alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RALPH WILSON LINGO, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06-CV-703-MHT

)

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

ORDER ON MOTION

Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss Sheriff James W. Johnson as a

respondent filed by the petitioner on January 18, 2008 (Court Doc. No. 50), and as this

individual is not presently a respondent in this cause of action, it is

ORDERED that this motion be and is hereby DENIED.

Done this 22nd day of January, 2008.

 /s/ Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY 

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00703-MHT-CSC Document 54 Filed 01/22/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### § 798.4 Request for records.

Request for records under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3) shall be made in accordance with 7 CFR 1.3. Reasonable requests for material not in existence may also be honored where their compilation will not unduly interfere with FSA operations and programs. Each FSA office in the field and each FSA office and division in Washington (see statement of Organization and Functions of FSA, 40 FR 18815, and of CCC, 35 FR 14951, and any amendments thereto) is designated as an “information center” and shall make space available to inspect and copy records in their custody not exempted from disclosure. Copies of records shall also be made available upon request. The head of each office or division is authorized to receive requests for records and to make determinations regarding requests for records in the office's custody in accordance with 7 CFR 1.4(c). Requests to Washington divisions and offices shall be addressed to USDA, FSA, P.O. Box 2415, Washington, D.C. 20013. The heads of FSA field offices shall be addressed as listed in the local telephone directory under “U.S. Government, Department of Agriculture, FSA”. Names and addresses of heads of field offices may also be obtained from the office indicated in § 798.2.
Subpart 1446.1 - General

Parent topic: PART 1446 - QUALITY ASSURANCE

1446.170 Government-Industry Data Exchange Program

(GIDEP).

(a) COs shall encourage contractors and subcontractors to participate in the GIDEP, a cooperative

program managed and funded by the U.S. Government to exchange engineering, failure experience,

metrology, product information, and reliability-maintain ability data on products, components

(including construction materials), manufacturing processes, environmental issues associated with

those manufacturing processes, recycling and waste prevention.

(b) The GIDEP is managed for the U.S. Government by the Department of the Navy. GIDEP

participants are not subject to any fees or assessments other than the costs associated with

dissemination of information by other than electronic means.

(c) An application to participate in the GIDEP may be obtained at http://www.gidep.org. COs shall

include information on GIDEP in solicitation documents and during discussions at preaward and

postaward conferences.
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








SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of EMAZING INTERACTIVE, INC. on Form 10-K for
the periods ending December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
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 operation of the Company.





/s/ G. EDWARD
      HANCOCK
              G.
      Edward Hancock CEO
              Dated:
      March 24, 2009
              
              /s/
      G. EDWARD HANCOCK
              G.
      Edward Hancock
              CFO
              Dated:
      March 24, 2009




This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, John E. Lushefski, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Patriot Coal Corporation; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 30, 2013



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ JOHN E. LUSHEFSKI                          
|John E. Lushefski                              
|Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2


**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IMCOR Pharmaceutical Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Taffy J. Williams, Ph.D., acting Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






/s/TAFFY J. WILLIAMS
Taffy J. Williams, Ph.D.Acting Principal Financial OfficerDecember 21, 2004
1

Farquharson, Chenise

From: Farquharson, Chenise

Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 3:53 PM

To: cristal@clemonsmgmt.com

Cc: Hufford, Drusilla; Newberg, Cindy; Maranion, Bella; Sheppard, Margaret

Subject: FSSA Comments re: Change of Status of HFCs under Clean Air Act Section 612 (SNAP 

Program) 

Attachments: EPA Response to FSSA re HFCs and SNAP petitions_12-22-15.pdf

Dear Ms. LeGrand: 

Thank you for your letter of December 2, 2015, to Administrator Gina McCarthy. Please see the attached response. 

