alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph B. Sena, Appellant. Philip Ross, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 20, 1980. Decision affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Mikoll and Casey JJ., concur; Herlihy, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum.

Herlihy, J. (dissenting).

There should be a reversal and a remittal. The evidence is without dispute that the claimant was employed in the fur industry performing highly skilled piecework and was paid on a daily basis. As a result of *936president stated: “The nature of our trade is such that when there is little work in one fur dressing factory, there similarly is little work in the other factories our members service. This was the case with Mr. Sena. There was consequently no opportunity for Mr. Sena to perform the highly skilled duties he is trained for and for which he has the experience during the period for which he applied for unemployment insurance.” The board found: “Under the Unemployment Insurance Law, a person must make an active and diligent search for work. This the claimant has not accomplished, and at best his job search must be considered token in nature. Accordingly, claimant is unavailable under the Unemployment Insurance Law.” The evidence, under the unusual circumstances, does not sustain the broad finding of the board. The matter should be remitted for further consideration. The decision should be reversed, and the matter remitted for further consideration.
§ 76.72 Miscellaneous procedural matters. ( a ) The filing of any petitions for review or any responses to these petitions are governed by the procedural requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.302(a) and (c), 2.304, 2.305, 2.306, and 2.307. Additional guidance regarding the filing and service of petitions for review of the Director's decision and responses to these petitions may be provided in the Director's decision or by order of the Commission.
( b ) The Secretary of the Commission has the authority to rule on procedural matters set forth in 10 CFR 2.346.
( c ) There are no restrictions on ex parte communications or on the ability of the NRC staff and the Commission to communicate with one another at any stage of the regulatory process, with the exception that the rules on ex parte communications and separation of functions set forth in 10 CFR 2.347 and 2.348 apply to proceedings under 10 CFR Part 2 for imposition of a civil penalty.
( d ) The procedures set forth in 10 CFR 2.205, and in 10 CFR part 2, subparts C, G, L and N will be applied in connection with NRC action to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the implementing regulations in 10 CFR part 21 (Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance), as authorized by section 1312(e) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
( e ) The procedures set forth in 10 CFR 2.206 apply to a request by any person to institute a proceeding pursuant to § 76.70 to amend, revoke, or suspend a certificate of compliance or approved compliance plan, or for such other action as may be proper.
[59 FR 48960, Sept. 23, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 6670, Feb. 12, 1997; 69 FR 2281, Jan. 14, 2004]
#### § 60.65 Representation.

Any person who acts under this subpart as a representative for a State (or for the Governor or legislature thereof) or for an affected Indian Tribe shall include in the request or other submission, or at the request of the Commission, a statement of the basis of his or her authority to act in such representative capacity.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,433
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                89,047
<PP&E>                                           5,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,193
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           670
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,144
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,517
<SALES>                                         89,329
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                89,329
<CGS>                                           81,594
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,291
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,721)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,721)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,721)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7061

RESTONEY ROBINSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

W. DOUGLAS ALBRIGHT, SR.; CARRIE A. MOCK;

ROBERT MORGAN, Attorney General; WILLIAM F.

BRILEY, Assistant Attorney; DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, Highway Division; HERMAN G. ENOCHS,

JR., Judge; P. TREVOR SHARP, Judge,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-00-187-1)

Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 21, 2000

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Restoney Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Restoney Robinson appeals from the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing

without prejudice Robinson’s complaint for failure to comply with

a prefiling injunction issued in Robinson v. Frederick, C-88-898-S

(M.D.N.C. Oct. 11, 1989). Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Robinson v. Albright, No. CA-00-187-1 (M.D.N.C. June 23, 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32



Certification

Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of FNB Corp., a North Carolina corporation (the Corporation), does hereby certify that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the
Form 10-Q) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



|                  |  |  |  |                                          
|----------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|                  |  | 
|Date: May 7, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Michael C. Miller                    
|                  |  |  |  |                                          
|                  |  |  |  | Michael C. Miller Chief Executive Officer



|                  |  |  |  |                                        
|----------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|                  |  | 
|Date: May 7, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Jerry A. Little                    
|                  |  |  |  |                                        
|                  |  |  |  | Jerry A. Little Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate
disclosure document.
### -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 05/31 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
#### § 603.825 Government approval of changes in plans.

