alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7832

JERRY LYNN HIGH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL S. HAMDEN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-03-631-5-H)

Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Lynn High, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Lynn High appeals the district court’s judgment

dismissing as frivolous his complaint against Michael S. Hamden and

North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services, Incorporated. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal as frivolous for the reasons stated by the

district court. See High v. Hamden, No. CA-03-631-5-H (E.D.N.C.

Oct. 29, 2003). 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
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4882 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4882

   To amend title 54, United States Code, to limit the authority to 
        reserve water rights in designating a national monument.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 10, 2020

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 54, United States Code, to limit the authority to 
        reserve water rights in designating a national monument.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RESERVATION OF WATER RIGHTS AT NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

    Section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Water Rights.--
            ``(1) No reservation of water rights.--In designating a 
        national monument under subsection (a), the President may not 
        reserve any implied or expressed water rights associated with 
        the national monument.
            ``(2) Applicable law.--Water rights associated with a 
        national monument designated under subsection (a) may be 
        acquired for the national monument only in accordance with the 
        laws of the State in which the water rights are located.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Heartland Bancshares, Inc., (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, James C. Clinard, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Martha J. Kelley, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
our knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

By:
         /s/ James C. Clinard
         --------------------------------------------
         James C. Clinard
         President and Chief Executive Officer
         November 8, 2002



         /s/ Martha J. Kelley
         --------------------------------------------
         Martha J. Kelley
         Chief Financial Officer
         November 8, 2002
§ 102.126 Unauthorized communications. ( a ) No interested person outside this Agency may, in an on-the-record proceeding of the types defined in § 102.128, make or knowingly cause to be made any prohibited *ex parte* communication to Board agents of the categories designated in that Section relevant to the merits of the proceeding.
( b ) No Board agent of the categories defined in § 102.128, participating in a particular proceeding as defined in that section, may: ( i ) Request any prohibited *ex parte* communications; or
( ii ) Make or knowingly cause to be made any prohibited *ex parte* communications about the proceeding to any interested person outside this Agency relevant to the merits of the proceeding.
[82 FR 11778, Feb. 24, 2017]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4857 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4857

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem, Ohio, as the ``Howard Arthur Tibbs Post 
                               Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             October 23 (legislative day, October 19), 2020

Mr. Portman (for himself and Mr. Brown) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem, Ohio, as the ``Howard Arthur Tibbs Post 
                               Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. HOWARD ARTHUR TIBBS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 275 Penn Avenue in Salem, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Howard Arthur Tibbs 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 ``Howard 
Arthur Tibbs Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### HANLEY et v ESPOSITO et

Ohio Appeals, 7th Dist, Mahoning Co

Decided Nov 3, 1928

Fred Heim, Youngstown, for Hanley.

Ralph Miller, Younsgtown, for Esposito.

*262FARR, J.

There has been much discussion in argument and in briefs with reference to the rule announced in the case of Kiley v. Hall, 96 OS., 374, and it is claimed upon the one hand that the purchaser of a lot in an allotment whose deed contains restrictions as to the use of such lot is not chargeable from that fact alone With notice that like restrictions are contained in the deeds of other purchasers of lots in the allotment; while on the other hand, it is asserted that title to these lots resting in a common owner and who took title to the same, subject to the restrictions in question, that the deed of the common owner being a part of the chain of title to each lot, that each lot owner would be chargeable with the notice of such restriction, and so it is observed by Newman, J., in the opinion in the above case, at page 360. The facts in the Kiley case are somewhat different from those in the instant case; however, a lot owner should be chargeable and is chargeable with any provision disclosed by any instrument which is a part of his chain of title, and having so concluded in the instant case, it follows that the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed for, and an entry may be taken accordingly.

Pollock and Roberts, JJ, concur.
§ 91.869 Carry-forward compliance. ( a ) Any operator that exceeds the requirements of paragraph (b) of § 91.865 of this part on or before December 31, 1994, or on or before December 31, 1996, may claim a credit that may be applied at a subsequent interim compliance date.
( b ) Any operator that eliminates or modifies more Stage 2 airplanes pursuant to § 91.865(b) than required as of December 31, 1994, or December 31, 1996, may count the number of additional Stage 2 airplanes reduced as a credit toward— ( 1 ) The number of Stage 2 airplanes it would otherwise be required to reduce following a subsequent interim compliance date specified in § 91.865(b); or
( 2 ) The number of Stage 3 airplanes it would otherwise be required to operate in its fleet following a subsequent interim compliance date to meet the percentage requirements specified in § 91.865(d).
[Doc. No. 26433, 56 FR 48659, Sept. 25, 1991; 56 FR 65783, Dec. 18, 1991]
#### In the Matter of Doran J., and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Samantha J., Appellant; Commissioner of Social Services, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 853]

—Orders of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered on or about August 11, 1997, which, upon a fact-finding determination of neglect, placed the subject children in petitioner’s custody for a period of up to 1 year, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As this Court determined upon the appeal of the children’s father *(Matter of Doran J.,*257 AD2d 521), a preponderance of the evidence established that the father inflicted excessive corporal punishment. The evidence similarly established appellant mother’s knowledge of the father’s conduct, her lack of concern for the children’s injuries, and her failure to take steps to insure their safety.