Sincerely, 

Chenise Farquharson 

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction Branch 

OAR/OAP/SPD 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

WJC East 4355FF 

(202) 564-7768

Farquharson.chenise@epa.gov

From: "Crista LeGrand, CAE, CMP" <cristal@clemonsmgmt.com> 

Date: December 4, 2015 at 3:24:18 PM EST 

To: "McCarthy.gina@Epa.gov" <McCarthy.gina@Epa.gov> 

Cc: "Newberg.Cindy@epa.gov" <Newberg.Cindy@epa.gov>, "Maranion.Bella@epa.gov" 

<Maranion.Bella@epa.gov>, "Sheppard.Margaret@epa.gov" <Sheppard.Margaret@epa.gov> 

Subject: FSSA Comments re: Change of Status of HFCs under Clean Air Act Section 612 (SNAP Program) 

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

Attached please find comments from the Fire Suppression Systems Association (FSSA) in 

regards to the change of status of HFCs under Clean Air Act Section 612 (SNAP Program).

Thank you in advance for your review.

Best regards,

Crista LeGrand, CAE, CMP 

Executive Director 

Fire Suppression Systems Association (FSSA) 

Phone: 410-931-8100/Fax: 410-931-8111 

http://www.fssa.net

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

The mission of FSSA is to promote the use of, and be the leading recognized authority on, special hazard 

fire protection systems; employing existing and new technologies to safeguard people, high-value assets 

and the environment.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN DAVID ROETTGEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

D. PARAMO, Warden; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55172 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01806-LAB-BGS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

John David Roettgen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his post-judgment Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b) motion in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

alleging various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-55172 

Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Roettgen’s postjudgment Rule 60(b) motion to vacate because Roettgen failed to demonstrate any 

basis for such relief. See id. at 1263 (explaining that Rule 60(b) “provides for 

reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; 

(2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or 

discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would justify 

relief” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

To the extent that Roettgen attempts to challenge the district court’s 

underlying dismissal, we lack jurisdiction because Roettgen did not timely file a 

notice of appeal as to the underlying judgment, or a post-judgment motion that 

tolled the time to file a notice of appeal as to the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A); 4(a)(4)(A)(vi); Harman v. Harper, 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993) 

(appeal from a denial of a non-tolling Rule 60(b) motion does not bring the entire 

underlying judgment up for review).

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 75666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30460]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Correction notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 26, 2010, the Department of Education published a 
30-day public comment period notice in the Federal Register (Page 
72818, Column 3) for the information collection, ``William D. Ford 
Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) Program Federal Direct PLUS Loan 
Master Promissory Note and Endorser Addendum''. The correct title for 
the information collection should be William D. Ford Federal Direct 
Loan (Direct Loan) Program Federal Direct Consolidation Loan 
Application and Promissory Note Documents. The abstract for the 
information collection package should read as follows: ``The Federal 
Direct Consolidation Loan Application and Promissory Note serves as the 
means by which a borrower applies for a Direct Consolidation Loan and 
promises to repay the loan. Related documents included with this 
collection are (1) Additional Loan Listing Sheet (provides additional 
space for a borrower to list loans that he or she wishes to 
consolidate, if there is insufficient space on the Application and 
Promissory Note); (2) Request to Add Loans (serves as the means by 
which a borrower may add other loans to an existing Direct 
Consolidation Loan within a specified time period); and (3) Loan 
Verification Certificate (serves as the means by which the U.S. 
Department of Education obtains the information needed to pay off the 
holders of the loans that the borrower wants to consolidate).'' The 
Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory 
Information Management Services, Office of Management, hereby issues a 
correction notice as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Valentine at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6d5d2c3d6cec7c8cfc388d0c7cac3c8d2cfc8c3e6c3c288c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b3c0c7d6c3dbd2dddad69dc5d2dfd6ddc7daddd6f3d6d79dd4dcc5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 30, 2010.
Darrin A. King,
Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Regulatory 
Information Management Services, Office of Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-30460 Filed 12-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Subpart 428.1 - Bonds and Other Financial

Protections

Parent topic: PART 428 - BONDS AND INSURANCE

428.101 Bid guarantees.

428.101-1 Policy on use.

