see Penal Law, § 35.15, subd 2, par [b]; *People v Fuller,*74 AD2d 879; *People v Davis,*74 AD2d 607). A defendant is entitled, for purposes of the charge, to a view of the trial testimony in a light most favorable to him *(People v Steele,*26 NY2d 526, 529). The error was critical and warrants review even in the absence of a request to charge or an exception taken at trial (see *People v Davis, supra).*Upon the retrial, two other errors should be avoided. A charge on the ambiguity of the evidence of flight should be given (see *People v Yazum,*13 NY2d 302) since the court must state "the material legal principles applicable to the particular case” (CPL 300.10, subd 2). In this case, the instruction would be to the effect that the flight did not of itself negative the justification defense. In addition, certain remarks by the prosecutor, conceded by respondent to be "ill-chosen”, should be scrupu*650lously avoided. We reject defendant’s claim that a certain statement should have been suppressed and, in light of our determination, we need not reach the merits of the remaining issues. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 2 



 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 PENSACOLA DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. Case Nos.: 3:99cr18/RV/EMT 

 3:21cv723/RV/EMT 

KENNETH BERNARD NICKSON, 

a/k/a KENNY NICKSON, 

Fed. Reg. No. 04493-017 

 / 

ORDER

 The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on August 

25, 2021 (ECF No. 302). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. 

 Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined the 

Report and Recommendation should be adopted. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

 1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

302) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order. I am confident that I 

applied the elements clause to the Defendant in this case, for he admitted that he 

possessed the firearm, that he attempted to rob the bank with it, and that he or his 

co-defendant threatened to shoot the bank employee as she fled. 

Case 3:99-cr-00018-RV-EMT Document 303 Filed 09/27/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2 



Case Nos.: 3:99cr18/RV/EMT; 3:21cv723/RV/EMT 

 2. Nickson’s “Successive Petition/Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence and Separate 

Memorandum of Law” (ECF No. 294) is DENIED.

 3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2021. 

 /s/ Roger Vinson 

 ROGER VINSON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:99-cr-00018-RV-EMT Document 303 Filed 09/27/21 Page 2 of 2
Document No. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:95cr3093 LAC

CHARLES SPIGNER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Judge Lacey Collier on May 13, 2008 

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE DENIAL OF MOTION

FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 USC § 3582(c)(2) 

Filed by DEFENDANT PRO SE on5/9/08 Doc.# 194

RESPONSES:

on Doc.#

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/Mary Maloy

LC (1 OR 2) Deputy Clerk: Mary Maloy

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 14

th day of

May, 2008, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED.

(b) 

 s/L.A. Collier

LACEY A. COLLIER

Senior United States District Judge

Entered On Docket: By: 

Rules 58 & 79(a) FRCP or 32(d)(1) & 55 FRCRP

Copies sent to:

Case 3:95-cr-03093-LC-CJK Document 195 Filed 05/14/08 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ROBERT MICHAEL MCDONALD,

Inmate No. 00030838,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5388/LAC/EMT

GRAHAM FOUNTAIN, et al.,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on January 

21, 2021 (ECF No. 53). The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it 

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 

53) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-05388-LC-EMT Document 54 Filed 02/19/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv5388/LAC/EMT

2. Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion for an [sic] Restrictive Injunction” 

(ECF No. 36) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of February, 2021.

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

s/L.A. Collier 

Case 3:20-cv-05388-LC-EMT Document 54 Filed 02/19/21 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leroy Brown, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 84]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered April 2, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly declined to submit third-degree assault as a lesser included offense since there was no reasonable view of the evidence that the victim’s injury was caused without the use of a dangerous instrument. The People’s evidence, including medical records, consistently demonstrated that the victim suffered a puncture wound that went through his lower jaw to the gum line. The victim testified that defendant struck his face with something hard and sharp. Defendant admitted hitting the victim in the face, but claimed that he only used his fist. On this evidence, the causation of the injury did not present a credibility issue for the jury to resolve. Rather, there was no reasonable view of the evidence supporting the conclusion that defendant caused the victim’s injury but did so without using a dangerous instrument *(see People v Luke, 8*AD3d 203 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 740 [2004]; *People v Machado,*300 AD2d 16 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 630 [2003]).

