alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### lANce R . L£FL.EUR DIRECTOR

Jun e 2 1 .20 1 2 James D . Glatllna. Director Water Protection Division USEPA Region 4 Atlanta Federa l Center 61 Forsyth Street Atlanta . Georgia 303:!3-8960 A labama Department of Environmental Manag ement adem.altbama,cov 1400 Coliseum BMS. 36U0.2400 • Posl Offoee Box 301463 Montgomery. Alabama 36130-1463 ! 334) 271-7700 o FAX (334) 271·7950 ROBERT 

### J . 8EHTUY

**GOVER~OR**

Re : State of Alatrama : CWA Section 401 ( a ) Water Quality Certifocation a nd Coastal Consistency Determination - Vesse l General Perm1t (VGP) re-issuance a nd Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP ) ADEM Tracking ID : 2012-261-EPA Dear M r . Gtatt1na : The A l abama Department of Environm enta l M anagemen t (ADEM) has reviewe d the draft permits , accompanyi ng facts sheets , and EPA's determinations of coasta l consistency for th e above referenced proposed permits. Because actton pertinent to water quality ce rtifi ca ti on is required by Section 401 (a)( 1 ) o' the Clean Water Act (CWA) . 33 USC Section 1251 , et seq ., we hereby 1ss ue certificati on , for a period not to e xceed five !51 years from the date of issuance of the permits . that there IS reasonable assurance that the discharges resu lting from the proposed activities will not violate appli cable water quality standards established under Section 303 of the CWA and Title 22 , Section 22-22-9{ g ), Code of Alabama . 1975. We further certify that there are no applicable effluent limitation s urder Section 301 and 302 nor applicable standards under Section 306 and 307 of the CWA in regard to the

**act iv~**  **ies** specified . In add otion . the ADEM concurs with EPA s determin:1tionc lhol the proposed perm1ts are consi stent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Alabama Coastal Area Ma nagement Progra m provided that diSCharges authorized under VGP and sVGP do not resuij in a violatoon of Water Quality Standards in State waters If 

### you have any ques:ions r egarding th is matter. please contact J . Scott Brown by email at jsb@adem . state . al.u s or by phone at (25 1 ) 432-6533 .

SOJI JSb Ftle CORSI ecopy Ph ol flp Hinesley. ADC N R-SLD Boll Pearson - U . S . Fish and Wi l dlife Service Mark Thom pson - National Ma rine Fosheries Servoce Rochard Hulcher. ADEM Birmingham Blanch 

### uo VIJI(ttu Roud &1111 ngnam. N.. 35209<4'70? <205' 942 e168 (205) 94116<X l(rAAI Oclutur Branch 2715 S tiinelfin Rotld, s. 

### w . Oocatur. Al35G03-1333 t2S6 :. ::15:\-171.1 (256) 3409359 (FAX) 

# l" ' ·"' '

**(,** , ; , l'



# . (

**~** 

## ' '"f'J:.1 T

**;~.r** Mobl.. Branch 2204 Porifl 'll.tWI' Rood Mobile, AL 3661! l 'IJt (251.AS0.9A00

**(25l14792~3!FA.'Q** Moble Coastal 41 11Cornm an( ICI'S Drive Mobile••

**~l366 15-1421**  1261) JI.J2 6633 { 25.1.) 432-6598tFAXi
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.512 Piping: Thermal isolation.

Low temperature piping must be thermally isolated from any adjacent hull structure to prevent the temperature of that structure from dropping below the minimum temperature for the hull material under § 154.170.
No. 6283.

#### Charley Wright *v.*The State.

Practice—Special Plea—Charge of the Court.—If upon a criminal trial a special plea is submitted to the jury, the verdict, to be valid, must expressly find that it is true or untrue, and a charge of the court which omits to so instruct the jury is erroneous. The defendant in this ease interposed a plea of former conviction, which was neither charged upon by the court nor expressly determined by the verdict. *Held,*that the conviction must be set aside.

*448Opinion delivered April 10, 1889.

Appeal from the County Court of Cooke. Tried below before the Hon. J. E. Hayworth, County Judge.

This conviction was for exhibiting a gaming table, and the penalty assessed by the verdict was a fine of twenty-five dollars and imprisonment in the county jail for ten days.

Ho brief on file for the appellant.

*W. L.*Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

In the trial court the defendant pleaded in due form a former conviction for the same offense. Evidence was adduced by him in support of said plea, and the court submitted the issue made by said plea and evidence to the jury. The verdict of the jury does not find whether said plea is true or untrue, but merely finds the defendant guilty as charged, and assesses the punishment.

Where a special plea is submitted to the jury, the verdict must expressly state whether said plea is true or untrue, and an omission to so state is error for which the verdict must be set aside. (Burks v. The State, 24 Texas Ct. App., 326; Smith v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 329.) The court in its charge should have instructed the jury explicitly that they must find and state in their verdict whether said plea was true or untrue. Such instruction the court failed to give.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.34 Special approval: Requests.

Each request for special approval must be in writing and submitted to the Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509.