The Senior Procurement Executive may authorize class waivers of the requirement to obtain bid

guarantees.

428.106 Administration.

428.106-6 Furnishing information.

Heads of contracting activities (HCA's) or their designees may furnish certified copies of bonds and

the contracts for which they were given as provided by FAR 28.106-6(c). Requesters may be

required to pay costs of certification and copying established by the Departmental Fee Schedule for

records requests (7 CFR part 1, subpart A, appendix A).
#### Jeanne Conte, an Infant, by Mary L. Conte, Her Natural Parent, et al., Respondents, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Frank A. Bell et al., Appellants.

In consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 19, 1969 and December 9, 1969, respectively, the first granting the motion of plaintiffs Conte and Delzio for summary judgment and for an assessment of damages, and the second denying defendants’ motion to renew said motion for summary judgment. Orders reversed, without costs; defendants’ motion granted; and said plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, issues of fact were effectively raised which require a trial. The Conte, Delzio and Matts infant plaintiffs were passengers in an automobile operated by defendant Frank Bell and owned by the other two defendants. Defendants contend that the defendant driver was driving carefully and that his failure to stop at a stop sign located at the intersection in question was due to the unexpected failure of the brakes. At the intersection, one must make a right or left turn. The automobile swerved to the right, but nevertheless hit a retaining wall, injuring the infant plaintiffs. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendants, we are of the opinion that summary judgment was improperly granted and that issues of fact were raised requiring a trial *(Falk*v. *Goodman,*7 N Y 2d 87; *Cohen*v. *Crimenti,*24 A D 2d 587). In addition, it was error for 'Special 'Term to consider among the motion papers evidence of the suspension of defendant Frank Bell’s license arising out of this accident. *(Tryon*v. *Willbank,*234 App. Div. 335; *Walther*v. *News Syndicate Co.,*276 App. Div. 169; *Montalvo*v. *Morales,*18 A D 2d 20.) Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Brennan, JJ., concur.
§ 985.28 Duties. The Committee shall have, among others, the following duties; ( a ) To select from among its membership such officers and adopt such rules or by-laws for the conduct of its meetings as it deems necessary;
( b ) To appoint such employees as it may deem necessary, and to determine the compensation and to define the duties of each employee;
( c ) To appoint such subcommittees and consultants as it may deem necessary;
( d ) To keep minutes, books, and records which will reflect all of the acts and transactions of the Committee and which shall be subject to examination by the Secretary;
( e ) To prepare periodic statements of the financial operations of the Committee and to make copies of each such statement available to producers and handlers for examination at the office of the Committee;
( f ) To cause the books of the Committee to be audited by a certified public accountant at such times as the Committee may deem necessary, or as the Secretary may request, to submit copies of each audit report to the Secretary, and to make available a copy which does not contain confidential data for inspection at the offices of the committee by producers and handlers;
( g ) To act as intermediary between the Secretary and any producer or handler;
( h ) To investigate and assemble data on the growing, handling, and marketing conditions with respect to oil;
( i ) To submit to the Secretary such available information as may be requested or that the Committee may deem desirable and pertinent;
( j ) To notify producers and handlers of all meetings of the Committee to consider recommendations for regulations and of all regulatory actions taken affecting producers and handlers;
( k ) To give the Secretary the same notice of meetings of the Committee and its subcommittees as is given to its members;
( l ) To investigate compliance and use means available to prevent violations of the provisions of this part;
( m ) With the approval of the Secretary, to redefine the districts into which the production area is divided and to reapportion the representation of any district on the Committee: *Provided,* That such changes shall reflect insofar as practical, shifts in oil production within the production area and numbers of producers; and
( n ) To establish with the approval of the Secretary such rules and regulations as are necessary or incidental to administration of this subpart, as are consistent with its provisions, and as would tend to accomplish the purposes of this subpart and the act.
#### Incorporated Village of Philmont, Respondent, v Theodore Glazik, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

