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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2166

CRISTINA GILLASPIE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; SPECIAL 

AGENT DOYLE MULLIS; SPECIAL AGENT ANTHONY LUCKMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:21-cv-01935-DCN)

Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: R. Britton Kelly, Peter Phillips, KELLY LAW FIRM, Charleston, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

David H. Estes, United States Attorney, Mark B. Stern, Joshua M. Koppel, Civil Division, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2166 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Cristina Gillaspie appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation to grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss and drop parties in Gillaspie’s

action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 to 2680, the 

Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 706, and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. 

Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Upon review of the arguments pressed on appeal 

in conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities, we find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Gillaspie v. United States, No. 2:21-cv01935-DCN (D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2022). 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2166 Doc: 24 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Re: One more modeling question. and updates to Ohio's Lead Emissions

Jennifer Hunter to

:

Andy Chang

Cc

:

Douglas Aburano, Jay Bortzer, Michael Compher, Tom Rosendahl, John Summerhays, 

Rhonda Wright

Andy, here is 1. 

We will need another week for #2 - our inventory person is out. 

First, our we only did a modeling/interp analysis on sources over 0.7 TPY of lead. 

Deciding wether a source was at or above 0.7 TPY was based on actual emissions, 

including both point and fugitive. Ohio EPA also used actual emissions when 

performing the modeling/spatial interpolation. Ohio EPA evaluated actual reported 

emissions over a range of years (2004-2006) from the National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) (which was submitted based upon emissions reported in Ohio's FER (fee 

emissions report) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Ohio's FER contains both stack 

and fugitive emissions. Ohio ensured the maximum emission rate modeled 

corresponded to the maximum TPY contained in the NEI/FER and TRI between 2004 

and 2006. In many cases, the modeled lead emission rate was higher than the highest 

facility reported emissions in that year, thus producing a conservative modeled 

concentrations. We went to each facility to obtain information regarding their lead 

sources before we modeled. We requested information on both fugitive and stack 

emissions. Of all facilities modeled only one, Timkin, had fugitive sources. We did 

model those as fugitive. Keep in mind, these weren't fugitive in the sense you may be 

inquiring (e.g., a roadway) (building fugitives instead). 

other fugitive emissions or re-entrainment of dust were not explicitly modeled by Ohio 

EPA. Modeling the re-entrainment of dust would be very difficult using the air 

dispersion model AERMOD. It is Ohio EPA’s belief that unusual methods, such as soil 

samples surrounding the facility, would be needed in order to determine the lead 

emission rate for dust. In addition, many other factors would need to be considered 

before modeling fugitive emissions or re-entrainment of dust. These factors are 

currently unknown to Ohio EPA and were not provided by the facility. Additional 

guidance and research would be needed to be able to accurately perform such an 

assessment.

Thanks, Jen
##### 



EXHIBIT 35.1
 VW Credit, Inc. Annual Servicer Compliance Statement
Pursuant to Section 7.11 of the Transaction SUBI Servicing Supplement
And Item 1123 of Regulation AB
   1.
    
    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from August 3, 2006
through December 31, 2006, and of its performance under the Transaction SUBI Servicing
Supplement was conducted under my supervision.2.
    
    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has, fulfilled all of
its obligations under the Transaction SUBI Servicing Supplement in all material respects
throughout such period, except that for the period beginning August 3, 2006 through October
29, 2006 some lease payments, mainly lease payoffs, were deposited into the collection
account on the third business day rather than within two business days after receipt.
Beginning October 30, 2006 the Servicer revised the process to ensure all lease payments on
securitized leases are deposited into the collection account within two business days of
receipt.
  /s/ Bruce HarrisName:
    
    Bruce HarrisTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund VIII, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial
Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|Date: November 13, 2009                       
|                                              
|/s/ Paritosh K. Choksi                        
|Paritosh K. Choksi                            
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  
|Officer and Chief Operating Officer of        
|ATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------




                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OA12
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OA12


         The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer
of Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.


