alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PAYCARGO FINANCE LP,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant,

BAY MARITIMES INC.,

Nominal Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-22707

_____________________________________/

MEDIATION DISPOSITION REPORT

In accordance with the Court's mediation order(s), a mediation conference was held 

on March 22, 2023, and the results of that conference are indicated below:

(a) The following individuals, parties, corporate representatives, and/or claims professionals 

attended and participated in the mediation conference and each possessed the requisite settlement authority:

 X All individual parties and their respective trial counsel.

 X Designated corporate representatives.

 X Required claims professionals.

(b) The following individuals, parties, corporate representatives and/or claims professionals 

failed to appear and/or participate as ordered:

___________________________________________________________________________________

(c) The outcome of the mediation conference was:

___ The case has been completely settled. 

___ The case has been partially resolved and lead counsel has been instructed to file a joint 

stipulation regarding those claims which have been resolved within ten (10) days. The 

following issues remain for this Court to resolve:

______________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

___ The conference was continued with the consent of all parties and counsel. The mediation 

conference will be held on a date certain not later than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled 

Case 1:22-cv-22707-KMW Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2023 Page 1 of 2
trial date. Any continuance beyond that time must be approved by the presiding Judge. 

Mediation Reports will be filed after additional conferences are complete.

_X_ The parties have reached an impasse. 

Done March 22, 2023.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 22, 2023, the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of Court 

which sent notification to the following via e-mail: Marcus Tan, Esquire, marcus@xanderlaw.com; 

service@xanderlaw.com; and David Gurley, Esquire, Michael Fant, Esquire, and Christopher Fiore, 

Esquire, dgurley@GurleyAssociates.com; tpecchia@gurleyassociates.com; eservice@gurleyassociates.

/s/ Ricardo J. Cata______

Ricardo J. Cata., Mediator

Mediator # 30040R

Upchurch Watson White & Max

2 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 2030

Miami, Florida 33131

305-266-1224 phone/ 305-640-8447 fax

rcata@uww-adr.com

Case 1:22-cv-22707-KMW Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2023 Page 2 of 2
1



## Mineral Wool **Production -**  **Industry Meeting**

**( January 28, 2010**  **) Background Information**  1. Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR)

- Risk modeling based on updated emissions data (after ANPRM comments)  Cancer

- Risk drivers : Arsenic compounds and beryllium compounds

- M ost metal HAP emissions were not reported by the 8 operating plants

- E mission factor based on PM, developed from closed facility (the onl y facility that provided speciated PM/metals data)  Chronic Noncancer (risk driver  formaldehyde)  Acute Nonc ancer (risk driver  formaldeh yd e) Mineral Wool Production NESHAP (subpart DDD) **Emission Point Source**  **Limit Comments**  Cupola Existing 0.10 lb PM per ton of melt PM surrogate for metal HAP; fumes captured and controlled b y baghouses/fabric filters New 0. 10 lb PM per ton of melt;

0.10 lb CO per ton of melt or reduce uncontrolled CO emissions ≥99% CO surrogate for COS; CO limit based on incinerator and fabric filter test Curing Oven Existing &

New 0.06 lb formaldeh yde per

ton of melt or reduce uncontrolle d formaldeh yde emissions ≥80% Organic HAP binder; formaldeh yde is a surrogate for phenol and methanol
. Fiber Collection & Cooling Chamber Existing &

New Not regulated under

MACT

– source of formaldeh yde, phenol, and methanol emissions No MACT floor co uld be determined; above
the
- floor too costl y (thermal incineration).2

List of U.S. operating facilities provided by NAIMA **Company Location**  **Bonded Lines**  **Unbonded**

**Lines Cupola** 

**Co ntrols**  **Curing**

**Controls** Amerock Nolanville, TX 0 2 baghouse n/a Isolatek Huntington, IN 0 2 baghouse n/a Industrial Insulation Group (IIG) Phenix City, AL 1 1 incinerator and baghouse recuperative

incinerator Rock Wool Mfg Leeds, AL 1 1 baghouse Partial

–> redirect exhaust (?) Sloss (now Walter Energy) Birmingham,

AL 0 5 5 c upolas, 1 baghouse n/a Thermafiber Wabash, IN 1 1 baghouse RTO USG Walworth, WI 0 1 baghouse thermal incinerator USG Red Wing, MN 0 2 baghouse thermal incinerator 2. Technical Is sues Arising From 1/14/2009 Administrative Petition

