alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
Data Series 527
EAARL Coastal       Topography�Eastern Florida, Post-Hurricane Frances, 2004: First       Surface
Xan Yates,1 Amar Nayegandhi,1 Jamie M.       Bonisteel,1 C. Wayne Wright,2 A.H.       Sallenger,2 John C. Brock,3 Emily S.       Klipp,1 and David B. Nagle1

1Jacobs Technology Inc., St. Petersburg,       FL; 2U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center, St. Petersburg, FL;       3U.S. Geological Survey,       Coastal and Marine Geology Program, Reston, VA

This DVD contains lidar-derived first-surface       (FS) topography GIS datasets of a portion of       the eastern Florida coastline beachface, acquired post-Hurricane Frances       on September 9, 2004.

Click on a tile number (1 - 65) to view the corresponding images and       links to each data directory.

Suggested Citation: Yates, Xan, Nayegandhi, Amar, Bonisteel, J.M.,       Wright, C.W., Sallenger, A.H., Brock, J.C., Klipp, E.S., and Nagle, D.B.,       2010, EAARL coastal       topography�eastern Florida, post-Hurricane Frances, 2004: first surface:       U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 527, 1 DVD.

Publications are available from USGS Information Services, Box       25286, Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0046       (telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS; email: infoservices@usgs.gov).

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey URL: pubs.usgs.gov /ds/527/index.htmlPage Contact Information: FeedbackPage Last Modified: Monday, 30-Aug-2010 07:25:48 EDT
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-40357 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ARTURO DELGADO-ALMAZAN, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-1946-1
Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender ap p o i nted to represent Arturo DelgadoAlmazan has moved for leave to withdra w and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Delgado-Almazan has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein,

as well as Delgado-Almazan’s response. We concur with c o unsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolou s issue for appellate review. Accordingly, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 1 7, 2 012 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40357 Document: 00512085297 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2012No. 12-40357

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, c o u nsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-40357 Document: 00512085297 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AELEN UNAN and PATRICIA QUINTINO,

on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

NICK LYON, in his official capacity as

DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT

OF COMMUNITY HEALTH and

DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT

OF HUMAN SERVICES

Defendant.

_______________________ __________/

CASE NO. 2:14-cv-13470

HON. MARIANNE O. BATTANI

ORDER AMENDING JANUARY 11, 2016, OPINION AND ORDER

This matter has been presented before the Court on a Stipulation and Proposed

Order to Alter or Amend Judgment, jointly submitted by the parties. The parties

identified an erroneous citation in the Court’s January 11, 2016, Opinion and Order

(Doc. 83). In its Opinion, the Court discussed the complex criteria in determining

whether an individual is a Medicaid-eligible “qualified alien” and stated as an example

that a permanent resident must show that she “has worked 40 qualifying quarters of

coverage . . . .” in accordance with federal statute. (Id. at 31). The Court cited to 8

U.S.C. § 1622(b)(2)(B), which the parties agree relates to the state’s authority to limit

eligibility of qualified aliens for state public benefits and is therefore irrelevant to this

case. However, this citation was made in error and is to be replaced with 8 U.S.C. §

1612(a)(2)(B). The January 11, 2016, Opinion and Order is hereby amended to reflect

this clarification.

2:14-cv-13470-MOB-DRG Doc # 88 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 2503
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 24, 2016 s/Marianne O. Battani 

MARIANNE O. BATTANI

United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to

their respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on March 24, 2016.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-13470-MOB-DRG Doc # 88 Filed 03/24/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 2504
§ 163.002-7 Independent laboratory. ( a ) The approval and production tests in this subpart must be conducted by, or under the supervision of, an independent laboratory accepted by the Coast Guard under subpart 159.010 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
#### § 702.9 Cross-examination at public session.