/s/ Craig Baingo                                         Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------

Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
§ 2517.110 Who may apply for a subgrant from a Corporation grantee? Entities that may apply for a subgrant from a State Commission or grantmaking entity are qualified organizations that have entered into a local partnership with one or more— ( a ) Local educational agencies (LEAs);
( b ) Other qualified organizations; or
( c ) Both.
§ 101.81 Appeals. ( a ) Any person whose request for adjustment or exception was denied by the Secretary or the Secretary's designated representative under § 101.80, may appeal to the Secretary who, through the Secretary's designated representative, shall review and reconsider the denial.
( b ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an appeal must be received by the Secretary no later than 45 business days after receipt of a written notice of denial. After this 45-business day period, an appeal may be accepted at the discretion of the Secretary.
( 2 ) For requests for adjustment or exception involving rated orders placed for the purpose of emergency preparedness (see § 101.33(e)), an appeal must be received by the Secretary, no later than 15 business days after receipt of a written notice of denial. Contract performance under the order shall not be stayed pending resolution of the appeal.
( c ) Each appeal must be in writing and contain a complete statement of all the facts and circumstances related to the action appealed from and a full and precise statement of the reasons the decision should be modified or reversed.
( d ) In addition to the written materials submitted in support of an appeal, an appellant may request, in writing, an opportunity for an informal hearing. This request may be granted or denied at the discretion of the Secretary or the Secretary's designated representative.
( e ) When a hearing is granted, the Secretary may designate an HHS employee to act as the Secretary's representative and hearing officer to conduct the hearing and to prepare a report. The hearing officer shall determine all procedural questions and impose such time or other limitations deemed reasonable. In the event that the hearing officer decides that a printed transcript is necessary, all expenses shall be borne by the appellant.
( f ) When determining an appeal, the Secretary may consider all information submitted during the appeal as well as any recommendations, reports, or other relevant information and documents available to HHS or consult with any other persons or groups.
( g ) The submission of an appeal under this section shall not relieve any person from the obligation of complying with the provision of this part or official action in question while the appeal is being considered unless such relief is granted in writing by the Secretary.
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-40109

Summary Calendar

GLENDALE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

JIMMY ALFORD, Warden, Eastham Unit; JUDY KILGORE, Registered

Nurse, Michael Unit, Tennessee Colony, Texas; WAYNE SCOTT, Deputy

Director of Operation, TDCJ-ID, Huntsville, Texas; KENNETH R.

HONEYCUTT, Correctional Officer COII, Tennessee Colony, Texas; MARK

L. BASS, Correctional Officer, COIII, Tennessee Colony, Texas;

ROBERT TAYLOR, Sergeant, Tennessee Colony, Texas; MARK L. BASS,

Correctional Officer COIII, Tennessee Colony, Texas; KEITH BAYLISS,

Correctional Officer COIII, Tennessee Colony, Texas; CHRISTOPHER N.

COOK, Correctional Officer, COIII, Tennessee Colony, Texas; CLIFTON

WARNER, Lieutenant,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:95-CV-526)

May 27, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Appellant Johnson’s civil rights action under 18 U.S.C. Sec.

1983 was dismissed by the district court under Section 1915(d) as

being repetitious of a previous filing. We reverse and remand.
Johnson alleges that on July 22, 1994, he and other inmates

were beaten by prison guards in retaliation for a civil rights

action Johnson had filed and that the prison personnel were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs resulting

from the injuries he received in that beating. Johnson correctly

alleges that he tried to raise these same claims in his prior

litigation but the court would not entertain them. He did not

raise this issue in his objection to the magistrate judge’s report

and recommendation so we examine it only for plain error. Douglas

v. United Serv. Automobile Assn., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996).

The record makes clear that there was error and that it was plain.

In his earlier suit (No. 6:93cv594 in the district court),

Appellant attempted to raise these claims but the magistrate judge

declined to hear them reasoning that the events alleged occurred

after the filing of that suit, and that to entertain the new claims

would unnecessarily delay the progress of that litigation. He even

advised Johnson that he could bring the claims in a later suit.

The district court adopted these findings of the magistrate judge.

To now dismiss the new suit on the basis that the claims were

disposed of in the earlier litigation is plain error and affects

the Appellant’s substantial rights.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
#### § 1355.40 [Reserved]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 443PA16

Filed 22 December 2017

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

RONNIE PAUL GODBEY

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision 

of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 792 S.E.2d 820 (2016), finding no error 

after appeal from a judgment entered on 8 December 2014 by Judge Christopher W. 

Bragg in Superior Court, Rowan County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 

13 December 2017.

Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by Anita LeVeaux, Special Deputy Attorney 

General, and Sherri Horner Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, for the 

State.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender, by James R. Grant, Assistant Appellate 

Defender, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
#### § 1608.8 Enforcement.

