alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EPA-560-F-08-291 brownfields September 2008

at-a-glance

Austin, TX MABEL DAVIS PARK RLF Grant 

Turning Trash into Treasures: 

A Former Landfill Becomes a Community Asset

ADDRESS: 3427 Parker Lane, Austin, TX 78741 

PROPERTY SIZE: 50 acres 

FORMER USE: Gravel quarry and landfill 

CURRENT USE: Public park with basketball court, swimming pool, 

playscape, picnic area, skate park, and walking trails 

EPA GRANT RECIPIENT: PROJECT PARTNERS: 

The Austin Brownfields Redevelopment 

Office provided $500,000 in EPA 

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund funding 

to the City of Austin. 

Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality, City of 

Austin Remediation Project 

For additional data and geographic 

information for this and other 

Brownfields Grants, please visit EPA’s: 

Envirofacts - www.epa.gov/enviro/ 

html/bms/bms_query.html 

Enviromapper - www.epa.gov/ 

enviro/bf 

PROJECT BACKGROUND: 

The Mabel Davis property operated as a gravel quarry until 1944; from 1944-1955, the site was used as a municipal 

waste landfill. It is suspected that illegal dumping occurred after the landfill’s closure. In 1974, the City purchased the 

property in order to clean up and redevelop it into a park; after remediating the site, it formally opened as a park in 

1979. Trouble began when a creek running through the park began eroding a portion of the former landfill area contained 

within the park. Maintenance work conducted in 2000, which aimed to rebuild the creek and prevent exposure of landfill 

contaminants, revealed elevated levels of lead in the soil. This prompted an immediate closure of the park to the public, 

and site sampling ensued to determine the scope of contamination. Assessments conducted in 2000 and 2002 further 

revealed pesticides in the soil from a spill in 1979 that was cleaned up to meet standards of that time, but not today’s 

more stringent standards. In December 2003, the City of Austin approved a loan of $488,566 for site cleanup, and the 

loan agreement was signed on May 31, 2004. 

KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS: 

• The park is home to Austin’s first skate park 

• Remediation provided 25 additional acres of greenspace 

• Leveraged $7,300,000 in cleanup funding from the City of Austin 

Remediation Project 

OUTCOME: 

Funded by the City of Austin Remediation Project, cleanup was completed 

in November of 2005. This included removing contaminated soil in some 

locations and capping soil in others. The creek was rebuilt and battery casings, the source of the lead-contaminated soil, 

were removed by hand. On December 3, 2005, Mabel Davis Park officially opened. The park includes a basketball court, 

Olympic-sized swimming pool, playscape, picnic area, skate park, and 30 acres of open greenspace. 

Austin’s new Skate Park. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit the EPA Brownfields Web site at http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/ or call EPA Region 6 at (214) 665-6780
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 07-1228 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DOUBLE TAXATION 

Taxes on Income 

 Protocol Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and DENMARK 

Amending the Convention of August 19, 1999 

Signed at Copenhagen May 2, 2006 

 with 

A Related Exchange of Notes 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 DENMARK 

 Double Taxation: Taxes on Income 

Protocol amending the convention of August 19, 1999. 

Signed at Copenhagen May 2, 2006; 

Transmitted by the President of the United States of America 

 to the Senate September 29, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-19, 

 109th Congress, 2d Session); 

Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 

 October 31, 2007 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-3, 

 110th Congress, 1st Session); 

Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate 

 November 16, 2007; 

Ratified by the President December 21, 2007; 

Entered into force December 28, 2007. 

