alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of The State ofConnecticut and Norwalk Power LLC ) ) ) ) ) Trading Agreement and Order 8184A Modification No.3

Whereas, the Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Norwalk Power LLC ('Respondent) having agreed to the terms and conditions setforth in Trading Agreement and Order 8184A and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modify said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows: 1. All references to May 1, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits andNOx allowances to comply with the emissions limits ofSubsections 22a-174-22(d)(l) through 22a-174- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ('Regulations) are hereby replaced with May 1, 2010. 2. Any references to October 1st with respectto the date by which the Respondents shall estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCS) and/or allowances for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009. 3. Any references to May 31,2007 and May 31,2008 with respect to calculation and retirement ofnon-ozone season DERCs, shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31, 2010. 4. All references to September 1, 2008 with respect to the submission ofFuture Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009. 5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading Agreement and Order 8184A and/or its subsequentmodifications, the Respondent shall comply with the requirements ofSections 22a-174-22(d)(l) and 22a-174-22(d)(2)(A) of the Regulations. 6. All other terms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and Order 8184A, as modified, shall remain in effect.

( Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 Elm $lrcCI • Hanford. CT 06106 5127 http://www.CI.gov/dep All Equal Opportunity Employer•

Norwalk Power LLC 2 Trading Agreement and Order 8184A ModificationNo.3 The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement and Order without further notice. NorwalkPower LLC ? Signature:

# -----,p".fZ,-------,~F""---------- Name:

## L~L I 

# c /2-.c. S 5 Title: 

# fLA-J-..r"T 

### )fl11,.JI!Gr-y... Date: 

# '-1- (

# s- 2.-00 Cj
Issued as a modification ofa Trading Agreement and Order.

Ga os Director Engineering and EnforcementDivision Bureau ofAir Management Date
#### CLIFFORD, Adm’r, v. BLACK, SIVALLS *&*BRYSON, Inc.

No. 29627.

April 30, 1940.

*102 P. 2d 167.*

*203S. J. Montgomery, of Tulsa, and Williams, Teague & Williams, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Shirk, Paul, Earnheart & Shirk and O. A. Cargill, all of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff on the 11th day of April, 1939. Motion for new trial was overruled on the 16th day of June, 1939. The appeal is from the order overruling the motion for new trial. In such cases it is necessary to present the errors by case-made, or bill of exceptions. A case-made was prepared, but it is admitted that it was not settled and signed within the time allowed by law.

As stated in State ex rel. Freeling v. Brewer, 93 Okla. 143, 219 P. 895, a case-made must be settled and signed by the trial judge who tried the cause and filed in the trial court, after being duly.attested by the clerk of the court, and withdrawn and filed in the Supreme Court within six months from the date of the order from which the appeal is taken or the cause will be dismissed. Roddy v. Lambard-Hart Loan Co., 162 Okla. 241, 19 P. 2d 569; Whitney v. Liberty National Bank, 162 Okla. 74, 19 P. 2d 164; Kershaw v. Brook, 162 Okla. 72, 19 P. 2d 144; Barker v. Southwest Homes Corp., 162 Okla. 77, 19 P. 2d 141.

Since the case-made was not signed by the trial judge within six months from the date of the order overruling the motion for new trial, and there was no compliance with chapter 2, art. 4, S. L. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 966, the same presents no error to this court and the cause should be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and OSBORN, GIBSON, and DAVISON, JJ., concur.
### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RITA MORRIS McKEEMAN, Plaintiff,
v. GEORGE W. BUSH, 

### etal., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED AUG 262009 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts 

# 09 1624

This matter comes before the court onreview ofplaintiffs application to proceed 

### in formapauperis and 

### prose civil complaint. The court will grant the application, and dismiss the complaint. The court must dismiss a complaint ifit is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon whichreliefcanbe granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). In

### Neitzke v. 

### Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court states that the trial court has the authorityto dismiss not only claims based on an indisputablymeritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions
are clearlybaseless. Claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the categoryof
cases whose factual contentions are clearlybaseless. 

