alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Meeting Record Regarding: The Contaminant Candidate List 4 (CCL 4)

Date: July 25, 2013

Location: American Water Works Association Offices ; Washington, DC

Participants: Meredith Russell (EPA), Lisa Christ (EPA), Alan Roberson (AWWA), Adam Carpenter (AWWA), Steve Via (AWWA), Jeanne Eckhart (AWWA Intern), Austa Parker (AWWA Intern), Clay Cope (AWWA Intern), Andy Eaton (Eurofin Eaton Analytical), Rick Sakaji (East Bay MUD), Gary Lynch (Park Water), Craig Adams (Utah State University), Cynthia Garcia (City of P eoria, AZ), Theresa Slifko (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California), Keith Cartnick (United Water), Ruth Marfil

- Vega (American Water), Djanette Khiari (Water Research Foundation), Dave Cornwell (EE&T, Inc.), Jeff Rosen (Clancy Environmental), M ichelle Frey (PureSense), Chuck Hertz (Aqua America), Chad Seidel (Jacobs Engineering), Joe Cotruvo (Cotruvo and Associates)

EPA met with representatives from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) to discuss the CCL 4 nominated contaminants. EPA gav e a brief summary of the request for nominations from the public in
the Federal Register on May 8, 2012
, and of the contaminant nominations received from the public . EPA
told the AWWA members that it had received nominations for 59 unique contaminants (54 chemicals and 5 microbial contaminants or groups of contaminants) to be considered for inclusion in the CCL 4. Eight of those 59 contaminants were nominat ed by more than one nominator. Nominations were
received from 10 different organizations or individ uals. EPA stated that all of the original nomination
submissions could be found in the CCL 4 docket at www. regulations.gov (Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2012

- 0217). EPA also said that we are evaluating the nominated contaminants using the same process that

was u sed in CCL 3, and that we are working hard to release a Draft CCL 4 for public comment and to

meet our statutory deadline for the Final CCL 4 of October, 2014.

AWWA members asked how many of the nominated chemicals were previously considered in CCL 3, an d EPA responded that 44 of the nominated chemicals were considered in the CCL 3 Universe and that
most of the nominated chemicals not in the CCL 3 Universe were previously evaluated by EPA in response to CCL 3 public comments . EPA also clarified that all of the nominated contaminants that have
new data available since the development of the CCL 3 are being evaluated for potential inclusion in the CCL 4. AWWA members also asked EPA to clarify how contaminants were considered in the CCL 3 process, and EPA g ave a brief explanation of the CCL 3 process , which included narrowing of a broad Universe of potential drinking water contaminants to a Preliminary CCL (PCCL) using screening criteria based on the contaminant’s potential to occur in public water systems, and the potential for public health concern, and then a more detailed evaluation of the PCCL contaminants using a scoring and classification system to select contaminants from the PCCL for the CCL. Members also asked if the Draft CCL 4 would undergo SAB review, and EPA responded that we will consult with the SAB on the Draft list.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1618
SAMUEL L. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusNEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, a New York Corporation; THE SPARTANBURG HERALD-JOURNAL, a South Carolina Corporation, Defendants - Appellees, and MIKE TOWERY; EARL BARBER, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-2300-7-20AK) Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997 Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2Samuel L. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Bernard Lindemann, JACKSON, LEWIS, SCHNITZLER & KRUPMAN, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Appellees summary judgment in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. New York Times Co. , No. CA-94-2300-7-20AK (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 1996). 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
#### § 61.151 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes the requirements for the issuance of airline transport pilot certificates and ratings, the conditions under which those certificates and ratings are necessary, and the general operating rules for persons who hold those certificates and ratings.
§ 102.127 Definitions. When used in this subpart: ( a ) The term *person outside this Agency,* to whom the prohibitions apply includes any individual outside this Agency, partnership, corporation, association, or other entity, or an agent thereof, and the General Counsel or the General Counsel's representative when prosecuting an unfair labor practice proceeding before the Board pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Act.
( b ) The term *ex parte communication* means an oral or written communication not on the public record with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given, subject however, to the provisions of §§ 102.129 and 102.130.
[42 FR 13113, Mar. 8, 1977, as amended at 82 FR 11778, Feb. 24, 2017]
ACCEPTED