[CGD 77-069, 52 FR 31626, Aug. 21, 1987, as amended by USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60155, Sept. 30, 2013]
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2090 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

431 State Street in Ogdensburg, New York, as the ‘‘Frederic Remington 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2009 

Mr. MCHUGH (for himself, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. 

MASSA, Mr. LEE of New York, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. 

MCMAHON, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. KING of New York, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. 

ENGEL, and Mr. HALL of New York) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 431 State Street in Ogdensburg, New York, 

as the ‘‘Frederic Remington Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FREDERIC REMINGTON POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 431 State Street in Ogdensburg, 

7 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Fred8 eric Remington Post Office Building’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2090 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Frederic Remington 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00397

- CR

Brittni Colleps

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 432nd District Court

o f Tarrant Cou nty (1249417D )

April 3, 2014

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that t he judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
§ 118.310 Fire main and hydrants. ( a ) Except as required by paragraph (d) of this section, a vessel must have a sufficient number of fire hydrants to reach any part of the vessel using a single length of firehose.
( b ) Piping, valves, and fittings in a fire main system must comply with part 119, subpart G of this subchapter.
( c ) Each fire hydrant must have a valve installed to allow the firehose to be removed while the fire main is under pressure.
( d ) On a vessel carrying more than 600 passengers or with overnight accommodations for more than 49 passengers, the fire main and hydrants must meet § 76.10-10 of this chapter.
( e ) Spanner wrenches must be provided for each fire hydrant required by this regulation. Existing vessels must comply with this requirement by January 18, 2017.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 917, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51351, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2012-0196, 81 FR 48270, July 22, 2016]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN FORD,

Plaintiff, No. 14-13832

v. District Judge Marianne O. Battani

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

DATAQUICK INFORMATION

SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants. /

ORDER

For the reasons stated on the record on July 1, 2015, Defendant Dataquick

Information Systems, Inc.’s (“Dataquick’s”) Motion for an Expedited Order Authorizing

the Plaintiff’s Consumer Information [Doc. #35] is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion

for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoenas [Doc. #42] is DENIED.

The Court hereby authorizes non-parties Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

(“Experian”) and Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”) to release to

Dataquick’s attorneys all information regarding Plaintiff Steven Ford, as requested in the

subpoenas served upon Experian and Equifax on or about June 5, 2015.

The information released to Dataquick’s attorneys pursuant to the subpoenas shall

not be used for any purpose other than the prosecution and defense of this lawsuit, and

shall not be disclosed to any individual or entity not engaged in the prosecution or

defense of this lawsuit. At the conclusion of this litigation, Defendant Dataquick shall

destroy all copies of the information it has received pursuant to these supboenas, or return

all copies to Plaintiff’s counsel.

-1-

2:14-cv-13832-MOB-RSW Doc # 50 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 270
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Date: July 2, 2015

Certificate of Service

I certify that a copy of this order was served on parties of record on July 2, 2015

via electronic or postal mail. 

/s/A. Chubb 

DEPUTY CLERK

-2-

2:14-cv-13832-MOB-RSW Doc # 50 Filed 07/02/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 271
§ 672.10 Default order. ( a ) *Default.* The Presiding Officer may find a party in default ( 1 ) after motion, upon failure to file a timely answer to the complaint;
( 2 ) after motion or sua sponte, upon failure to comply with a prehearing or hearing order of the Presiding Officer; or
( 3 ) after motion or sua sponte, upon failure to appear at a conference or hearing without good cause being shown. No finding of default on the basis of a failure to appear at a hearing shall be made against the respondent unless the complainant presents sufficient evidence to the Presiding Officer to establish a prima facie case against the respondent. Any motion for a default order shall include a proposed default order and shall be served upon all parties. The alleged defaulting party shall have twenty (20) days from service to reply to the motion. Default by respondent constitutes, for purposes of the pending action only, an admission of all facts alleged in the complaint and a waiver of respondent's right to a hearing on such factual allegations. If the complaint is for the assessment of a civil penalty, the penalty proposed in the complaint shall become due and payable by respondent without further proceedings sixty (60) days after a final order issued upon default. If the complaint is for the revocation or suspension of a permit, the conditions of revocation or suspension proposed in the complaint shall become effective without further proceedings on the date designated by the Presiding Officer in his final order issued upon default. Default by the complainant shall result in the dismissal of the complaint with prejudice.
( b ) *Procedures upon default.* When the Presiding Officer finds a default has occurred, he shall issue a default order against the defaulting party. This order shall constitute the initial decision, and shall be filed with the Hearing Clerk.
( c ) *Contents of a default order.* A default order shall include findings of fact showing the grounds for the order, conclusions regarding all material issues of law or discretion, and the penalty which is recommended, or the terms and conditions of permit revocation or suspension, or other sanctions.
( d ) The Presiding Officer may set aside a default order for good cause shown.
<PAGE>   1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                SOUTH SEAS PROPERTIES COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE UNITS OUTSTANDING


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

The weighted average number of partnership units used in the computation of
earnings per unit is as follows:

                                                                 Year
                                                           Ended December 31
                                                          1996         1997
                                                          ----         ----
<S>                                                     <C>           <C>
         Actual number of units
          outstanding at the beginning of the
          year                                          4,308,568      4,426,568

         Weighted average number of units issued
          during the year                                  61,833         34,625
                                                        ---------      ---------

         Weighted average number of units
          outstanding during the year                   4,370,401      4,461,193
                                                        =========      =========

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 148
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 148 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59783, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 148.290 Peat moss. ( a ) Before shipment, peat moss must be stockpiled under cover to allow drainage and reduce its moisture content.
( b ) The cargo must be ventilated so that escaping gases cannot reach living quarters on or above deck.
( c ) Persons handling or coming into contact with peat moss must wear gloves, a dust mask, and goggles.
Exhibit 32.1

Certificate 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 Capitol City Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George G. Andrews, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ George G. AndrewsGeorge G. Andrews, Chief Executive Officerand Director


August 14, 2008
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

Michael R. Kallet, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Eric E. Stickels,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Oneida Financial Corp.
(the "Company"), each certify in his capacity as an officer of the Company that
he has reviewed the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2005 and that to the best of his/her knowledge:

(6)   the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(7)   the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


    November 10, 2005                     /s/  Michael R. Kallet
-------------------------------           -------------------------------------
Date                                      President and Chief Executive Officer


    November 10, 2005                     /s/ Eric E. Stickels
-------------------------------           --------------------------------------
Date                                      Executive Vice President and
                                          Chief Financial Officer

                                  Exhibit 32.1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1883

DAVID K. EVERSON; PATRICIA M. EVERSON, 

Plaintiffs – Appellants, 

v.

RICHARD L. DOUGHTON, Individually and In His Official 

Capacity as Justice of the Superior Court of 

Alleghany/Rockingham County, North Carolina, 

Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:08-cv-00887-JAB-PTS) 

Submitted: January 22, 2010 Decided: February 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David K. Everson, Patricia M. Everson, Appellants Pro Se. Grady 

L. Balentine, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David K. and Patricia M. Everson appeal the district 

court’s orders adopting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) civil rights 

action, denying their motion for recusal, and issuing a 

pre-filing injunction against them. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court in both its orders, as well 

as the judgment, dated July 15, 2009. Everson v. Doughton, No. 

1:08-cv-00887-JAB-PTS (M.D.N.C. July 15, 2009). 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
###### Editorial Note on Part 154

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 154 appear part 154 appear by CGD-95-072, 60 FR 50466, Sept. 29, 1995, CGD-96-041, 61 FR 50732, Sept. 27, 1996, USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49235, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 154.418 General.

An integral tank must not be designed for a temperature colder than −10 °C (14 °F), unless the tank is specially approved by the Commandant (CG-ENG).

[CGD 74-289, 44 FR 26009, May 3, 1979, as amended by CGD 82-063b, 48 FR 4782, Feb. 3, 1983]
Suite 700
                                                    1000 Wilshire Boulevard
                                                    Los Angeles, CA 90017-2464
                                                    213 627-1717
                                                    FAX 213 624-6793



                                        (logo)Grant Thornton
                                 GRANT THORNTON LLP Accountants and
                                                    Management Consultants
                                                    The U.S. Member Firm of
                                                    Grant Thornton International



          REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON MANAGEMENTS ASSERTION ON
          COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM SERVICING STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE
             UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS



Board of Directors
Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc.



We have examined  management's  assertion about Countrywide  Credit  Industries,
Inc. and Subsidiaries (which includes wholly-owned subsidiary,  Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. formerly Countrywide Funding Corporation) ("the Company") compliance
with  the  minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in  the  Mortgage  Bankers
Association  of America's  UNIFORM   SINGLE  ATTESTATION  PROGRAM  FOR  MORTGAGE
BANKERS  (USAP) as of and for the year ended  February 29, 1996  included in the
accompanying  management assertion.  Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility  is to
express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance based
on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our opinion,  management's assertion that Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc.
and  Subsidiaries  (which includes  wholly-owned  subsidiary,  Countrywide  Home
Loans, Inc.) complied with the aforementioned  minimum servicing standards as of
and for the year ended  February  29,  1996 is fairly  stated,  in all  material
respects.


/s/Grant Thornton LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 23,1996
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

IntfaeMatterof ) 

) 

Proposed Final Audit Report on Nader ) 

for President 2008 ) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Sfaawn Woodfaead Wertfa, Secretary and Clerk of tfae Federal Election 

Commission, do faereby certify tfaat on August 23,2011, tfae Commission 

decided by a vote of 6-0 to approve tfae Proposed Final Audit Report on Nader 

for President 2008, as recommended in tfae Cfaief Compliance Officer and tfae 

Audit Division Memorandum dated August 17,2011. 

Commissioners Bauerly, Hunter, McGafan U, Petersen, Walther, and 

Weintraub voted affiimatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

3 Date / Shawn Woodhead Werth / 

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Christopher Charles King v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-01137-CR

Trial court case number: 64792

Trial court: 149th District Court of Brazoria County

Date motion filed: January 29, 2014

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle

Date: February 11, 2014