from an order of the County Court of Columbia County, entered June 28, 1978, which granted plaintiffs motion to allow it to immediately enter upon the subject land and to use it as an access route to the sewage treatment plant site before a permanent condemnation hearing is held. The defendant challenges the right of the court to grant an order of temporary possession to plaintiff pursuant to section 24 of the Condemnation Law* because the defendant contends that a triable issue of fact exists as to the necessity for plaintiff to condemn defendant’s land for purposes of gaining an access route to the site of a sewage treatment plant to be built by plaintiff. We conclude that the correct criteria in this proceeding is not whether a factual issue exists as to necessity of building the plant, but, rather, whether a delay in granting the relief requested will be harmful to the public (Condemnation Law, § 24; *City of Glen Cove v Utilities & Inds. Corp.,*17 NY2d 205). Despite the fact that the court’s decision to grant the order was based on a finding that no triable issues of fact exist, which we deem not the appropriate criteria, the affidavits submitted by plaintiff amply support what must be established in such a proceeding. It is averred that delay would jeopardize Federal and State funding for the project, imperil health by subjecting the village to pollution, and subject the village to fines for violations of various laws, all to the detriment of the public good. Based on these uncontroverted statements, we are impelled to conclude that delay would prejudice the public’s interest. The defendant raises an additional procedural issue in the action; namely, that plaintiff has no power to condemn the land which admittedly lies outside its village boundaries without compliance with section 14-1402 of the Village Law. The law, in pertinent part, states: "no such sewer outlet or sewage disposal plant shall be constructed or extended by a village without its limits into another town, village or a city without the consent of the board of trustees, town board, common council or other similar legislative *657body of such town, village or city.” The supporting affidavits submitted by plaintiff indicate that plaintiff, if it has not already received formal consent from the town, will prevail in the ultimate plan to condemn the land since the town board has indicated its willingness to co-operate with the plaintiff in any way necessary to affect the realization of plans for the treatment plant. Plaintiff has amply demonstrated that it is highly probable that the town’s permission will be obtained. Order affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

*

 As this proceeding was commenced prior to July 1, 1978, the Condemnation Law, not the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, applies (EDPL 706, 709).
#### § 900.351 Applications for qualification.

Any association of producers may apply for determinations as to whether it is a qualified cooperative association with authority to represent producers in order referendums; has authorization to collect payment from handlers for members' milk; and is rendering specified marketing services to producers. Applicant associations should supply information for these determinations, using as a guide Application Form DA-25. The application form may be obtained from the Dairy Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250. Determinations required of the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service, by delegation are made by the Director of the Dairy Division. Once issued they are valid until amended, suspended or terminated.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted March 17, 2005 Decided April 19, 2005 **Before** Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

Nos. 03-3789 & 03-3752 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant,

v. BRIAN KELLER,

Defendant-Appellant , Cross-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 02 CR 1086 James B. Moran , Judge.

**ORDER** This matter comes before us upon remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for reconsideration in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Brian Keller was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Mr. Keller appealed his conviction. The Government cross-appealed the district court’s grant of a downward departure to Mr. Keller’s sentence under § 5K2.12 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We affirmed Mr. Keller’s conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. On January 25, 2005, the Supreme Court granted Mr. Keller’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Booker. UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53Nos. 03-3789 & 03-3752 Page 2

Both parties now request that Mr. Keller’s sentence be vacated and remanded for resentencing. We believe that such a course of action is appropriate. Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Keller’s conviction, vacate his sentence due to the district court’s erroneous grant of a downward departure, see United States v. Keller , 376 F.3d 713, 717-20 (7th Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds , 125 S. Ct. 1061 (2005), and remand to the district court for resentencing consistent with this order and the Supreme Court’s decision in Booker

. IT IS SO ORDERED