If the Commission determines that oral testimony of a witness at a public session tends to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, such person, or through counsel, shall be permitted to submit questions to the Commission in writing, which, in the discretion of the Commission, may be put to such witness by the Chairperson or by authorized Commission staff personnel.
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.161-3 Materials. ( a ) All system components must meet the requirements of NFPA 2001 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.161-2) and be made of metal, except for bushings, o-rings, and gaskets. Aluminum or aluminum alloys may not be used.
( b ) Metal components must: ( 1 ) Have a solidus melting point of at least 1700 °F;
( 2 ) Be corrosion resistant; and
( 3 ) Be galvanically compatible with each adjoining metal component, or if galvanically incompatible, be separated by a bushing, o-ring, gasket, or similar device.
( c ) Each extinguishing agent must be: ( 1 ) Listed as an acceptable total flooding agent for occupied areas on the Environmental Protection Agency's Significant New Alternative Products (SNAP) list, 40 CFR part 82, subpart G, Appendix A; and
( 2 ) Identified as an extinguishing agent in NFPA 2001 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.161-2).
( d ) The extinguishing concentration of extinguishing agent required for each system must be determined by the cup burner method, described in NFPA 2001 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.161-2), for the specific fuel requiring the highest extinguishing concentration.
( e ) The design concentration of the agent required for each protected space must be calculated using a safety factor of 1.3 times the extinguishing concentration. The quantity must be calculated at the minimum expected ambient temperature using the design concentration based on either: ( 1 ) Gross volume, including the casing, bilge, and free air contained in air receivers; or
( 2 ) Net volume, calculated as shown in NFPA 2001 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.161-2), including the casing, bilge, and free air contained in air receivers, if one of the following is satisfactorily performed: ( i ) Full discharge test; or
( ii ) Enclosure integrity procedure in accordance with Annex C of NFPA 2001; for discharge or enclosure integrity tests, the minimum concentration hold time must be 15 minutes, and the extinguishing agent concentration at the end of the hold time must be at least 85 percent of the design concentration.
( f ) If fuel can drain from the compartment being protected to an adjacent compartment or if the compartments are not entirely separate, the quantity must be sufficient for both compartments.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY BRADSHAW,

Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cv-12798

Paul D. Borman

v. United States District Judge

GENESEE, COUNTY OF, Mona K. Majzoub

et al., United States Magistrate Judge

Defendants.

___________________________/

ORDER (1) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 42),

(2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 37),

(3) DISMISSING UNNAMED DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.

4(m), and (4) DISMISSING COMPLAINT

On June 30, 2016, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub issued a Report and

Recommendation to grant Defendants Genesee County and R. Rainwater’s motion to

dismiss, to dismiss the remaining unnamed Defendants in this action pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(m) and to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. (ECF No. 42,

Report and Recommendation.) Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation,

and there being no timely objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R.

72.1(d), the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, GRANTS Defendants’ 

2:14-cv-12798-PDB-MKM Doc # 43 Filed 07/29/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 178
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 37), DISMISSES all “Other Unnamed Defendants”

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 29, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each

attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July

29, 2016.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-12798-PDB-MKM Doc # 43 Filed 07/29/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 179
Editorial Note on Part 162
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 162 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 162.018-7 Flow rating tests. ( a ) Flow rating of valves shall be conducted in accordance with UG-131 of section VIII of the ASME Code, S-1.2.5.2 of the Compressed Gas Association Standards, or other procedure approved by the Commanding Officer, USCG Marine Safety Center.
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGFR 68-82, 33 FR 18908, Dec. 18, 1968, as amended by USCG-2001-10224, 66 FR 48620, Sept. 21, 2001]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7368

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY LEE TAYLOR, a/k/a G,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00035-RGD-RJK-3; 2:20-

cv-00462-RGD)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Lee Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7368 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Lee Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83 (4th 

Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute of 

limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue 

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2). When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that 

the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7368 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 170.300 Special consideration for free surface of spoil in hopper dredge hoppers. The calculations required by this subchapter for each self-propelled hopper dredge must include— ( a ) The free surface effect of consumable liquids and the free surface effect of the dredged spoil in the hoppers; and
( b ) Either of the following assumptions when performing the calculations required by § 174.310(b) of this chapter: ( 1 ) If the dredged spoil is assumed to be jettisoned, the free surface of the dredged spoil may be disregarded.
( 2 ) If the dredged spoil is not assumed to be jettisoned. the free surface of the dredged spoil must be calculated.
[CGD 76-080, 54 FR 36977, Sept. 6, 1989]
Sec. 12 Audit. ( a ) The owner will audit as currently as possible subsequent to audit by the agent, all documents relating to the activities, maintenance and business of the vessels assigned under agency agreements.
( b ) The agent shall maintain all documents in his principal office, for the time being in accordance with his customary practice of filing.
( c ) Subsequent to audit by the owner, at such intervals as may be determined, the owner will authorize entries to be made to revenue and expense accounts and to accounts reflecting relations between the owner and the agent.
Note:
Books of accounts and documents referred to in the above order, shall be retained until the completion of the audit by the General Accounting Office, at which time the Maritime Administration will take custody of the records.
[16 FR 2885, Apr. 3, 1951, as amended at 21 FR 8105, Oct. 23, 1956. Redesignated at 45 FR 44587, July 1, 1980]
§ 179.240 Foam flotation material. ( a ) Foam may only be installed as flotation material on a vessel when approved by the cognizant OCMI.
( b ) If foam is installed as flotation material on a vessel, the owner shall ensure that the following tests are conducted and requirements are met, to the satisfaction of the cognizant OCMI: ( 1 ) All foam must comply with NPFC MIL-P-21929C (incorporated by reference, see 46 CFR 175.600). The fire resistance test is not required.
( 2 ) Foam may be installed only in void spaces that are free of ignition sources, unless the foam complies with the requirements of 33 CFR 183.114;
( 3 ) Foam may be installed adjacent to fuel tanks only if the boundary between the tank and the space has double continuous fillet welds;
( 4 ) The structure enclosing the foam must be strong enough to accommodate the buoyancy of the foam;
( 5 ) Piping and cables must not pass through foamed spaces unless they are within piping and cable ways accessible from both ends;
( 6 ) Blocked foam must: ( i ) Be used in each area that may be exposed to water; and
( ii ) Have a protective cover, approved by the cognizant OCMI, to protect it from damage;
( 7 ) A water submergence test must be conducted on the foam for a period of at least 7 days to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the cognizant OCMI that the foam has adequate strength to withstand a hydrostatic head equivalent to that which would be imposed if the vessel were submerged to its bulkhead deck;
( 8 ) The effective buoyancy of the foam must be determined at the end of the submergence test required by paragraph (b)(7) of this section. The effective buoyancy or 881 kilograms per cubic meter (55 pounds per cubic foot), whichever is less, must be used in determining the location of watertight bulkheads for subdivision required by § 179.212; and
( 9 ) The owner or operator must obtain sample foam specimens during installation of the foam and determine the density of the installed foam.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 971, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51357, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65206, Oct. 31, 2008]
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14325-14326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1484]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Clearwater 
Insurance Company