With a related exchange of notes.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Health  Express USA, Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 29, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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

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

Date:    August 13, 2003                 By:      /s/ Douglas Baker
                                                  -----------------
                                         Name:    Douglas Baker
                                         Title:   Chief Executive Officer

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other  document  authentications,   acknowledging,  or  otherwise  adopting  the
signature  that  appears in typed form  within  the  electronic  version of this
written  statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to Health Express
USA, Inc. and will be retained by Health  Express USA, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                      C-1
§ 30.17 Collection in installments. ( a ) Whenever feasible, the total amount of a debt shall be collected in one lump sum payment. If a debtor is financially unable to pay a debt in one lump sum, either by funds or administrative offset, the Secretary may accept payment in regular installments. The Secretary will obtain financial statements from debtors who represent that they are unable to pay in one lump sum and independently verify such representations as described in § 30.22(a)(1).
( b ) ( 1 ) When the Secretary agrees to accept payments in regular installments, a legally enforceable written agreement should be obtained from the debtor that specifies all the terms and conditions of the agreement, and that includes a provision accelerating the debt in the event of a default.
( 2 ) The size and frequency of the payments should reasonably relate to the size of the debt and the debtor's ability to pay. Whenever feasible, the installment agreement will provide for full payment of the debt, including interest and charges, in three years or less.
( 3 ) In appropriate cases, the agreement should include a provision identifying security obtained from the debtor for the deferred payments.
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 

### ★ ▲
▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/30 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
**Exhibit
      32**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of ICT Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vasilios
      Koutsobinas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




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




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




/s/ Vasilios
              KoutsobinasName:
                Vasilios KoutsobinasTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer




July
      24,
      2007









**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of ICT Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Eracleous,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that, to my knowledge:




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




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




/s/ Andrew
              EracleousName:
                Andrew Eracleous
              Title:
                Chief Financial Officer




July
      24,
      2007
Case 2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 08/18/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 08/18/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 08/18/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 08/18/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 08/18/14 PageID.5 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 08/18/14 PageID.6 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:14-cv-13189-VAR-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 08/18/14 PageID.7 Page 7 of 7
[No. 3452.]

#### Hall v. Hardy et al.

Judgment affirmed on the authority of *Hall, Receiver, v. Burrell,*post.

*Appeal from Otero District Court.*Hon. J. E. Rizer, Judge.

*285Mr. Feed, A. Sabin, for appellant.

Mr. John H. Voorhees, for appellees.

Presiding Judge Scott

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case involves the same question as in the case of *G. M. Hall, Receiver of the State Bank of Rocky Ford v. Burrell,*decided at this term of court, and upon the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.

All the judges concurring.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1761 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1761

 To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to restrict 
              the use of TARP funds for domestic purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2009

Mr. Kildee (for himself, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Hare, 
 Mr. Stupak, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Holden, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, 
Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, and Ms. Kilroy) introduced 
 the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to restrict 
              the use of TARP funds for domestic purposes.

    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 Responsible Use of Taxpayer Help 
Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO USE TARP FUNDS FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES.

    Title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 137. REQUIREMENT TO USE TARP FUNDS FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES.

    ``A financial institution shall not use any assistance provided 
under this title to--
            ``(1) purchase or invest in any foreign asset or business;
            ``(2) transfer money to, or invest in, a foreign subsidiary 
        of the financial institution;
            ``(3) pay any type of compensation to an employee of the 
        financial institution unless such employee is a United States 
        citizen or lawful permanent resident; or
            ``(4) make any other purchase, payment, transfer, or 
        investment, the primary effect of which is to benefit a foreign 
        entity.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.01

IDT CORPORATION

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 Annual Report of IDT Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for fiscal 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Howard S. Jonas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:



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



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

Date: October 29, 2009

|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ Howard S. Jonas    
|Howard S. Jonas        
|Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to IDT Corporation and will be retained by IDT
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 11
                             THERMOQUEST CORPORATION

                        Computation of Earnings per Share


                                              1996         1995          1994
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Computation of Primary Earnings
     per Share:

   Net Income (a)                     $28,023,000   $21,002,000   $18,526,000
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
   Shares:
     Weighted average shares
       outstanding                     47,676,511    45,000,000    45,000,000

     Add: Shares issuable from 
          assumed exercise of 
          options (as determined
          by the application of the
          treasury stock method)                -       187,320       187,320
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------
   Weighted average shares
     outstanding, as adjusted (b)      47,676,511    45,187,320    45,187,320
                                      -----------   -----------   -----------