- Lack of COS emissi on standards (existing and new cupolas )

- S tandards for organic HAP other than formaldehyde (e.g., phenol)

- Validation of formaldehyde surrogacy for phenol for different controls

- Examine process used to set f ormaldeh yde limits 3. In formation Collection Request (ICR)

- F acility/ equipment/process /controls information (electronic survey)

- Emissions t esting for : o C upolas (PM, HAP metals, CO, and COS) o C uring ovens (formaldehyde, phenol, other organic HAP) o Fiber collection and cooling (formaldeh yde, phenol, other organic HAP)

- Schedule : send out in February 2010 ; test data and responses due June 2010
November 30, 2020 

Lance A. Robertson 

Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging 

Administration for Community Living 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

330 C Street SW 

Washington, DC 20201 

Dear Administrator Robertson: 

I am pleased to transmit the Program Year (PY) 2019 Annual Report on the Centers for 

Independent Living program in accordance with Title VII, Chapter I, Part C in the Rehabilitation 

Act as amended. This report reflects the more than 172,000 goals successfully accomplished by 

individuals with disabilities, with each goal increasing independence, integration, and full 

inclusion in society. This report includes: 

 The extent to which CILs receiving funds under Part C have complied with the standards

and assurances in section 725 of the Act;

 The identification of individual CILs in the analysis contained in that information; and

 Results of onsite compliance reviews, identifying individual CILs and other recipients of

assistance under Part C.

The report is organized to set forth required grantee standards and assurances, examples of 

services provided, service challenges, and the federal oversight implemented to ensure grantee 

programmatic and fiscal compliance.

We continue to work each day to strengthen oversight and compliance, improve program 

performance, and identify and disseminate best and promising practices. The Administration on 

Disabilities looks forward to continuing to serve Americans with disabilities as we participate 

and contribute in all facets of community living across our nation. 

I am confident that you will find this report informative.

Sincerely,

Julie Hocker

Director, Independent Living Administration

Commissioner, Administration on Disabilities

Enclosure
MEMORANDUM

TO: Tina Ndoh, OAQPS/SPPD

– Minerals and Manufacturing Group

FROM: Philip Crawford and Jason Renzaglia , ERG

DATE: May 19, 2014

SUBJECT: S ummary of May 19 , 201 4 Telephone Communication between PCS Phosphate and ERG

On May 15, 2014, Philip Crawford of ERG contacted Ross Smith of PCS Phosphate via telephone and requested information on the operation of the venturi scrubbers controlling emissions from the phosphate rock calciners at the PCS Aurora facility

. The purpose of the call was to clarify information provided by PCS Aurora in regards to operation of co ntrol technology for the calciner operations. Mr. Smith indicated he would follow

- up with Mr. Crawford via telephone regarding the requested information.

On May 19, 2014, Mr. Smith indicated the following regarding the operation of the

venturi scrubbers:

• The venturi scrubbers operate whenever the calciner is in operation.

• The venture scrubbers are part of the overall operation of the phosphate rock

calciners.

• There are not permit conditions related to the operation of the venturi scrubbers.

• Operators veri fy flow through the venturi scrubbers.
Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 1 of 2
Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6967

BARNEY ADRIAN DUNLAP,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Lanesboro Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00139-MR)

Submitted: April 20, 2023 Decided: April 24, 2023

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Barney Adrian Dunlap, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6967 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Barney Adrian Dunlap seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final 

judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

The district court entered its order denying the motion to alter or amend the 

judgment on March 23, 2016. Dunlap filed the notice of appeal, at the earliest, on May 19, 

2022, the date he certified he placed his notice of appeal in the mail. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (4th Cir. 1988). Because Dunlap failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 

dismiss the appeal.*

 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

* Moreover, Dunlap previously appealed the district court’s orders denying his 

§ 2254 petition and his motion to alter or amend the judgment and may not do so again.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6967 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-CV-81294-CANNON

DONALD J. TRUMP,

Plaintiff,

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Notice is hereby given that the United States of America, Defendant in the abovecaptioned matter, appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from 

the order of the district court entered on September 5, 2022, Docket Entry 64.