The court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to grant an adjournment following appellant’s failure to appear. She was in court when the adjourned date was given and was scheduled to testify. No explanation for her absence was ever provided, and the record supports the conclusion that her failure to appear was willful and manifested her desire not to testify. Furthermore, appellant had the opportunity pursuant to Family Court Act § 1042 to move for a rehearing but made *100no such motion. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
# OPP-r- aooy-p11.3 oU PUN1'Eo

Fir, IN 11:3l February 15, 2010 JimWillis Director, Chemical Control Division (7405M) Room 4146 EPA East U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 

# p.1 33~r .203

DuPont Corporate Remediation Group Chestnut Run Plaza, Building 715 4417 Lancaster Pike Wilmington, DE 19805

Attn: EPA Docket ID Number OPPT-2004-0113 PFOASite-Related Environmental Assessment Program Memorandumof Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and E. 1. DuPont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) for a Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Site-Related Environmental Assessment Program(November 3, 2005) Re: Replacement Figures Future Work Plan - Phase III DuPont Washington Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site Environmental Assessment Program) November 18, 2010 Dear Mr . Willis, On November 18, 2010, DuPont submitted a work plan titled Future Work Plan - Phase III DuPont Washington Works (OPPT-2004-0113 PFOA Site Environmental Assessment Program) . In the hard copy report, Figure 4 and Figure 5 in Appendix A [Land-Use Assessment - DuPont Washington Works (September 3, 2010)] are incorrect . Attached please find replacement hard copies of Figure 4 and Figure 5 for Appendix A

. Please replace the old figures with the correct figures provided here. Please note that the PDF of the Future Work Plan thatwas submitted contains the correct figures. Please contact me at 302-999-6197 if further information or additional discussion is needed. Very truly yours, ~~/ :.~~- ` '41 1 ; t - b Andrew S. Hartten Project Director DuPont Corporate Remediation Group cc: Document Control, EPA (one hardcopy each of Figures 4 and 5 for Appendix Aof the Future Work Plan) Laurence Libelo, EPA (two hard copies of Figures 4 and 5 forAppendix Aof the Future~--Work Plan) C=J



## CONTAIN"_'3 NOCP= , (.v J
E.I . du Pont de Nemours and CompanyO FN UZ N J G_1~J Q~ ~w NH W >

I W 7

J J J_ Q 

## UO 

## OZ _1 Q Q

U 019 m w9 `~ ~ ~ Oy W N rc

2 w M w N ' ~ w W O.-. U O N y _ (~ O N ~N W lia CC = 2 ~ . J ~ w a w Y ~ N ~- ~ a W O ~ w ~ T 2 ~ w ~ Z < N oin ~~ ~o w w ~- <°d- 3 ~ F a YX ~ W ~ p K x f yt~ Zd ~ = Z N W ~aD ~ wVO J ~ < UO ~c) d o ~ N o 3 u If <$?



## o I

J

I 4 W



## O ~~F- 

## C7 Y - Z0~ -j = 0 U < LL 9 Q Z (J J w O Y a_

t


## gz Z, W2 z

'0 0 W 

# 1 1 ZW8 W2 OR W . mw CS, z 0w 'i w ~d 0 w

:) Q! 6~ U o



### :114--,~ x ,

A

.~, A W ¢ ¢ > W F N N W Z3 N

ma ¢ ? F 3 LZ 3_~ N °


# QsA d 

# i: a

a s

4

E 0 0 m

E 0 0 m

wvc .w .~~zai owrnudvmuew+~mn~rzw,aw~wnrw z
§ 1471.850 What is the standard of proof in a debarment action? ( a ) In any debarment action, we must establish the cause for debarment by a preponderance of the evidence.
( b ) If the proposed debarment is based upon a conviction or civil judgment, the standard of proof is met.
#### In the Matter of Jennifer Kindron, an Infant, by Patricia Kindron, as Guardian of Her Property, Petitioner, v Barbara A. DeBuono, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Health, Respondent.