### [d. at 328. The court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged
are irrational or wholly incredible. 

### Denton v. 

### Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Plaintiffalleges that she "was given a Biological Weapon infectus [sic] [illegible] #4 to Tryto Kill me, and also we wentto war onthese false claims." Compi. at 21 (page number designated bythe Court). The nature ofthese "false claims" is unclear, as neither the complaint

### nor its may attachments sets forth her factual allegations. Plaintiffdemands damages in the "amount of 1000,000.00 million dollars." Id. 

### The court is mindful that complaints filed byprose 

### litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings draftedbylawyers. See Haines 

### v. Kerner, 404 

### U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Having reviewedplaintiffs complaint, it appears that its few factual contentions are baseless and whollyincredible. Forthis reason, the complaint is frivolous and must be dismissed. See 

### 28 U.S.C. § 

### 19l5(e)(2)(B)(i). An 

### Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

United States District Judge
DOL Seal - Link 

to DOL Home

Page U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Disability Employment Policy

Workforce. Opportunity. Leadership.

www.dol.gov/odep Search / A to Z Index

August 16, 2006 DOL Home > ODEP > Publications > Employment Rate Statistics

Statistics on the Employment Rate of People with 

Disabilities

Fact Sheet: Statistics on the Employment Rate of People with Disabilities

The statistics vary depending on the source data and the definition of disability.

The Census 2000, Census 2000 Summary File #3, and other Census 2000 reports are frequently referenced sources for disability statistics. For 

example, a publication from the U.S. Census Bureau, Disability Status 2000: Census 2000 Brief (March 2003) (C2KBR-17), along with Census 

2000 Summary File #3 (March 2003) report the following statistics about the employment of people with disabilities:

The total number of people with disabilities aged 16-64 is 33,153,211.

Of those, the total number employed is 18,525,862.

The percent of people with disabilities aged 16-64 employed is 55.8%.

Of the 18.6 million people with disabilities employed aged 16-64, 60.1% of men with disabilities are employed, and 51.4% of women with 

disabilities are employed.

ODEP is working with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at the Department of Labor to develop tools for collecting current and more detailed 

employment data about people with disabilities using the Current Population Survey. More information on this initiative is available on ODEP's web 

site.

Additional statistical information about persons with disabilities can be obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau web site, or by phone at 301-457-

3242. And more sources of disability statistics can be found online at DisabilityInfo.gov.

Find It! in DOL

Frequently Asked 

Questions

New Freedom Initiative

5th Annual Secretary's 

Awards

Circle of Champions

Initiatives

Programs

Grants

Publications

Looking for a Job?

News Room

News Releases

Speeches

Press Room

Back Archives

to 

Top

https://web.archive.org/web/20060901184150/http://www.dol.gov/odephttps://web.archive.org/web/20060901184150/http://www.dol.gov/

Frequently Asked Questions | Freedom of Information Act | Customer Survey

Privacy & Security Statement | Disclaimers | E-mail to a Friend

U.S. Department of Labor

Frances Perkins Building

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

1-866-633-7365

TTY:1-877-889-5627

Fax:1-202-693-7888

Contact Us

ODEP - Fact Sheet: Statistics on the Employment Rate of People with Disabilities Page 1 of 1

mhtml:file://C:\Users\tdefosse\AppData\Local\Temp\ODEP - Fact Sheet Statistics on the Employment Rate of People with Di... 06/21/17
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Allstates WorldCargo, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, Craig D. Stratton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
           Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
           operations of the Company for the periods presented.


Dated: May 14, 2004


/s/ Craig D. Stratton
------------------------
Craig D. Stratton
Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Accounting Officer



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### Mary R. Grier, Plaintiff, v W. Robson N. Grier, Respondent. Rita W. Warner, Nonparty Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 324]

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, nonparty Rita W. Warner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), entered October 9, 1998, which granted the defendant’s cross motion for an award of counsel fees and directed her to pay $1,714.60 to the attorneys for the defendant.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the cross motion is denied.