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 1 of 3
Date: September 8, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

 _/s Juan Antonio Gonzalez_____ 

JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

Florida Bar No. 897388

 99 NE 4th Street, 8th Floor

 Miami, Fl 33132

Tel: 305-961-9001 

Email: juan.antonio.gonzalez@usdoj.gov

 MATTHEW G. OLSEN

Assistant Attorney General

National Security Division 

 _/s Jay I. Bratt ______________ 

JAY I. BRATT

CHIEF

Counterintelligence and Export Control

Section

National Security Division

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

 Illinois Bar No. 6187361

Tel: 202-233-0986 

Email: jay.bratt2@usdoj.gov

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 8, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF.

s/Juan Antonio Gonzalez 

Juan Antonio Gonzalez

United States Attorney

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 68 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 3 of 3
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–802 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–

[ERRATA]

OIL BUBBLE OR NEW REALITY: HOW WILL SKYROCKETING OIL PRICES AFFECT THE U.S.

ECONOMY?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 25, 2008

Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee

(

2

ERRATA

S. HRG. 110–

The above referenced hearing held before the Joint Economic

Committee was inadvertently printed without the complete S. HRG.

number. The correct number should read as follows: S. HRG. 110–

745.
§ 127.1102 Transfer hoses and loading arms. ( a ) Each hose within the marine transfer area for LHG used for the transfer of LHG or its vapors to or from a vessel must— ( 1 ) Be made of materials resistant to each LHG transferred, in both the liquid and vapor state (if wire braid is used for reinforcement, the wire must be of corrosion-resistant material, such as stainless steel);
( 2 ) Be constructed to withstand the temperature and pressure foreseeable during transfer, with a MAWP not less than the maximum pressure to which it may be subjected and at least 1030 kPa gauge (149.4 psig);
( 3 ) Be designed for a minimum bursting pressure of a least five times the MAWP;
( 4 ) Have— ( i ) Full-threaded connections;
( ii ) Flanges that meet ASME B16.5-2020 (incorporated by reference, see § 127.003); or
( iii ) Quick connect couplings that are acceptable to the Commandant;
( 5 ) Be adequately supported against the weight of its constituent parts, the LHG, and any ice formed on it;
( 6 ) Have no kinks, bulges, soft spots, or other defects that will let it leak or burst under normal working pressure; and
( 7 ) Have a permanently attached nameplate that indicates, or otherwise be permanently marked to indicate— ( i ) Each LHG for which it is suitable;
( ii ) Its MAWP at the corresponding service temperature; and
( iii ) If used for service at other than ambient temperature, its minimum service temperature.
( b ) Each loading arm used for the transfer of LHG or its vapor must— ( 1 ) Be made of materials resistant to each LHG transferred, in both the liquid and vapor state;
( 2 ) Be constructed to withstand the temperature and pressure foreseeable during transfer;
( 3 ) Be adequately supported against the weight of its constituent parts, the LHG, and any ice formed on it;
( 4 ) Be provided with an alarm to indicate when it is approaching the limits of its extension, unless the examined Operations Manual requires a person to perform the same function; and
( 5 ) Have a permanently attached nameplate that indicates, or otherwise be permanently marked to indicate— ( i ) Each LHG it may handle;
( ii ) Its MAWP at the corresponding service temperature; and,
( iii ) If it is used for service at other than ambient temperature, its minimum service temperature.
[CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39796, Aug. 3, 1995, as amended by USCG-2019-0444, 87 FR 5691, Feb. 2, 2022]
Case 2:22-cr-14052-AMC   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2022   Page 1 of 10

Case 2:22-cr-14052-AMC   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2022   Page 2 of 10

Case 2:22-cr-14052-AMC   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2022   Page 3 of 10

Case 2:22-cr-14052-AMC   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2022   Page 4 of 10

Case 2:22-cr-14052-AMC   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2022   Page 5 of 10

Case 2:22-cr-14052-AMC   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2022   Page 6 of 10

Case 2:22-cr-14052-AMC   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2022   Page 7 of 10

Case 2:22-cr-14052-AMC   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2022   Page 8 of 10

Case 2:22-cr-14052-AMC   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2022   Page 9 of 10

Case 2:22-cr-14052-AMC   Document 1   Entered on FLSD Docket 08/04/2022   Page 10 of 10
Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC   Document 80   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022   Page 1 of 4

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC   Document 80   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022   Page 2 of 4

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC   Document 80   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022   Page 3 of 4

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC   Document 80   Entered on FLSD Docket 09/09/2022   Page 4 of 4
Hillsborough

No. 7235

#### Catherine Jordan, by her Mother and Next Friend, Jean C. Baker v. Dennis R. Jordan

September 30, 1975

*Sweeney, Sweeney Sullivan (Mr. Kevin F. Sullivan*orally) for the plaintiff.