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No.7 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570, 2006 Revision, published June 20, 2006, at 71 FR 37694.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The above mentioned company was listed in 71 
FR 37694, June 30, 2006, as an acceptable reinsuring company on Federal 
bonds. A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal 
bonds is hereby issued under 31 U.S.C. 9305 to the following company:
    Clearwater Insurance Company. (NAIC <greek-i> 25070). BUSINESS 
ADDRESS: 300 First Stamford Place, Stamford, CT 06902. PHONE: (203) 
977-8024.
    UNDERWRITING LIMITATION b/: $60,293,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, 
AK, AZ, CA, DE, DC, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, MD, MI, MS, M0, MT, 
NE, NJ, HM, NY, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, 
WV, WI, WY. INCORPORTATED IN: DE.
    Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference 
copies of the Treasury Circular 570 (``Circular''), 2006 Revision, to 
reflect this addition.
    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30th each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long at the companies remain qualified (see 31 CFR 
part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of 
July 1 in the Circular, which outlines details as to underwriting 
limitations, areas in which companies are licensed to transact surety 
business, and other information.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room 6F01, Hyattsville, MD 20782.


[[Page 14326]]


    Dated: March 14, 2007.
Vivian L. Cooper,
Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial 
Management Service.
[FR Doc. 07-1484 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
#### William H. Denike, *Respondent, v.*The Orange County Mutual Insurance Company, *Appellant*.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
# C_2013225EN.01008403.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/84

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — BX v Commission

(Case F-88/11) (1)

1

(Civil service - Open competition - Competition EPSO/AD/148/09 - Failure to include the applicant in the reserve list)

2013/C 225/194

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: BX (Washington, United States) (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil Service Tribunal — Application seeking the annulment of the decision of the selection board not to include the applicant in the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/148/09 — RO-Administrator (AD 5).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders BX to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BX to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 45.

1

---
#### Joseph A. Vose *v.*Francis S. Street.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs, unless the case be made and served within twenty days after service of a copy of the order to be entered hereon, and ten dollars costs of motion be paid,
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-41400

Conference Calendar

 

LARRY EDWARD HUDDLESTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GAIL FALCO, Assistant District 

Attorney for Collin County; 

CHARLES PALMER, Assistant 

Attorney General for the State 

of Texas; GARY L. JOHNSON, 

DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL

DIVISION,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CV-174

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

June 16, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Edward Huddleston, prisoner number 04147-010, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as

frivolous. The district court determined that the suit lacked

any arguable basis in law, as the defendants were entitled to

immunity. Huddleston has failed to brief this issue. See Yohey
No. 99-41400

-2-

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P.

28(a)(9). This appeal should thus be dismissed as frivolous. 

Because the appeal is dismissed for failure to brief,

Huddleston’s motion to expand the record is denied. 

This dismissal of a frivolous appeal following the district

court’s dismissal of the lawsuit as frivolous constitutes two

strikes against Huddleston for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). If

one other district court action or appeal filed by Huddleston is

dismissed as frivolous, he will be barred from bringing a civil

action or appeal as a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 

See § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. MOTION TO

EXPAND THE RECORD DENIED. SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.