[697 NYS2d 794]

—Determination unanimously annulled on the law without costs and petition granted in accordance with the following Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding on behalf of her 15-year-old daughter, Jennifer, who has spinal muscle atrophy, a progressive disease that results in increasing muscular weakness and motor loss. Jennifer’s physician requested funding approval from the Office of Health Systems Management (OHSM) for the purchase of a Hoyer swimming pool lift and related accessories to allow Jennifer to engage in therapeutic activities in the pool at her parents’ home. OHSM denied the request on the ground that it was not based on medical need but on Jennifer’s need for recreation and exercise. At the fair hearing challenging that determination, petitioner presented medical proof establishing that hydrotherapy was prescribed for Jennifer, not primarily to provide recreation or exercise, but to slow the debilitating progression of her disease. More specifically, petitioner established that the medical benefits of hydrotherapy for Jennifer include increases in her ranges of motion, muscle strength and bone density, a reduction in cardiovascular deterioration and the prevention of venostasis and osteoporosis. The physical therapist who has been treating Jennifer testified that those benefits would not be realized through other forms of physical therapy. In addition, the therapist and petitioner testified that the family pool is the *897only pool adequate to meet Jennifer’s needs and that the Hoyer swimming pool lift is the only safe means for transporting Jennifer into the pool. Because respondent offered no proof that the Hoyer swimming pool lift is not medically necessary or that it is not medical equipment encompassed within the definition of “medical assistance” (Social Services Law § 365-a [5]), the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and must be annulled *(see, Matter of Starkweather v Wing,*242 AD2d 961, 962; *Matter of Ray v Wing,*238 AD2d 958, 959; *Matter of Gartz v Wing,*236 AD2d 890, 891). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Alton L. Boynton, certify that:(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc.; (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; (4) I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and(5) I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board ofDirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 20, 2007     By: /s/ Alton L. Boynton         Alton L. Boynton
#### § 1602.50 Requirement for filing and preserving copy of report.

On or before November 30, 1975, and biennially thereafter, every public and private institution of higher education having fifteen (15) or more employees shall file with the Commission or its delegate executed copies of Higher Education Staff Information Report EEO-6 in conformity with the directions set forth in the form and accompanying instructions. Every institution of higher education shall retain at all times, for a period of three years a copy of the most recently filed Report EEO-6 at its central administrative office, at the central office of a separate campus or branch, or at an individual school which is the subject of the report, where more convenient. An institution of higher education shall make the same available if requested by the Commission or is representative under the authority of section 710 of the Act and 29 U.S.C. 161. It is the responsibility of the institutions above described in this section to obtain from the Commission or its delegate necessary supplies of the form.
14910-13-_p]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ONa.JM£!<CES lJTlNGSYMOOL 14 CFR Part 39 Federal Aviation Administration



# OL\3Cb [Docket No. FAA-2010-*****; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-265-AD) RIN 2120-AA64 Ainvorthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2CIO (Regional Jet Series 700,701, &702) Airplanes, Model CL-600-2DI5 (Regional Jet Series 705) Airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: Wepropose to adopt anew airworthiness directive (AD) for theproduct listed above that would supersede anexisting AD. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) originated byan aviation authority ofanother country toidentify and correct anunsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes theunsafe condition as:

The beating capability of several (angle ofattack] ADA transducer heating elements removed from in-service aircraft has been found tobebelow the minimum requirement. Also, itwas discovered that alarge number ofADA transducers repaired in an approved maintenance facility were not calibrated accurately. Inaccurate calibration ofthe ADA transducer and/or degraded ADA transducer heating elements can result in early orlate activation ofthe stall waming, stick shaker and stick pusher by the Stall Protection Computer (SPC). 

# AN -1 NIT'I'J.~'SIG ('.~ 

## .n 

# '11'1/1/0

liTING >Yl.lIIOl

ROIITIl<G SYMflOl

'NI1'IA\SISIG

aU'rING 5YMOOL



## * * * 

## * * * * Inaccurate calibration ofthe ADA transducers and/or degraded ADA transducer heating

_m~PARTMENT OF T1lANSPORTA nON Federal Aviation Administration 14CPR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA~201 O_Hi.'t.*; "Directorate Identifier 2009·NM-265-AOI RlN 2I20-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier. Inc. Model CL-600-2Cl 0 (Regional Jet Serks 700. 70I &702) Airpl• .mes, Model CI 600·2DI5 (Regional Jet Series 705) Airplanes, and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplan~ AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

# , ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulcmaking (NPRM). StJMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the producLS listed above that would supersede. 3nexisting AD. This proposed AD results from mam.lalory continuing run"mthiness information (MeAl) originated by an aviation aULhorityof another country to identify and correel ~nunsafe conditlo11 on an aviation prod\lc!'. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as:

The heating capability ofsevcraJ [angle oJauackJ AOA lransducer heating elements removed from in·senice aircraft has bt:en found tobe below the minimum requirement. AlsQ. il "vas discoverltd Lhat a large number ofAOA transducers repaired in an approved maintenance fucility were not calibrtned accuralely. Inaccurate calibration of l,beAOA transducer andJor degraded AOA transducer hCfltingclements can result in early orlafe aClivation ofthe stall ""llrning, slick shaker and stick pusher by tl,c Stall Protection Computer (SPC). I~"";:;;:;;:--

"

# ....

1 .• Crt.,,_,,~-



### ---- ,,,,,",

,~" .• ~,~!

•••,"~,. !'nO.'"

• 

# • • 

# • • 

# • 

# •