The defendant did not file a brief.

Per curiam.

This case arises from a petition for the annulment of a marriage on the ground that the defendant concealed his previous marriage. The petition, filed by the wife’s mother and next friend, alleges the following facts: The parties were married on November 17, 1973, in St. Christopher’s Roman Catholic Church, Nashua. The bride was seventeen, the husband twenty-six. On February 27, 1974, the plaintiff learned that the defendant had previously been married and returned to her parents. The plaintiff is a member of the Roman Catholic faith and is prohibited by her faith from marrying a divorced person. The petition states that the plaintiff did not know of the defendant’s prior marriage at the time she married him; that she would not have married him had she known; and that she cannot live with the defendant now because of her religious beliefs and the defendant’s deceit. The record contains two documents which show that the defendant twice stated in writing prior to the marriage that this was his first *546marriage. The record also includes a copy of the order of the plaintiff’s church annulling the marriage and a letter from a psychiatrist which concluded “that it would be detrimental toward the health and welfare of Mrs. Cathy Jordan to return to her husband.” The Master *(Joseph L. Clough,*Esq.) found “that plaintiff was induced to marry through fraud of the defendant going to the essentials of the marriage relationship thereby making it morally and spiritually impossible for the plaintiff to fulfill her marital commitment.” The master recommended that the petition be granted. The Superior Court, *Flynn,*J., disapproved this recommendation, citing *Fortin v. Fortin,*106 N.H. 208, 208 A.2d 447 (1965). Thereafter the master on his own initiative filed a further finding that continuance of the marriage would be dangerous to the plaintiff’s health. The plaintiff then filed a motion to set aside the order of the superior court, which the Superior Court *(Flynn,*J.) denied, reserving and transferring the plaintiff’s exception.

The *Fortin*opinion quoted and followed the rule announced in *Heath v. Heath,*85 N.H. 419, 429, 159 A. 418, 423 (1932): “The fraudulent misrepresentations for which a marriage may be annulled must be of something essential to the marriage relation — of something making impossible the performance of the duties and obligations of that relation or rendering its assumption and continuance dangerous to health or life.” The findings of the master met this test and are supported by the record as a whole. The orders of the superior court are vacated and the order of this court is

*Petition granted.*
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 April 24, 2007 Before Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge Hon. ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge No. 05-3978 KEITH MILLER, Petitioner-Apellant ,

v. WALTER E. MARTIN, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division No. 1:04-CV-028-TS Theresa L. Springmann, Judge

. O R D E R On the motion of the appellee, the opinion issued in the above-entitled case on March 15, 2007 is hereby amended as follows: On page 10, the last paragraph of Section II is hereby excised from the opinion of the court.
**Exhibit 32**

**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 Bear Lake Recreation, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Wayne Bassham and Todd Albiston, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

| *Date:*** | *02/11/08*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Wayne Bassham***           |
|-----------|--------------|----------|----------|--------------------------------|
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Wayne Bassham***              |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *President and Director***     |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Bear Lake Recreation, Inc.*** |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | * *                       |
| *Date:*** | *02/11/08*** | * * | *By:***  | */s/Todd Albiston***           |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Todd Albiston***              |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Secretary and Director***     |
| * *  | * *     | * * | * * | *Bear Lake Recreation, Inc.*** |
#### § 793.13 Limitation on related and incidental work.

The related work which an employee may perform is clearly limited in nature and extent by a number of requirements. One limitation is that the work must be an incident to the employee's primary occupation. The work therefore may not predominate over his primary job. He is not “employed as” an announcer, news editor, or chief engineer if his dominant employment is in work outside such occupations (see *Walling* v. *Haden,* 153 F. 2d 196, cert. denied 328 U.S. 866). For instance, an announcer who spends 40 hours of his 48 hour workweek in selling broadcasting time would not be considered to be “incidentally” engaged in such selling. Selling would in such circumstances be his primary occupation. His duties as an announcer must constitute his primary job. Another requirement is that the work of the employees must be performed “for the broadcasting company by which they are employed * * *” (see S. Rept. cited in § 793.12). Sale of broadcasting time for a company which does not employ the employee as an announcer, news editor, or chief engineer, is not exempt work. Work which is not performed for the station by which the employee is employed, is not intended to be exempt. For a discussion of the effect on the exemption of nonexempt work see §§ 793.19 to 793.21.