If it is an expenditure-based award, a TIA must require the recipient to obtain the contracting officer's prior approval if there is to be a change in plans that may result in a need for additional Federal funding (this is unnecessary for a fixed-support TIA because the recipient is responsible for additional costs of achieving the outcomes). Other than that, the program official's substantial involvement in the project should ensure that the Government has advance notice of changes in plans.
§ 76.121 Inspections. ( a ) The Corporation shall afford to the Commission opportunity to inspect the premises and plants under the Corporation's control where radioactive material is used, produced, or stored.
( b ) The Corporation shall make available to the Commission for inspection records kept pertaining to receipt, possession, use, acquisition, import, export, or transfer of radioactive material.
( c ) ( 1 ) The Corporation shall provide rent-free office space for the exclusive use of Commission inspection personnel upon request by the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, or the NRC Region III Administrator. Heat, air conditioning, light, electrical outlets, and janitorial services must be furnished by the Corporation. The office must be convenient to and have full access to the plant, and must provide the inspector both visual and acoustic privacy.
( 2 ) The space provided must be adequate to accommodate the NRC resident inspection staff, a part-time secretary, and transient NRC personnel. Space must be generally commensurate with other office facilities at the site. The office space that is provided must be subject to the approval of the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, or the NRC Region III Office. All furniture, supplies, and communication equipment will be furnished by the Commission.
( 3 ) The Corporation shall afford any NRC resident inspector assigned to that site or other NRC inspectors identified by the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, or the NRC Region III Administrator, as likely to inspect the plant, immediate, unfettered access equivalent to access provided regular plant employees, following proper identification and compliance with applicable access control measures for security, radiological protection, and personal safety.
(May 27, 1970)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Leroy A. Barnes, Petitioner, v. Paul C. Agnew, as Acting Director of Dannemora State Hospital, et al., Respondents.

Application, pursuant to CPLR 7002 (subd. [bj, par. 2), for a writ of habeas corpus, denied for failure of compliance with article 70 of the CPLR, and more particularly with the provisions of CPLR 7002 (subd. [c], pars. 1, 5, 6) thereof. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Staley, Jr., Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.
January 9, 2013

Ms. Kristin Fitzgerald, Environmental Protection Specialist

US EPA

5304P

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20460 

RE: Estimate of Pharmaceutical Generation Rates for Colorado Nursing Homes

Dear Ms. Fitzgerald:

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

Division (the Division) estimates that 0.10 to 0.28 pounds of pharmaceutical waste is generated by Colorado 

nursing homes per bed, per month. Therefore, with approximately 20,000 licensed beds in nursing home facilities 

statewide, we estimate that between approximately 24,000 and 67,000 pounds of pharmaceutical waste is 

generated each year by Colorado nursing homes. According to this estimate, a 100-bed nursing home might 

expect to generate approximately 10 to 28 pounds of pharmaceutical waste per month.

This estimate is for the net weight (without packaging) of all types of pharmaceutical wastes including those that 

are RCRA hazardous, non-RCRA hazardous, DEA controlled, prescription, and over-the-counter. This estimate 

includes inert ingredients for most waste pharmaceuticals that were not originally in pill or capsule form such as 

liquids, gels, lotions, and ointments. The estimate includes vitamins (since some vitamins can contain RCRA 

regulated heavy metals) but specifically excludes high volume nutritional supplements such as fiber, protein 

supplements, and meal replacement drinks since they have the potential to significantly skew the data upward and 

pose little to no environmental concern. 

In Colorado, licensing regulations require nursing homes to track all drugs that are destroyed (6 CCR 1011-1, 

Chapter V, Section 16.6 ) Therefore, in order to arrive at our estimate, the Division obtained copies of drug 

destruction logs from three Colorado nursing homes. The table below gives further details regarding the nursing 

homes used for the estimate.

Nursing Home # of 

licensed 

beds

Dates of drug logs reviewed How waste was 

disposed during 

review period

Area of State

A 49 January 2011 – October 2011 

(10 months)

Sharps container Northwest 

B 120 September 2011 – April 2011 

(8 months)

Sharps container South 

C 56 October 2011 – July 2012 (10 

months)

Chemotherapy 

waste container

Central (Denver 

Metro Area)
It is important to note that the Division had to make numerous assumptions to arrive at these figures, and 

therefore they should be treated as estimates. In Fall 2013, the Division plans to begin requiring all nursing 

homes to report the volumes of RCRA hazardous and non-RCRA hazardous pharmaceutical wastes that they 

generate. We look forward to being able to compare our estimates with this future data. 