This part shall be enforced according to the procedures set forth in § 1612.5.
**Exhibit 35.2****Servicer Compliance Statement**     The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Sallie Mae, Inc., the Servicer and Administratorfor the trusts listed on Appendix A hereto (the “Trusts”), does hereby certify that:     (a) This certificate is delivered pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB.     (b) A review of the servicing activities of the Servicer and the Administrator as of December31, 2006 and for the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) andtheir performance under the applicable servicing and administration agreements for each of theTrusts has been made under my supervision; and     (c) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer and the Administrator havefulfilled all of their obligations under the applicable servicing and administration agreements foreach of the Trusts in all material respects through the Reporting Period.March 23, 2007/s/ C.E. ANDREWS C.E. Andrews
§ 158.210 Minimum medical loss ratio. Subject to the provisions of § 158.211 of this subpart: ( a ) *Large group market.* For all policies issued in the large group market in a State during the MLR reporting year, an issuer must provide a rebate to enrollees if the issuer has an MLR of less than 85 percent, as determined in accordance with this part.
( b ) *Small group market.* For all policies issued in the small group market in a State during the MLR reporting year, an issuer must provide a rebate to enrollees if the issuer has an MLR of less than 80 percent, as determined in accordance with this part.
( c ) *Individual market.* For all policies issued in the individual market in a State during the MLR reporting year, an issuer must provide a rebate to enrollees if the issuer has an MLR of less than 80 percent, as determined in accordance with this part.
( d ) *Adjustment by the Secretary.* If the Secretary has adjusted the percentage that issuers in the individual market in a specific State must meet, then the adjusted percentage determined by the Secretary in accordance with § 158.301 of this part *et seq.* must be substituted for 80 percent in paragraph (c) of this section.
**Exhibit 33.1****Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria**     Sallie Mae, Inc., (the “Asserting Party”), as Administrator and Servicer for the Platformtrusts, is responsible for assessing compliance, as of December 31, 2006 and for the period January1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”), with the servicing criteria set forthin Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB, excluding the criteria set forth in (1) Item 1122(d)(1)(iii),(d)(2)(iii), (d)(2)(vi), (d)(3)(iii), (d)(4)(x), (d)(4)(xi), (d)(4)(xii) and (d)(4)(xiii) ofRegulation AB which the Asserting Party has concluded are not applicable to the Platform and (2)Item 1122(d)(2)(ii) of Regulation AB which the Asserting Party has concluded is applicable to thePlatform, but is not the responsibility of the Asserting Party. Such criteria, after giving effectto the exclusions identified above, are the “Applicable Servicing Criteria” related to theAsserting Party. The transactions covered by this report include all asset-backed securitiestransactions completed by the Asserting Party that were registered with the Securities and ExchangeCommission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 where related asset-backed securities wereoutstanding during the Reporting Period (the “Platform”) as listed in Appendix A.     The Asserting Party has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria and hasconcluded that it has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria asof December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform as a whole.     PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued anattestation report on the Asserting Party’s assessment of compliance with the Applicable ServicingCriteria as of December 31, 2006 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.Sallie Mae, Inc., as Administrator and
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 25, 2020 b0324p

Order 

Clerk

March 25, 2020

159531

LEOLA ROBERTSON, Personal Representative

of the ESTATE OF MARTEL ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159531

COA: 337961 

Wayne CC: 15-010455-NI

LADARIUS DEANGELO JOHNSON,

Defendant, 

and

U-HAUL CO. OF MICHIGAN, a/k/a 2013

U-HAUL TITLING 1, LLC,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 22, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu 

of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Whether 

the plaintiff has stated a viable claim against defendant U-Haul Co. of Michigan (U-Haul), 

and if so the basis for that claim, cannot be reviewed on appeal where the complaint itself 

fails to make any allegations or state any claim against U-Haul. Under these circumstances, 

U-Haul was entitled to summary disposition. See MCR 2.116(C)(8), (I)(1). We therefore 

REVERSE the April 10, 2017 judgment of the Wayne Circuit Court and REMAND this 

case to that court for entry of an order granting summary disposition to U-Haul, without 

prejudice to the plaintiff’s opportunity to amend the complaint pursuant to 

MCR 2.116(I)(5).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
§ 2522.300 What are the application requirements for AmeriCorps program grants? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 46034 , May 28, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to a correction published at 89 FR 66615 , Aug. 16, 2024.
All eligible applicants seeking AmeriCorps program grants must— ( a ) Provide a description of the specific program(s) being proposed, including the type of program and of how it meets the minimum program requirements described in § 2522.100; and
( b ) Comply with any additional requirements as specified by the Corporation in the application package.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 122 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 122

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum 
   and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, 
                  Including Netting and Exemptions''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 17 (legislative day, December 16), 2024

   Mr. Hoeven (for himself, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Lee, Mr. Lankford, Mrs. 
Britt, Mr. Daines, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Risch, and 
Mr. Scott of Florida) introduced the following joint resolution; which 
was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 
                                 Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
 Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum 
   and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, 
                  Including Netting and Exemptions''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 
``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: 
Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and 
Exemptions'' (89 Fed. Reg. 91094 (November 18, 2024)), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```