alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Under 42 U.S.C. 9622, notice is hereby given that on December 22, 1999, a proposed consent decree in                     *United States*                     v.                     *Robert W. Meyer, Jr.,*                     Civil Action No. 1:97-CV-526, was lodged with the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.                

In this action the United States sought to recover past costs incurred in connection with the clean-up of the contiguous Northernaire Plating Company and Kysor Industrial Corporation Superfund Sites located in Cadillac, Wexford County, Michigan. The proposed consent decree resolves the United States' claims against defendant Robert W. Meyer, Jr., as the operator of a facility that contributed to the harm associated with the Northernaire Site, in return for a total payment of $625,000.

                    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to                     *United States*                     v.                     *Robert W. Meyer, Jr.,*                     D.J. Ref. #90-11-2-837B.                

The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney, 330 Ionia NW, Room 501, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503, and at U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $5.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Bruce Gelber,

Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 00-1270 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

GERALD S. LEPRE, JR. AND JESSICA L.
LEPRE,

Petitioners

v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC AND SEWICKLEY CAR STORE, INC. D/B/A SEWICKLEY BMW,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 53 WAL 2023

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of August, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
§ 1960.35 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. ( a ) The Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) shall, upon request by the Secretary, assist in: ( 1 ) Evaluations of Federal agency safety and health programs;
( 2 ) Investigations of possible safety and health hazards and
( 3 ) Inspections resulting from employee or committee reports of unsafe or unhealthful working conditions.
( b ) The Director of NIOSH shall provide a Hazard Evaluation (HE) program for Federal agencies. This program shall be designed to respond to requests for assistance in determining whether or not safety or health hazards are present in a Federal workplace. Requests for such Hazard Evaluations may be submitted to the Director by: ( 1 ) The Secretary of Labor;
( 2 ) The Head of a Federal agency;
( 3 ) An agency safety and health committee if half the committee requests such service; and
( 4 ) Employees who are not covered by a certified safety and health committee.
( c ) The Director of NIOSH may assist agencies by providing hazard alerts, technical services, training materials and conducting training programs upon request by an agency and with reimbursement.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 516]

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company's Saluda Project's license expires in August 2007. The hydropower project and its reservoir, Lake Murray, are located in Saluda, Lexington, Newberry and Richland Counties, South Carolina. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will hold two public information meetings to familiarize the public with the Commission's hydropower licensing program. Commission staff will give an overview of the Commission and its licensing procedures. There will be an opportunity for questions and answers.

Interested persons are invited to attend either or both meetings scheduled as follows:

## Tuesday, June 20, 2000

2 to 4 p.m. (afternoon session)

6:30 to 8:30 p.m. (evening session)

Auditorium, Irmo Elementary School, 7401 Gibbes Street, Irmo, SC 29063; (803) 732-8278.

                    Please direct any questions regarding these meetings to either Jack Hannula, Commission Licensing Team Leader, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC                           ( print page 32086)                        20426; (202) 219-0116; or Charlie Compton, Lexington County Planning and Development, (803) 359-8121.                

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12715 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 20111 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
OSCAR IVAN LOPEZ, also known as Oscar Ivan Lopez

- Cruz, also known as Oscar Ivan Lopez Cruz , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 524

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Ivan Lopez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lopez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 18 , 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-20111 Document: 00513721856 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016No. 16

- 20111

2 counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

ap pellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-20111 Document: 00513721856 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-396-CR

BRENDA DANDA RAMIREZ	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	A jury convicted Appellant Brenda Danda Ramirez of possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) of more than four but less than two hundred grams.2  After she pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs and habitual offender paragraph contained in the indictment, the jury assessed her punishment at ninety-nine years’ confinement.3  The trial court sentenced her accordingly.

	Ramirez’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).  Although Ramirez was given an opportunity to file a pro se appellate brief, she has not done so.

	Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

	We have carefully reviewed the record, the exhibits, and counsel’s brief, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support a direct appeal.4  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.	

							PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  October 29, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12501]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Illinois Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Illinois Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 10:00 
a.m. and adjourn at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, at the 55 West 
Monroe Street, Suite 525, Chicago, Illinois 60603. The purpose of the 
meeting is to discuss civil rights issues of interest and plan future 
activities.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Committee Chairperson James E. Scales, 
618-453-1045, or Constance M. Davis, Director of the Midwestern 
Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8362). Hearing-impaired 
persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign 
language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten 
(10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Lisa M. Kelly,
Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Regional Programs Coordination 
Unit.
[FR Doc. 00-12501 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Dow AgroSciences petitions(09-233-01p, 09-349-01p, and 11-234-01p) for determinations of nonregulatedstatus for 2,4-D-resistant corn and soybean varieties : draft environmentalimpact statement.**
 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement| Appendices
 
SuDoc Number:A 101.6:C 81
Item Number:0030-A-07 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000931339
 
March 28, 2018
* 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

December 20, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50415

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN GONZALEZ-GARIBAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-2472

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

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Gonzalez-Garibay (Gonzalez) appeals his 84-month

sentence for illegal reentry into the United States following

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his

sentence was unreasonable because the district court failed to

weigh properly the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a) and imposed a term of imprisonment greater than necessary

to satisfy the sentencing goals set forth in § 3553(a). 

Gonzalez’s sentence was within a properly calculated

advisory guideline range and is presumed reasonable. See United
No. 06-50415

-2-

States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). Giving

“great deference” to such a sentence, and recognizing that the

sentencing court considered all the factors for a fair sentence

under § 3553(a), we conclude that Gonzalez has failed to rebut

the presumption that his sentence was reasonable. See id.