Defendant was not entitled to a new trial based on a juror’s *444postverdict admission that defense counsel had represented him many years before. The juror made no misrepresentations during the voir dire, and became fully aware of the prior relationship only after jury selection when his mother told him the name of the attorney who had represented him. The juror stated that the prior representation did not influence him in any manner, and he had not thought to bring the matter to the court’s attention. Another juror alerted the prosecutor when the first juror mentioned this circumstance in the jury room after the verdict. Notably, the second juror had voiced a criticism of defense counsel to the first juror, who responded that counsel had done a good job for him. The court properly made inquiry of both jurors, and just as properly concluded there was no basis upon which to set aside the verdict *(see People v Rodriguez,*100 NY2d 30 [2003]).

Defendant’s claim that the court conducted a part of the proceedings in defense counsel’s absence is not one that is exempt from preservation requirements *(compare People v Narayan,*54 NY2d 106, 112-113 [1981], *with People v Samuels,*49 NY2d 218, 221 [1980]; *see also People v Kinchen,*60 NY2d 772, 773 [1983]), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find no basis for reversing the conviction *(see People v Watson,*243 AD2d 426 [1997], *lv denied 92*NY2d 863 [1998]). That being said, we note our disapproval of the trial judge’s commencement of the hearing in defense counsel’s absence.

Defendant’s pro se claims are without merit. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Laurence Sullivan, Appellant.

Order entered on October 5, 1967, denying petition for

writ of error *coram nobis,*unanimously reversed on -the law, and a hearing directed on the factual issues presented by the allegations of the petition, limited however to the alleged wrongful conduct of counsel in failing timely to file a notice of appeal. When the subject order was made, the controlling -law was as expressed in *People*v. *Marchese*(19 A D 2d 728, affd. 14 N Y 2d 695) such a dereliction on the part of retained counsel, -as distinguished from assigned counsel, would not provide a basis for *coram nobis*relief. Since the denial of a hearing herein, the Court of Appeals has spoken again *(People*v. *Montgomery,*
      *51524 N Y 2d 130; *People*v. *Callaway,*24 N Y 2d 127), and has eliminated the distinction. Accordingly, a hearing is indicated, but, since no basis is shown for the charge that appeal was also frustrated by prison authorities, it is to be limited in scope as indicated. Should it be found factually that failure to appeal was due to counsel’s misconduct, proceedings should he taken to vacate and reimpose sentence *(People*v. *Hairston,*10 N Y 2d 92). Concur— Capozzoli, J. P., Markewich, Nunez and Steuer, JJ.
================================================================================

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Adrian Crimeni, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report Form 10-QSB of Dujour Products, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly Report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Quarterly
Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Quarterly Report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and



<PAGE>



6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
Quarterly Report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



/s/ Adrian Crimeni
------------------------------------
Adrian Crimeni

President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer,
Principal Financial Officer and sole Director

Date:  August 15, 2006
































--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 20, 2015

s0317 

# Order

Clerk March 20, 2015

151054

SC: 151054

In re KELLER , Minors. COA: 321603

Kalamazoo CC Family Division:

2006

- 000213

- NA

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 20, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER L. CURRY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20cv5417/LAC/EMT

OFFICER CHAPEL, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________/

O R D E R

The Chief Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on May

19, 2020 (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of

the timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the objections

thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The Chief Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

5) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as malicious,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and § 1915A(b)(1).

Case 3:20-cv-05417-LC-EMT Document 7 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close

this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2020.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No. 3:20cv5417/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05417-LC-EMT Document 7 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 28,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sang Park, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Sang Park                       
|Sang Park                           
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
|November 12, 2008
98-1664.

#### State ex rel. Chalfant v. Wray.

In Mandamus. On answer of Jerry Wray, answer of city of Westlake et al., and motion for injunctive relief. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Case 3:97-cr-00099-RV Document 342 Filed 10/07/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Data Call Technologies, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Timothy E. Vance, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Timothy E. Vance

Timothy E. VanceCEODated: May 20, 2010

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Data Call Technologies, Inc. andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.