12-14-00240CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/10/2015 8:33:52 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/10/2015 8:33:52 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
§ 60.5 Quality management system. ( a ) After May 30, 2010, no sponsor may use or allow the use of or offer the use of an FSTD for flight crewmember training or evaluation or for obtaining flight experience to meet any requirement of this chapter unless the sponsor has established and follows a quality management system (QMS), currently approved by the responsible Flight Standards office, for the continuing surveillance and analysis of the sponsor's performance and effectiveness in providing a satisfactory FSTD for use on a regular basis as described in QPS appendix E of this part.
( b ) The QMS program must provide a process for identifying deficiencies in the program and for documenting how the program will be changed to address these deficiencies.
( c ) Whenever the responsible Flight Standards office finds that the QMS program does not adequately address the procedures necessary to meet the requirements of this part, the sponsor must, after notification by the responsible Flight Standards office, change the program so the procedures meet the requirements of this part. Each such change must be approved by the responsible Flight Standards office prior to implementation.
( d ) Within 30 days after the sponsor receives a notice described in paragraph (c) of this section, the sponsor may file a petition with the Executive Director of Flight Standards Service (the Executive Director) for reconsideration of the responsible Flight Standards office finding. The sponsor must address its petition to the Executive Director, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591. The filing of such a petition to reconsider stays the notice pending a decision by the Executive Director. However, if the Executive Director finds that there is a situation that requires immediate action in the interest of safety in air commerce, he may, upon a statement of the reasons, require a change effective without stay.
[Doc. No. FAA-2002-12461, 71 FR 63426, Oct. 30, 2006; Amdt. 60-2, 72 FR 59599, Oct. 22, 2007, as amended by Docket FAA-2018-0119, Amdt. 60-5, 83 FR 9170, Mar. 5, 2018; Docket No. FAA-2022-1355; Amdt. No. 60-7, 87 FR 75711, Dec. 9, 2022]
#### § 1214.700 Scope.

This subpart establishes the authority of the NASA Commander of a NASA mission, excluding missions related to the ISS and activities licensed under Title 51 U.S.C. Chapter 509, to enforce order and discipline during a mission and to take whatever action in his/her judgment is reasonable and necessary for the protection, safety, and well-being of all personnel and on-board equipment, including the spacecraft and payloads. During the final launch countdown, following crew ingress, the NASA Commander has the authority to enforce order and discipline among all on-board personnel. During emergency situations prior to liftoff, the NASA Commander has the authority to take whatever action in his/her judgment is necessary for the protection or security, safety, and well-being of all personnel on board.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Wells Real Estate Fund XII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the
undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General
Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



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



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



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ LEO F. WELLS, III  
| |  | Leo F. Wells, III      
| |  | Chief Executive Officer
| |  | August 12, 2010        



| |  |                        
| |  | -----------------------
| |  | /s/ DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS
| |  | Douglas P. Williams    
| |  | Chief Financial Officer
| |  | August 12, 2010
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40514 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. FORTION RIOS

- MARTINEZ, true name Fortino Rios

- Martinez , Defendant

- Appellant
c/w No. 16

- 40513 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. FORTINO RIOS MARTINEZ, also known as Rafael Rios Martinez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:13

- CR

- 1365

- 1 USDC No. 5:08

- CR

- 1081

- 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 25, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40514 Document: 00513848746 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2017No. 16

- 40514 c/w No. 16

- 40513

2 Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Fortino Rios

- Martinez appeals his most recent conviction and sentence for illegal reentry as well as the revocation of his term of supervised release imposed in his 2008 illegal reentry case . He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We review for an a buse of discretion, considering the factors set forth in United States v. Carr , 740 F.2d 339, 343

- 44 (5th Cir. 1984). See United States v. London , 568 F.3d 553, 562

- 63 (5th Cir. 2009). Rios

- Martinez testified under oath during rearraignment that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and that he was satisfied with the Assistant Federal Public Defender’s performance, and these “ solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” United States v. McKnight , 570 F.3d 641, 649 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. Rios

- Martinez’s unsupported assertions that he was coerced to reenter the United States and to plead guilty are not sufficient to assert his innocence, especially since he does not attempt to address the aforementioned sworn testimony

. See London , 568 F.3d at 563. I n his motion to withdraw his plea below, Rios

- Martinez estimated that his jury trial would take two days, which is not so insubstantial as to “necessitate a finding that there is no inconve nience to the district court.” McKn ight , 570 F.3d at 650 . He does not address, much less challenge, the district court’s holdings that the remaining Carr factors weigh against him, nor does he brief adequately his assertion that the revocation of his sup ervised

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 16-40514 Document: 00513848746 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2017No. 16

- 40514 c/w No. 16

- 40513

3 release must be vacated

. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) ; F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28 (a)(8)

. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-40514 Document: 00513848746 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/25/2017
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), announcement is made of the 
following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of 
June 2000.

