alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

Ms. Debby Tucker 

Environmental Administrator 

Mail Station 47 

3900 Commonwealth Blvd 

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 

Dear Ms. Tucker: 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

OCT 0 6 Lu/q '1 ~I 

Please find enclosed for your and the Florida State Clearinghouse review five copies of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for designation of an Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site 

(ODMDS) offshore of Jacksonville, Florida which includes as Appendix B, a Florida Coastal Zone 

Consistency Determination. The FEIS was jointly prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4 and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Jacksonville District to fulfill the 

reporting requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The EPA is the 

lead Federal agency and the USACE is a cooperating agency. The FEIS provides the information 

necessary to evaluate need and alternatives with respect to the designation of a new ODMDS pursuant to 

Section 1 02 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, as amended. 

The FEIS identifies Alternative 1 a as the preferred alternative. In response to public and agency 

comment to the Draft EIS, the boundaries of Alternative 1 were modified in the FEIS and subsequently 

referred to as Alternative 1 a. Alternative 1 a consists of expansion of the existing ODMDS to the south 

and east. The purpose of the ODMDS is to accommodate disposal of dredged material generated over 

the next 50 years from the Jacksonville Harbor Navigation Project, Naval Station Mayport and the 

proposed Jacksonville Harbor Deepening Project. All dredged material must meet the environmental 

criteria established in the EPA's Ocean Dumping Regulations. The FEIS contains a draft Site 

Management and Monitoring Plan for both preferred alternative (Appendix F). The MPRSA requires 

that these plans be developed prior to designation with an opportunity for public comment. 

The EPA is submitting the enclosed Coastal Zone Consistency Determination in accordance with 15 

C.F.R. §930.34. The EPA has determined that the proposed action as described in the enclosed FEIS is 

consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforcement policies of the 24 Florida Statues 

that constitute Florida's Coastal Management Program. Any recommendations provided by the State of 

Internet Address (UAL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed w~h Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsum!lf) 
Florida will be reviewed and considered. We would appreciate receiving any comments, within 30 days 

of receipt of this letter or November 17, 2014, whichever is later. If you have any questions regarding 

this determination or the designation of the ODMDS, please contact Mr. Chris McArthur at (404) 562-

9391 or mcarthur.christopher@cpa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

cGill~~ Wetlands, Coastal and Ocean Branch 

Enclosures 

cc: Mr. Patrick Griffin, USACE-SAJ (w/o enclosures)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sean Currus, Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 540]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McCann, J.), rendered April 29, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in permitting testimony regarding uncharged crimes. The testimony was relevant and material as background information which explained the sequence of events on the night of the defendant’s arrest and was probative of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt *(see, People v Till,*87 NY2d 835; *People v Major,*243 AD2d 310). The defendant’s contention that the failure of the Supreme Court to give a contemporaneous limiting instruction constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Leitzsey,*173 AD2d 488). In any event, in its final charge, the Supreme Court properly instructed the jury that such testimony could not be considered as evidence that the defendant committed the crimes charged or that he had a propensity to do so.

The defendant’s sentence is not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit99.3**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MEEMIC Holdings, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Christine C. Schmitt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

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

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Christine C. Schmitt   |   |
|----------------------------|--------|
| Christine C. Schmitt       |
| Chief Financial****Officer |
|                       |
| November 14, 2002          |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.73

                         EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION

     This Employment Agreement Extension (the "Extension") is entered into as of
June 16, 2000 by and among Louis A. Scalpati (the "Executive") and drkoop.com,
Inc. (the "Company").

                                   RECITALS:

     A.  Executive and the Company's predecessor are party to an Employment
Agreement dated as of August 1, 1997 (the "Employment Agreement") which
agreement is binding on the Company.

     B.  The parties desire to provide that the term of the Employment Agreement
be extended by one year, which extension has been duly approved by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company in accordance
with the authority properly delegated to it by the Board of Directors.

                                   AGREEMENT:

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements set forth herein
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1.  Extension.  The "Term" of the Employment Agreement is hereby extended
by one year and therefore will now expire on July 31, 2001 unless further
extended.  For purposes of this Extension, the parties waive any non-compliance
with the extension procedure set forth in the last two sentences of Section 1.1
of the Employment Agreement.

     2.  Automobile.  The allowance provided for in Section 2.5 of the
Employment Agreement is extended and will survive for the "Term" of the
Employment Agreement.

     3.  Duties.  Notwithstanding any provision of Section 1.2 of the Employment
Agreement to the contrary, Executive's position will be as an executive officer
of the Company and he will be based in Austin, Texas.

     4.  Employment Agreement in Full Force and Effect.  Except as expressly
extended and modified herein, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.

                            (Signature Page Follows)
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered this
Employment Agreement Extension effective as of the first date set forth above.
This agreement may be executed in counterpart.


                                   /s/ Louis A. Scalpati
                                   ---------------------
                                   Louis A. Scalpati


                                   drkoop.com, Inc.



                                   By: /s/ Donald Hackett
                                       ------------------
                                       Donald Hackett
                                       Chief Executive Officer








                                       2
#### § 2.36 Application to State and local funds.

If a State or local government voluntarily contributes its own funds to supplement activities carried out under the applicable programs, the State or local government has the option to separate out the Federal funds or commingle them. If the funds are commingled, then the provisions of this subpart apply to all of the commingled funds in the same manner, and to the same extent, as the provisions apply to the Federal assistance. State funds that are contributed pursuant to the requirements of a matching or grant agreement are considered to be commingled funds.