   Primary Earnings per Share
     (a) / (b)                        $       .59   $       .46   $       .41
                                      ===========   ===========   ===========
```

[112th Congress Public Law 49]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 125 STAT. 543]]

Public Law 112-49
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
45 Meetinghouse Lane in Sagamore Beach, Massachusetts, as the ``Matthew 
     A. Pucino Post Office''. <<NOTE: Nov. 7, 2011 -  [H.R. 2062]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MATTHEW A. PUCINO POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 45 Meetinghouse Lane in Sagamore Beach, Massachusetts, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Matthew A. Pucino Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Matthew A. 
Pucino Post Office''.

    Approved November 7, 2011.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2062:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 157 (2011):
            July 28, 30, considered and passed House.
            October 20, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARAS BOJAJ,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-CV-13262

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY,

Defendant.

___________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND REMANDING

PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR OF 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) [DOC. 22]

This matter is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary

judgment as to plaintiff Maras Bojaj’s claim for judicial review of defendant

Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying his claim for a period of disability

and disability insurance benefits. On October 19, 2015, Magistrate Judge Majzoub

issued a report and recommendation recommending that plaintiff's motion for summary

judgment be granted in part, that defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied,

and that the matter be remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for

proper consideration and discussion of Dr. Chung’s March 10, 2012 opinion in

accordance with the treating physician rule, and a reevaluation of the other medical

opinions regarding plaintiff’s mental RFC, including those of the state agency doctors, in

light of the reassessment of Dr. Chung’s opinion. 

The court has reviewed the file, record, and magistrate judge's report and

-1-

2:14-cv-13262-GCS-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 547
recommendation. Objections to that report have not been filed by defendant within the

established time period. The court accepts the report and recommendation. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the magistrate's report and recommendation is

accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissioner’s motion for summary

judgment is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is

GRANTED IN PART in accordance with the magistrate’s report and recommendation.

Dated: November 12, 2015

s/George Caram Steeh 

GEORGE CARAM STEEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on

November 12, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marcia Beauchemin

Deputy Clerk

-2-

2:14-cv-13262-GCS-MKM Doc # 23 Filed 11/12/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 548
#### Brainard T. Norris et al., Respondents, *v.*Charles F. Hoffman et al., Appellants.

*Norris*v. *Hoffman,*133 App. Div. 596, affirmed.

(Argued January 4, 1910;

decided January 18, 1910.)

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 15, 1909, which affirmed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint in an action to have an easement declared abandoned.

The following question was certified: “ Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants *%*”

*Charles P. Northrop*and *Charles H. Edwards*for appellants.

*Louis Frankel, Job E. Hedges*and *Lidian B. Beaty*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the affirmative: no opinion.

Cohcnr: Cdllen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Yann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
§ 660.1 What is the purpose of these regulations? ( a ) The regulations in this part implement Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,” issued July 14, 1982 and amended on April 8, 1983. These regulations also implement applicable provisions of section 401 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968.
( b ) These regulations are intended to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism by relying on state processes and on state, areawide, regional and local coordination for review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development.
( c ) These regulations are intended to aid the internal management of the Foundation, and are not intended to create any right or benefit enforceable at law by a party against the Foundation or its officers.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7070

JAMES W. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JERRY DUNN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-46-R)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 2, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James W. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Williams v. Dunn, No. CA-95-46-R (W.D. Va. July 3, 1995). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 108.625 General alarm bell.

Each general alarm bell must be identified by marking “GENERAL ALARM—WHEN BELL RINGS GO TO YOUR STATION” next to the bell.
Editorial Note on Part 99
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 99 appear at 63 FR 39998, July 24, 1998.

§ 99.22 Rights of parties. All parties may: ( a ) Appear by counsel or other authorized representative, in all hearing proceedings;
( b ) Participate in any prehearing conference held by the presiding officer;
( c ) Agree to stipulations as to facts which will be made a part of the record;
( d ) Make opening statements at the hearing;
( e ) Present relevant evidence on the issues at the hearing;
( f ) Present witnesses who then must be available for cross-examination by all other parties;
( g ) Present oral arguments at the hearing; and
( h ) Submit written briefs, proposed findings of fact, and proposed conclusions of law, after the hearing.