alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6840

DONALD JOSEPH CASEY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. A. GARRAGHTY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-98-299-AM) Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 4, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Donald Joseph Casey, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Donald Joseph Casey seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Casey v. Garraghty , CA-98-299-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 27, 1998; May 13, 1998). 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
824.203 Policy.       (a) VA rules implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are in 38 CFR 1.550 through 1.562.          (b) Upon receipt of a request, the contracting officer shall provide the requester with the name of the cognizant VA FOIA Service Office. The VA FOIA Service Office (see *http://www.oprm.va.gov/foia/*) is the focal point for all FOIA requests and official information may only be released through the cognizant FOIA Service or their authorized designee.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 824.2 - Freedom of Information Act
#### § 708.37 Reimbursement of costs and expenses.

If a complaint is denied by a final agency decision, the complainant will not be reimbursed for the costs and expenses incurred in pursuing the complaint.
#### City of St. Louis, Respondent, *v.*Rudolph Bircher, Appellant.

April 29, 1879.

1. Property taxed for revenue may be also subjected to a license-tax.

2. A hotel-license may be graduated by the number of rooms devoted to public accommodation; and it is not necessary, to justify the tax, that the num. her of rooms actually used should be proved.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

*Affirmed.*

W. H. H. Russell, for appellant.

Leverett Bell, for respondent.

Lewis, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was fined in the First District Police Court of the city of St. Louis for the violation of a city ordinance in keeping a hotel without a license. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Correction, the judgment was affirmed ; and the defendant thereupon appealed to this court.

*170The ordinance under which the fine was imposed is, in every aspect having relation to the municipal authority for its enactment, identical with the ordinances which were fully considered in the cases of *City of St. Louis*v. *Green,*6 Mo. App. 591, and *City of St. Louis*v. *Sternberg,*4 Mo. App. 453. These ordinances were all passed under authority of the same section in the city charter, and, as to any feature touching the question of their validity under the Constitution and laws of the State, are indistinguishable. The defendant raises a number of points against the validity of the ordinance in this case which were effectually disposed of in the cases referred to above. To review them here would involve a useless repetition of what has already been sufficiently said. Some arguments are introduced here, however, which escaped attention in the former cases. Many of them would be more appropriately addressed to a school of rhetoric. When the meaning of an enactment is obvious, it cannot be defeated by criticisms on its inelegant phraseology.

An assessment upon the value of certain property for a revenue-tax has no necessary connection with a license to carry on a particular business, in which the same property may be used. There is no double taxation, in an offensive sense, nor any injustice or oppression, as a mere matter of principle, in the exercise of municipal authority to raise revenue by both methods.

' There is nothing unreasonable or oppressive in graduating the amount to be paid for a hotel-license by the number of rooms which may be devoted to the accommodation of the public. Nor is there any intelligible reason why the number of rooms actually occupied should be proved in order to justify the license-tax. The assessment is not upon the rooms, but upon the business of keeping a hotel.

Upon the whole, there is in this record no question meriting a detailed discussion, which is not conclusively settled in the Green and Sternberg cases already referred *171to. Upon authority of those decisions, the judgment is affirmed.

All the judges concur.
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.120 General considerations. ( a ) As required by § 72.24, an application to store spent fuel or reactor-related GTCC waste in an ISFSI or to store spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, or reactor-related GTCC waste in an MRS must include the design criteria for the proposed storage installation. These design criteria establish the design, fabrication, construction, testing, maintenance and performance requirements for structures, systems, and components important to safety as defined in § 72.3. The general design criteria identified in this subpart establish minimum requirements for the design criteria for an ISFSI or an MRS. Any omissions in these general design criteria do not relieve the applicant from the requirement of providing the necessary safety features in the design of the ISFSI or MRS.
( b ) The ISFSI must be designed to store spent fuel and/or solid reactor-related GTCC waste. ( 1 ) Reactor-related GTCC waste may not be stored in a cask that also contains spent fuel. This restriction does not include radioactive materials that are associated with fuel assemblies (e.g., control rod blades or assemblies, thimble plugs, burnable poison rod assemblies, or fuel channels);
( 2 ) Liquid reactor-related GTCC wastes may not be received or stored in an ISFSI; and
( 3 ) If the ISFSI is a water-pool type facility, the reactor-related GTCC waste must be in a durable solid form with demonstrable leach resistance.
( c ) The MRS must be designed to store spent fuel, solid high-level radioactive waste, and/or solid reactor-related GTCC waste. ( 1 ) Reactor-related GTCC waste may not be stored in a cask that also contains spent fuel. This restriction does not include radioactive materials associated with fuel assemblies (e.g., control rod blades or assemblies, thimble plugs, burnable poison rod assemblies, or fuel channels);
( 2 ) Liquid high-level radioactive wastes or liquid reactor-related GTCC wastes may not be received or stored in an MRS; and
( 3 ) If the MRS is a water-pool type facility, the high-level waste and reactor-related GTCC waste must be in a durable solid form with demonstrable leach resistance.
( d ) The ISFSI or MRS must be designed, made of materials, and constructed to ensure that there will be no significant chemical, galvanic, or other reactions between or among the storage system components, spent fuel, reactor-related GTCC waste, and/or high level waste including possible reaction with water during wet loading and unloading operations or during storage in a water-pool type ISFSI or MRS. The behavior of materials under irradiation and thermal conditions must be taken into account.
( e ) The NRC may authorize exceptions, on a case-by-case basis, to the restrictions in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section regarding the commingling of spent fuel and reactor-related GTCC waste in the same cask.
[66 FR 51842, Oct. 11, 2001]
#### KIMMEY, Appellant, v. YORKVILLE INDEPENDENT HYGEIA ICE CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 12, 1914.)