Gonzalez argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the 84-month term of imprisonment

imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence

allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He

challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of

prior felony and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing

factors rather than as elements of the offense that must be found

by a jury. 

Gonzalez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). 

Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly

decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule

Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres

remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268,

276 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). 

Gonzalez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in

light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises

it here to preserve it for further review. 

AFFIRMED.
§ 1984.103 Filing of retaliation complaint. ( a ) *Who may file.* An employee who believes that he or she has been retaliated against in violation of section 18C of the FLSA may file, or have filed by any person on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such retaliation.
( b ) *Nature of filing.* No particular form of complaint is required. A complaint may be filed orally or in writing. Oral complaints will be reduced to writing by OSHA. If the complainant is unable to file the complaint in English, OSHA will accept the complaint in any language.
( c ) *Place of filing.* The complaint should be filed with the OSHA office responsible for enforcement activities in the geographical area where the employee resides or was employed, but may be filed with any OSHA officer or employee. Addresses and telephone numbers for these officials are set forth in local directories and at the following Internet address: *http://www.osha.gov .*
( d ) *Time for filing.* Within 180 days after an alleged violation of section 18C of the FLSA occurs, any employee who believes that he or she has been retaliated against in violation of that section may file, or have filed by any person on the employee's behalf, a complaint alleging such retaliation. The date of the postmark, facsimile transmittal, electronic communication transmittal, telephone call, hand-delivery, delivery to a third-party commercial carrier, or in-person filing at an OSHA office will be considered the date of filing. The time for filing a complaint may be tolled for reasons warranted by applicable case law. For example, OSHA may consider the time for filing a complaint equitably tolled if a complainant mistakenly files a complaint with another agency instead of OSHA within 180 days after becoming aware of the alleged violation.
#### LOWELL v SUPERIOR THIRD REALTY CO. et

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 9090.

Decided Dec 24, 1928

*326J Albert Lowell, Cleveland, for Lowell.

Calfee, Fogg & White, Cleveland, for Realty Co.

HOUCK, J.

It seems to be the well settled law in this as well as other jurisdictions that although a trust deed may provide as to how and when suit may be brought by one claiming thereunder either in law or in equity, and as to certain conditions named in the mortgage, yet in .a proper case jquity may and should intervene notwithstanding such provision or provisions.

In the case at bar the amended petition alleges conspiracy between unsecured creditors, the officers and directors of me company and the trustee, and it is stated shat by virtue of the said conspiracy, all those bondholders that pooled their bonds would secure a preference. It is further iitated in the amended petition that the officers and stockholders of the companies themselves, were securing benefits to themselves by the diversion of funds.

*We*cite the parties and their counsel to the following authorities which bear out as we think, the comments herein made as to the force and effect of a general demurrer. Bush v Kritchfield, 5 O. S., 109; Dawson v. Dawson, 25 O. S., 443; Peterson v. Roach, 32 O. S., 374.

*We*are of the unanimous opinion that *che*trial judge committed prejudicial error m the premises, and it is the judgment of this court that the judgment entered in the instant case in the common pleas court be reversed and this cause be remanded to the common pleas court with instruction to overrule the demurrer to the amended petition of plaintiff.

Shields and Lemert, JJ, concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1






                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-71441, 333-55891, 333-55865, 333-55867, 33-30137,
33-63086 and 2-93666) of Keystone  Consolidated  Industries,  Inc. of our report
dated  March  29,  2002  relating  to the  financial  statements  and  financial
statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.




Dallas, Texas
April 15, 2002
#### John Blaszczyk et al,, Appellants, v James Riccio, Respondent.

[698 NYS2d 730]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berke, J.), dated December 9, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To impose liability upon a landowner for injuries resulting from an allegedly defective condition, the plaintiff must establish that the landowner either created or had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition *(see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836; *Freeman v Cobos,*240 AD2d 698). To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant to discover and remedy it.

There is no evidence that the defendant created, or had actual or constructive notice of, the allegedly defective condition. In fact, at his own examination before trial, the injured plaintiff testified that the tiles on which he slipped appeared to be in place as he approached the staircase. S. Miller’ J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

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

The undersigned, Gary D. Woerz, CFO and President
of American International Industries, Inc, a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the
following certification as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
with respect to the following ammended quarterly report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the period
ended March 31, 2005.

The undersigned certifies that the above
quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the above ammended quarterly report
fairly presents, in all respects, the financial condition of American International
Industries, Inc. and results of its operations.

Date: February 14, 2006
Gary D. Woerz
Chief Financial Officer/s/ Gary D. Woerz
#### Leah Kotler, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[697 NYS2d 530]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), entered August 26, 1998, which denied her motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (6) and CPLR 3025 (c) to amend her notice of claim, verified complaint, and bill of particulars, and to restore the matter to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a court has the discretion to grant an application for leave to serve an amended notice of claim where the defect in the original notice of claim was made in good faith and where the public corporation has not been prejudiced thereby (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e [6]; see, *Zapata v City of New York,*225 AD2d 543; *Pollicino v New York Tr. Auth., 225*AD2d 750; *Illera v New York City Tr. Auth.,*181 AD2d 658).

Here, there was five-year unexplained delay by the plaintiff in seeking leave from the court to amend the notice of claim, verified complaint, and verified bill of particulars to reflect the correct date of her accident, November 5, 1991, instead of October 29, 1991, as set forth in the original notice of claim. Furthermore, there was no explanation for the inaction of the plaintiff’s former counsel after he learned of the discrepancy at the General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing held on January 12, 1993. In addition, he repeated the incorrect date in the verified bill of particulars and notice to admit served in 1996. In light of the clear prejudice which the amendment would cause to the defendant, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion. Altman, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.