The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s cross motion for an award of counsel fees upon finding that the behavior of nonparty Rita W. Warner, the former counsel for the plaintiff, constituted “frivolous conduct” within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. While the appellant’s conduct in persistently arguing before the court after being instructed to refrain from doing so might have been punishable pursuant to the court’s contempt powers *(see generally,*Judiciary Law art 19), the court did not attempt to exercise its contempt powers in this case. Contrary to the finding of the Supreme Court, 22 NYCRR part 130, concerning the imposition of costs and/or sanctions for “frivolous conduct” in civil litigation, is inapplicable in this case *(see, Matter of Kernisan v Taylor,*171 AD2d 869). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
§ 29.729 Retracting mechanism. For rotorcraft with retractable landing gear, the following apply: ( a ) *Loads.* The landing gear, retracting mechanism, wheel well doors, and supporting structure must be designed for— ( 1 ) The loads occurring in any maneuvering condition with the gear retracted;
( 2 ) The combined friction, inertia, and air loads occurring during retraction and extension at any airspeed up to the design maximum landing gear operating speed; and
( 3 ) The flight loads, including those in yawed flight, occurring with the gear extended at any airspeed up to the design maximum landing gear extended speed.
( b ) *Landing gear lock.* A positive means must be provided to keep the gear extended.
( c ) *Emergency operation.* When other than manual power is used to operate the gear, emergency means must be provided for extending the gear in the event of— ( 1 ) Any reasonably probable failure in the normal retraction system; or
( 2 ) The failure of any single source of hydraulic, electric, or equivalent energy.
( d ) *Operation tests.* The proper functioning of the retracting mechanism must be shown by operation tests.
( e ) *Position indicator.* There must be means to indicate to the pilot when the gear is secured in the extreme positions.
( f ) *Control.* The location and operation of the retraction control must meet the requirements of §§ 29.777 and 29.779.
( g ) *Landing gear warning.* An aural or equally effective landing gear warning device must be provided that functions continuously when the rotorcraft is in a normal landing mode and the landing gear is not fully extended and locked. A manual shutoff capability must be provided for the warning device and the warning system must automatically reset when the rotorcraft is no longer in the landing mode.
[Doc. No. 5084, 29 FR 16150, Dec. 3, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 29-24, 49 FR 44437, Nov. 6, 1984]
§ 33.35 Fuel and induction system. ( a ) The fuel system of the engine must be designed and constructed to supply an appropriate mixture of fuel to the cylinders throughout the complete operating range of the engine under all flight and atmospheric conditions.
( b ) The intake passages of the engine through which air or fuel in combination with air passes for combustion purposes must be designed and constructed to minimize the danger of ice accretion in those passages. The engine must be designed and constructed to permit the use of a means for ice prevention.
( c ) The type and degree of fuel filtering necessary for protection of the engine fuel system against foreign particles in the fuel must be specified. The applicant must show that foreign particles passing through the prescribed filtering means will not critically impair engine fuel system functioning.
( d ) Each passage in the induction system that conducts a mixture of fuel and air must be self-draining, to prevent a liquid lock in the cylinders, in all attitudes that the applicant establishes as those the engine can have when the aircraft in which it is installed is in the static ground attitude.
( e ) If provided as part of the engine, the applicant must show for each fluid injection (other than fuel) system and its controls that the flow of the injected fluid is adequately controlled.
[Doc. No. 3025, 29 FR 7453, June 10, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 33-10, 49 FR 6851, Feb. 23, 1984]
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the “10-Q”) of GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. (“GEO”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of GEOas of the dates and for the periods covered by the 10-Q.

 

|               |   | GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. |
|--------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
| Date: May 13, 2003 |   | By:                      | /s/ GEORGE P. AHEARN |
|               |   |                          |  |
|               |   |                          | **George P. Ahearn****President and Chief Executive Officer** |
#### James N. LEWIS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Theodore SIMMS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

Nos. 15300, 15301.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Dec. 23, 1959.

Decided April 14, 1960.

Mr. Alfred V. J. Prather, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellants.

Mr. Fred McIntyre, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee,

Before Prettyman, Chief Judge, and Edgerton and Bastían, Circuit Judges.

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellants, Lewis and Simms, were indicated with three other men on the charge of rape. Four defendants, including appellants herein, were convicted of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape. The fifth defendant was not brought to trial because it was determined that he was mentally incompetent. After the verdict of the jury, finding appellants guilty, and on December 20, 1957, they were sentenced.