Action by Charles P. Kimmey against the Yorkville Independent Hygeia Ice Company.

H. H. Nieman, of New York City, for appellant.

G. P. Hotaling, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
Responses to Questions on EPA Process for Phoenix Cement

Colleen McKaughan to: Martz, Verle 12/14/2012 03:16 PM

Cc:

Gregory Nudd, Thomas Webb, Charlotte Withey, Eugene Chen, 

Shaheerah Kelly

From: Colleen McKaughan/R9/USEPA/US

To: "Martz, Verle" <vmartz@srmaterials.com>, 

Cc: Gregory Nudd/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Webb/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte 

Withey/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Eugene Chen/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Shaheerah 

Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi, Verle,

You had asked us some questions in an email dated 11/28/12. I have highlighted those questions and 

provided the responses below.

(1) if the questions were asked pursuant to a particular statute or regulation; (2) what the EPA intends

to do with our answers; and (3) if the EPA is getting ready to propose that the Clarkdale facility is a

BART-eligible source.

1) We are asking these questions in the context of our action on the 2018 visibility goals for the Arizona 

Regional Haze program. As we state in Section VIII.B. of the proposed action, because Arizona’s 2018 

visibility goals provide for a rate of improvement in visibility slower than the rate needed to show 

attainment of natural conditions by 2064, the Regional Haze Rule requires the state (or EPA in the case 

of a Federal plan) to demonstrate why its Reasonable Progress Goals are reasonable and why a rate of 

progress leading to attainment of natural visibility conditions by 2064 is not reasonable. [See 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(ii).]

2) Given the rate at which visibility-impairing pollutants are emitted from the Phoenix Cement plant, and 

it's proximity to Class I areas, EPA is trying to determine if there are reasonably cost-effective controls 

that can be installed at the facility. Your information will help us to make an accurate estimate of the 

costs and benefits of additional controls at Phoenix Cement. 

3) We are not planning to propose that the Clarkdale faciilty is a BART-eligible source.

I hope this information is helpful. I am going to be out of the office over the holidays. If you need 

information during that time, please contact Greg Nudd at 415-947-4107; nudd.gregory@epa.gov.

Colleen W. McKaughan

Associate Director, Air Division

USEPA, Region 9

(520) 498-0118
PUBLIC LAW 109–409—DEC. 18, 2006 120 STAT. 2761

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6151:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Sept. 28, considered and passed House.

Dec. 6, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–409

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 216 Oak

Street in Farmington, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Hamilton H. Judson Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. HAMILTON H. JUDSON POST OFFICE.

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal

Service located at 216 Oak Street in Farmington, Minnesota, shall

be known and designated as the ‘‘Hamilton H. Judson Post Office’’.

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation,

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference

to the ‘‘Hamilton H. Judson Post Office’’.

Approved December 18, 2006.

Dec. 18, 2006

[H.R. 6151]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7518-7519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3187]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending 
Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for 
listing or related actions in the National Register were received by 
the National Park Service before January 20, 2010. Pursuant to section 
60.13 of 36 CFR part

[[Page 7519]]

60, written comments concerning the significance of these properties 
under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded by 
United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic 
Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 2280, Washington, DC 
20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, 
National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 
20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be 
submitted by March 8, 2010.

J. Paul Loether,
Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks 
Program.

ALABAMA

Tuscaloosa County

Alabama Insane Hospital, 200 University Blvd., Tuscaloosa, 10000060

ARIZONA

Phoenix County

Sacred Heart Home for the Aged, 1110 N. 16th St., Phoenix, 05001548

CONNECTICUT

New Haven County

Chatfield Farmstead, 265 Seymour Rd., Woodbridge, 10000061

LOUISIANA

St. James Parish

Felicite Plantation, (Louisiana's French Creole Architecture MPS) 
3351 LA 18, Vacherie, 10000062

MISSISSIPPI

Forrest County

University of Southern Mississippi Historic District, The, 118 
College Dr., Hattiesburg, 10000063

Jefferson County

Poplar Hill Grade School, 3080 Poplar Hill Rd., Fayette, 10000064

Kemper County

Sucarnoochee River Fishweir, Address Restricted, Porterville, 
10000065

MONTANA

Petroleum County

Lewistown Satellite Airfield Historic District (Boundary Increase 
III), Welter Divide Road, 12 mi. N. of Winnett, Winnett, 10000066