    Name: Advisory Committee on Infant Mortality (ACIM).
    Date and Time: June 28, 2000; 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; June 29, 
2000; 8:30 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
    Place: DoubleTree Park Terrace Hotel, 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 232-7000.
    The meeting is open to the public.
    Purpose: The Committee provides advice and recommendations to 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the following: 
Department programs which are directed at reducing infant mortality 
and improving the health status of pregnant women and infants; 
factors affecting the continuum of care with respect to maternal and 
child health care, including outcomes following childbirth; factors 
determining the length of hospital stay following childbirth; 
strategies to coordinate the variety of Federal, State, and local 
and private programs and efforts that are designed to deal with the 
health and social problems impacting on infant mortality; and the 
implementation of the Healthy Start initiative and infant mortality 
objectives from Healthy People 2010.
    Agenda: Topics that will be discussed include: Early Postpartum 
Discharge; Low-Birth Weight; Disparities in Infant Mortality; and 
the Healthy Start Program.
    Anyone requiring information regarding the Committee should 
contact Peter C. van Dyck, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Secretary, ACIM, 
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Room 18-05, 
Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone 
(301) 443-2170.
    Individuals who are interested in attending any portion of the 
meeting or who have questions regarding the meeting should contact 
Ms. Kerry P. Nesseler, HRSA, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, 
Telephone (301) 443-2170.
    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities are further 
determined.

    Dated: May 9, 2000.
Jane M. Harrison,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. 00-12324 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 10, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-30106

Summary Calendar

 

LONDELL HARPER, JR.,

 PlaintiffAppellant,

versus

JERRY GOODWIN; JOHN STEPHENSON;

EARL BENSON; VENETIA MICHAEL;

JOHN ROBINSON,

 DefendantsAppellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:04-CV-1357

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

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Londell Harper, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 386923, appeals the district court’s dismissal of

his civilrights action asfrivolous and for failure to state a claim. To the extent that Harper alleges

that he was denied due process in conjunction with his disciplinary hearing, his placement in

administrative segregation for 23 days is insufficient to raise due process concerns. See Sandin
 

-2-

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Although a loss of good time credits requires the prisoner to

receive due process protections, see Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 769 (5thCir. 1997), Harper’s

credits were restored when the disciplinary conviction was overturned on direct appeal.

Harper also contendsthat his constitutionalrights were violated when he wasfalsely accused

of participating in a sex offense. This allegation is insufficient to invoke the Constitution. See

Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 953-54 (5thCir. 2003)(enbanc)(no federal constitutional claim

based on tort of malicious prosecution).

Harper’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we DISMISS Harper’s appeal as frivolous. See 5th

Cir. R. 42.2. This dismissal of his appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of his

complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim constitute two strikes for the purposes of 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5thCir. 1996). If Harper obtains

three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appealfiled while

he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical

injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
SAMUEL ORTIZ-LOPEZ, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-1126 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ )

Opinion filed November 21, 2014. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Emmett Lamar Battles, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and J.L. "Ray" LeGrande, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dawn A. Tiffin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

MORRIS, Judge. Samuel Ortiz-Lopez appeals his judgment and sentence for first -degree murder. We conclude that the trial court's denial of his motio n for continuance did not result in a palpable abuse of discretion. See Chavez v. State, 48 So. 3d 1022, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing M.D.B. v. State, 952 So. 2d 590 (Fla . 2d DCA 2007)).-2- Likewise, we conclude that there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of testimony concerning Ortiz-Lopez's prior possession of a firear m. Cf. Agatheas v. State, 77 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2011). Affirmed.

CASANUEVA and KHOUZA M, JJ., Concur.
§ 1636.7 Relationship to other laws. ( a ) *In general.* ( 1 ) The PWFA and this part do not invalidate or limit the powers, remedies, and procedures under any Federal law, State law, or the law of any political subdivision of any State or jurisdiction that provides greater or equal protection for individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
( 2 ) The PWFA and this part do not require an employer-sponsored health plan to pay for or cover any particular item, procedure, or treatment, or affect any right or remedy available under any other Federal, State, or local law with respect to any such payment or coverage requirement.
( b ) *Rule of construction.* The PWFA and this part are subject to the applicability to religious employment set forth in section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a). ( 1 ) Nothing in 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-5(b) or this part should be interpreted to limit a covered entity's rights under the U.S. Constitution.
( 2 ) Nothing in 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-5(b) or this part should be interpreted to limit an employee's rights under other civil rights statutes.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12214]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP92-166-005]


Providence Gas Company; Notice of Filing

May 10, 2000.
    Take notice that The Providence Gas Company (Providence Gas), on 
April 26, 2000, tendered for filing an application to amend the 
limited-jurisdiction blanket transportation certificate issued in the 
above-captioned docket by substituting the name of the holder of the 
certificate.
    Upon the consummation of a merger agreement between Providence 
Energy Corporation and Southern Union Company, Providence Gas will 
cease to exist as a separate legal entity. Providence Gas requests that 
the Commission amend the blanket certificate to reflect the name of 
Southern Union Company as the holder of the certificate effective upon 
the consummation of the merger. Providence Gas states that there will 
be no material changes to the services provided under the blanket 
certificate.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
must be filed on or before May 31, 2000. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any 
person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may 
also be viewed on the internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online.rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12214 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M