[69 FR 41891, July 12, 2004. Redesignated at 81 FR 19423, Apr. 4, 2016]
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4763 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4763

 To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a 
   report on the Veteran Engagement Through Electronic Resources and 
  Notifications Study conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 30 (legislative day, September 29), 2020

  Mr. Kennedy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a 
   report on the Veteran Engagement Through Electronic Resources and 
  Notifications Study conducted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veteran Engagement Through 
Electronic Resources and Notifications Study Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. REPORT ON VETERAN ENGAGEMENT THROUGH ELECTRONIC RESOURCES AND 
              NOTIFICATIONS STUDY.

    Not later than September 30, 2022, the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs shall submit to Congress a report on the Veteran Engagement 
Through Electronic Resources and Notifications Study conducted by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1918.63 Chutes, gravity conveyors and rollers. ( a ) Chutes shall be of adequate length and strength to support the conditions of use, and shall be free of splinters and sharp edges.
( b ) When necessary for the safety of employees, chutes shall be equipped with sideboards to afford protection from falling objects.
( c ) When necessary for the safety of employees, provisions shall be made for stopping objects other than bulk commodities at the delivery end of the chute.
( d ) Chutes and gravity conveyor roller sections shall be firmly placed and secured to prevent displacement, shifting, or falling.
( e ) Gravity conveyors shall be of sufficient strength to support the weight of materials placed upon them safely. Conveyor rollers shall be installed in a way that prevents them from falling or jumping out of the frame.
( f ) Frames shall be kept free of burrs and sharp edges.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50219

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE DE JESUS QUIROZ-VILLADO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-1025-1

Before KING, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose De Jesus Quiroz-Villado (Quiroz) was convicted by a jury of

possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and was sentenced to 60

months of imprisonment and four years of supervised release.

Quiroz argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to show that

he knew that the tractor-trailer that he was driving contained marijuana.

However, when viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, a

reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established that

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 13, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50219

2

Quiroz’s suspicious actions, inconsistent statements, and implausible

explanation indicated that he knew that the tractor-trailer contained marijuana.

See United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910 (5th Cir. 1995); United States

v. Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 606-07 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Martinez, 975

F.2d 159, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1992). 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer Required by Rule 13a-14(a) or15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934**

 

I, Joseph Loggia, certify that:

 

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K ofAdvanstar Communications Inc. (the “registrant”);

 

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

(4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b) **[Reserved]**

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting;

 

(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: March 30, 2006 | By:    | /s/ Joseph Loggia       |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                      |   | Joseph Loggia           |
|                      |   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION  I, Herbert Lindo, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 10-K of Kenilworth Systems Corporation;  2.Based on my knowledge, this annual report
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements are made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this annual report;  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this annual report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this annual report;  4The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for
the registrant and have:  a)Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures or caused such disclosure controls to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and  c)Disclosed in this report any change in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):  a)All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  April 12, 2005
  By:
  /s/ Herbert LindoChairman and Chief Financial Officer


---
§ 91.1014 Issuing or denying management specifications. ( a ) A person applying to the Administrator for management specifications under this subpart must submit an application— ( 1 ) In a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator; and
( 2 ) Containing any information the Administrator requires the applicant to submit.
( b ) Management specifications will be issued to the program manager on behalf of the fractional owners if, after investigation, the Administrator finds that the applicant: ( 1 ) Meets the applicable requirements of this subpart; and
( 2 ) Is properly and adequately equipped in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and is able to conduct safe operations under appropriate provisions of part 91 of this chapter and management specifications issued under this subpart.
( c ) An application for management specifications will be denied if the Administrator finds that the applicant is not properly or adequately equipped or is not able to conduct safe operations under this part.
§ 22.23 Subpoenas for attendance at hearing. ( a ) A party wishing to procure the appearance and testimony of any individual at the hearing may request that the ALJ issue a subpoena.
( b ) A subpoena requiring the attendance and testimony of an individual may also require the individual to produce documents at the hearing.
( c ) A party seeking a subpoena shall file a written request therefor not less than 15 days before the date fixed for the hearing unless otherwise allowed by the ALJ for good cause shown. Such request shall specify any documents to be produced and shall designate the witnesses and describe the address and location thereof with sufficient particularity to permit such witnesses to be found.
( d ) The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the witness is to appear and any documents the witness is to produce.
( e ) The party seeking the subpoena shall serve it in the manner prescribed in § 22.8. A subpoena on a party or upon an individual under the control of a party may be served by first class mail.
( f ) A party or the individual to whom the subpoena is directed may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena within ten days after service or on or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance if it is less than ten days after service.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Ida Ashner, Deceased. Belle Swilling, Appellant; Norman L. Marks, as Executor of Ida Ashner, Deceased, Respondent.

Argued April 19, 1937;

decided May 25, 1937.

*495
      *Thomas A. McKennell*and *Irving Schneider*for appellant.

*Max Shliver, Stanley Wolder*and *Julius Appelman*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs payable out of the estate; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 1985.113 Judicial enforcement.

Whenever any person has failed to comply with a final order, including one approving a settlement agreement, issued under CFPA, the Secretary may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the United States district court for the district in which the violation was found to have occurred or in the United States district court for the District of Columbia. Whenever any person has failed to comply with a preliminary order of reinstatement, or a final order, including one approving a settlement agreement, issued under CFPA, the person on whose behalf the order was issued may file a civil action seeking enforcement of the order in the appropriate United States district court.