NEBRASKA

Gage County

North Eleventh Street Historic District, N. 11th St. bounded by 
Garfield St. on the N. & Lincoln St. on the S., Beatrice, 10000068
North Seventh Street Historic District, N. 7th St. bounded by 
Garfield St. on the N. & Washington St. on the S., Beatrice, 
10000067

OKLAHOMA

Choctaw County

Rose Hill Plantation, Address Restricted, Hugo, 10000069

Pottawatomie County

Old Santa Fe Railroad Bridge, Drummond Rd., Wanette, 10000070

[FR Doc. 2010-3187 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
#### In re MORISON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

In the matter of the application of Mary Morison to have real property of John McAdam, deceased, sold to pay the debts of said decedent.

No opinion. Order of Surrogate’s Court of Kings County affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Code Civ. Proc. § 3243.
PGI 209.202 Policy.

(a)(1) The inclusion of qualification requirements in specifications for products that are to be

included on a Qualified Products List, or manufactured by business firms included on a Qualified

Manufacturers List, requires approval by the departmental standardization office in accordance with

DoD 4120.24-M, Defense Standardization Program (DSP) Policies and Procedures. The inclusion of

other qualification requirements in an acquisition or group of acquisitions requires approval by the

chief of the contracting office.

Parent topic: PGI 209.2 -QUALIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS
# EUR-Lex - 31974L0553 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31974L0553

**Council Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 amending Article 5 (2) of Directive No 69/335/EEC concerning direct taxes on the raising of capital **

*
Official Journal L 303 , 13/11/1974 P. 0009 - 0009 Greek special edition: Chapter 09 Volume 1 P. 0042 Spanish special edition: Chapter 09 Volume 1 P. 0046 Portuguese special edition Chapter 09 Volume 1 P. 0046 *

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 7 November 1974 amending Article 5 (2) of Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (74/553/EEC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Articles 99 and 100 thereof;

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission;

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (1);

Having regard to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee (2);

Whereas Article 5 (2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (3) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital provides that, in the cases referred to in paragraph 1 (a), (b) and (c) thereof, the amount on which capital duty is charged shall not be less than the actual value of the shares in the company allotted or belonging to each member or the nominal amount of these shares if the latter exceeds their actual value;

Whereas the adoption of the actual value of the shares as a minimum basis of taxation does not in some of the above cases conform to the principles on which the harmonized capital duty is based and which aim at introducing a system whereby capital duty is to be charged only on transactions legally constituting a raising of capital and only in so far as such transactions contribute towards strengthening the economic potential of the company,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Article 5 (2) of Directive 69/335/EEC is replaced by the following:

"2. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1 (a) and (b), Member States may base the amount on which to charge capital duty on the actual value of the shares in the company allotted or belonging to each member. This does not apply, to those cases in which contributions are made only in cash. The amount on which duty is charged shall in no circumstances be less than the nominal amount of the shares in the company allotted or belonging to each member."

Article 2

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 November 1974.

For the Council

The President

A. JARROT (1)OJ No C 76, 3.7.1974, p. 9. (2)OJ No C 109, 19.9.1974, p. 35. (3)OJ No L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
###### Editorial Note on Part 72

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 72.194 Physical requirements.

The physical condition and the general health of personnel certified for the operation of equipment and controls that are important to safety must not be such as might cause operational errors that could endanger other in-plant personnel or the public health and safety. Any condition that might cause impaired judgment or motor coordination must be considered in the selection of personnel for activities that are important to safety. These conditions need not categorically disqualify a person, if appropriate provisions are made to accommodate such defect.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 13, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

133988 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan DOROTHY MINTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

v SC: 133988 COA: 273017 Kent CC: 03-005719-NI CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS and JOHN EDWARD-RHEEM WETZEL, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ap ril 12, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument during the January 20 08 session on whether to gran t the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). At oral argum ent, the parties shall address whether the Court of Appeal s majority correctly applied Kreiner v Fischer , 471 Mich 109 (2004), in partially reversing the Kent Circuit Court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for summary disposition. The parties may file suppleme ntal briefs no later than January 4, 2008, but th ey should not submit m ere restatements of their application papers.

t1213 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 13, 2007

Clerk
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 3 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 4 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 5 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 6 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 7 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 8 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 9 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 10 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 11 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 12 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 13 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 14 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 15 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 16 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 17 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 18 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 19 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 20 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 21 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 22 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 23 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 24 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 25 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 26 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 27 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 28 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 29 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 30 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 31 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 32 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 33 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 34 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 35 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 36 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 37 of 38
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 35 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 38 of 38
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

The undersigned officer of The First Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), thiscertification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

Date: November 6, 2009

 

/s/ Daniel R. Daigneault

Daniel R. Daigneault

President & Chief Executive Officer

The First Bancorp, Inc.