Nearly a year later, on December 3, 1958, appellants filed motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and to discharge them from custody. This motion was denied by the trial judge on December 17, 1958.

Thereafter, and on December 31, 1958, appellants made application for leave to appeal from the judgment of conviction in forma pauperis, which was denied by the District Court on January 7, 1959. Thereafter they applied to this court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and on June 23, 1959, this court remanded the case to the District Court with directions to reconsider appellants’ motion to vacate sentence “in the light of papers filed in this case * * * and to determine in a hearing whether petitioners’ failure to file a timely notice of appeal was the result of excusable neglect.” The action of this court was taken prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259, which held that an appeal from a judgment of conviction must be filed within the time fixed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

On June 30, 1959, the District Court granted appellants the right to appeal from the judgment of conviction as the result of excusable neglect but denied *34their motion to vacate sentence.1 In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Robinson, supra, the appeals from the judgments of conviction, having been filed nearly a year after right of appeal accrued, must be dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.

1

. The formal order denying the motion to vacate sentence was entered March 2, 1960, and an appeal therefrom is now pending.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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 8, 2016

p0229 

# Order

Clerk March 8, 2016

151523(77)

EDIE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 151523

COA: 317766

Saginaw CC: 11

- 014069

- NH

KAREN MCCARTHY, CRNA, ANESTHESIA

STAFFING CONSULTANTS, INC.,

MACKINAW SURGERY CENTER, L.L.C.,

and NUETERRA HEALTHCARE

MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

COVENANT MEDICAL CENTER, INC., d/b/a

COVENANT HEALTHCARE

- MACKINAW,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November

24, 2015 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order

was entered erroneously.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

HEYWOOD BECKER

v.

U.S. BANK, N.A.

PETITION OF: HEYWOOD BECKER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 301 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

U.S. BANK, N.A.

v.

GEORGE KIRIAKIDIAND HEYWOOD

BECKER

PETITION OF: HEYWOOD BECKER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 302 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

HEYWOOD BECKER

v.

U.S. BANK, N.A.

PETITION OF: HEYWOOD BECKER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 303 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court[ 301

- 05 MAL 2022 ]

- 2

HEYWOOD BECKER

v.

E. KEITH DARROW

PETITION OF: HEYWOOD BECKER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 304 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

HEYWOOD BECKER

v.

ESTATE OF RICHARD RESTIFO DECEASED A/K/A RICHARD J. RESTIFO, EMILY MARIE CIPRIANO, ADMIN. A/K/A EMILY M. CIPRIANO, AND UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA

PETITION OF: HEYWOOD BECKER,

ESTATE OF RICHARD RESTIFO

DECEASED A/K/A RICHARD J. RESTIFO AND EMILY MARIE CIPRIANO, ADMIN.

A/K/A EMILY M. CIPRIANO :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 305 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of January, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal,

the Petition for Leave to File a Response in Support of Petitioners’ Petition for Allowance

of Appeal , and the Conditional Cross

- Application for Leave to File Sur

- Reply in Opposition

to Petitioners’ Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED

.
###### Editorial Note on Part 221

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 221.205 Justification and explanation for certain fares.

Any carrier or its agent must provide, as to any new or increased bundled or unbundled (whichever is lower) on-demand economy fare in a direct-service market, a comparison between, on the one hand, that proposed fare and, on the other hand, the ceiling fare allowed in that market based on the SFFL.
§ 404.5 Filing a petition for waiver. ( a ) A petition for waiver must be submitted at least 60 days before the proposed effective date of the waiver, unless the Administrator agrees to a different time frame in accordance with § 404.15.
( b ) The petition for waiver must include: ( 1 ) The specific section or sections of 14 CFR chapter III from which the petitioner seeks relief;
( 2 ) The extent of the relief sought and the reason the relief is being sought;
( 3 ) The reason why granting the request for relief is in the public interest and will not jeopardize the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States; and
( 4 ) Any additional facts, views, and data available to the petitioner to support the waiver request.
[Doc. No. FAA-2019-0229, Amdt. 404-7, 85 FR 79709, Dec. 10, 2020]