Please feel free to contact me at (303)692-3351 if you have any questions at all. 

Sincerely,

Lillian Gonzalez, Health Care Sector Lead

Hazardous Waste Compliance Assurance Unit 

xc: Kathryn Stewart, CDPHE

Joe Schieffelin, CDPHE
BLD-058 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1890

___________

JOHN W. MCGILL,

Appellant

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 2-15-cv-00031)

District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

November 19, 2015

Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Filed: November 25, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

John McGill appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Jersey, which dismissed his complaint for declaratory judgment. We will 

vacate the District Court’s order and remand for further proceedings.

McGill’s complaint, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a), 

sought a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen of the United States. The District Court 

entered an order stating that it had sua sponte reviewed the complaint pursuant to Rule 8 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and 

had determined that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. The Court stated, “Plaintiff seeks relief that is beyond the jurisdiction of the 

court,” and stated that amendment would not be allowed, as it would be futile. McGill 

timely appealed.

 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court’s order 

dismissing McGill’s complaint. We exercise plenary review over a district court’s 

decision to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d 

Cir. 2000).

The District Court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of McGill’s complaint 

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a) and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 

Section 1503(a) provides that “any person who claims a right or privilege as a national of 

the United States and is denied such right or privilege can institute an action for a 

judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States.” See Mathin v. Kerry, 782 

F.3d 804, 805 (7th Cir. 2015). The statute provides for a de novo determination of 

citizenship by the district court. Id. McGill’s complaint states that he sought a certificate 
3

of citizenship and that it was denied. The District Court did not provide any legal 

reasoning for its determination that it lacked jurisdiction over McGill’s complaint, and 

we are unaware of any legal reason why the District Court could not adjudicate it.

For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate the District Court’s order and remand for 

further proceedings.
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*December 21, 2007*

[Cite as *12/21/2007 Case Announcements,*2007-Ohio-6842.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2006-0185.

#### State v. Siler.

Ashland App. No. 02 COA 028, 164 Ohio App.3d 680, 2005-Ohio-6591. This cause came on for further consideration upon appellant’s motion for stay of mandate. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is denied as moot.
#### BURNS BROS. v. ROYAL BANK OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 15, 1915.)

Action by Burns Bros, against the Royal Bank of New York.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Israel V. Lao, Appellant, v. John T. Deegan, as Warden of Sing Sing Prison, Respondent.

In a.habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 18, 1968, which dismissed the writ. Judgment affirmed, without costs. *(People ex rel. Smith*v. *Deegan,*32 A D 2d 940.) Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
confidential









Annual Statement of Compliance

Per the Servicing Agreement for the transaction listed on Schedule I hereto,
the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., in the capacity as listed on Schedule I ("Wells Fargo"),
hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2018 (the "Reporting Period"):

| | (a) | A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement
has been made under such officer’s supervision; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (b) | To the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under
the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



February 6, 2019











Brian Smith

Vice President











Patti Spencer

Assistant Secretary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0079

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

BETHANY LYNN LEX,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 9, 2024 within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2024

08/02/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0079
§ 600.503 Determining the economic interest of the United States. In determining whether participation of an applicant company in a covered program would be in the economic interest of the United States under § 600.502(a), DOE may consider any evidence showing that a financial assistance award would be in the economic interest of the United States including, but not limited to— ( a ) Investments by the applicant company and its affiliates in the United States in research, development, and manufacturing (including, for example, the manufacture of major components or subassemblies in the United States);
( b ) Significant contributions to employment in the United States by the applicant company and its affiliates; and
( c ) An agreement by the applicant company, with respect to any technology arising from the financial assistance being sought— ( 1 ) To promote the manufacture within the United States of products resulting from that technology (taking into account the goals of promoting the competitiveness of United States industry); and
( 2 ) To procure parts and materials from competitive suppliers.
#### § 76.43 Date for decision.

The Director will render a decision on an application within 6 months of the receipt of the application unless the Director alters the date for decisions and publishes notice of the new date in the Federal Register.

[62 FR 6670, Feb. 12, 1997]