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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MOHAMMED AND RUJI AHMED, 

 Plaintiffs, Case Number 15-11836 

 Honorable Terrence G. Berg 

v. 

ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 On March 1, 2017, the Court was notified via email by counsel that the parties 

had reached a resolution in this matter. Therefore, the case will be dismissed. 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. The Court retains jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the terms 

of the settlement agreement. See, e.g., Moore v. United States Postal Serv., 369 Fed. 

App’x 712 (6th Cir. 2010). 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Terrence G. Berg 

TERRENCE G. BERG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 1, 2017 

 Flint, Michigan 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on March 1, 

2017 March 1, 2017 using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification to all 

parties. 

s/A. Chubb 

Case Manager

4:15-cv-11836-TGB-MKM Doc # 17 Filed 03/01/17 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 114
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1998 and the Statement of Operations for the
Year Ended December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,555
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,789
<PP&E>                                       5,365,357
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,984,466
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 426,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              189
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     426,491
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   426,680
<SALES>                                        887,710
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               889,180
<CGS>                                          782,013
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  782,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               822,368
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (715,201)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (715,201)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (715,201)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (52.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (52.52)
        

</TABLE>
p. 1


# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 53 ) ll-B-2 8 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:50:53 AM Sheet 53 of 276

# 7 P. 2 

# m II-B-2 8

M 

## !"'- { 

## \ M 

## I 2 189 1 m

•<n

NOTE : Asigne d cop yo f thi s ite

mwa s no t available ./ *.; ; « ^ IP,? % 

### 2.22lT~0-2$ P. 3

\ r "i«o^ °

/ UNITED STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIONAGENCY /ASHINGTON

, D.C. 2046 0


### 2 8 

### 198 6 OFFIC E o r Al tAN D RADIATIO

N

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT : Constructio n Activitie s Prio r t o Issuanc e o f a PS D

Permi t wit hRespec t t o "Begi nActua l Construction " FROM : Directo r

StationarySourc e Complianc e pivisio n Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning'and Standard s TO: l Rober t R . DeSpain , Chie f

Ai r Program s Branch , Regio nVII I Thi s memorandum

addresse s th e interpretatio no f "begi n actua l construction " a s i t refer s t o constructio n activitie s whic hma yoccur , o r ar e prohibite d prio r t o issuanc e o f a PS D permi t unde r 4 0 CF R52.21(i) . Th e Contro l Program s Developmen t Divisio n o f OAQPS , the Offic e o f Genera l Counsel , an d th e Ai r Enforcemen t Divisio no f th e Offic e o f Enforcemen t an d Complianc e Monitorin g wer e consulte d i nth e developmen t o f thi s memorandum , an d al l thre e office s concu r wit hit s content . Sectio n 165(a ) o f the Clea nAi r Ac t state s tha t "[n] o majo r emittin g facility...mayb e constructed...unles s - (1 ) a permi t ha s bee n issued...[and variou s othe r require

ment s ar e satisfied]. " Sectio n 16 5 requirements , then , appl yt o majo r emittin g facilities , i.e . majo r stationary sources . However , th e PS D regulation s a t §52.21(i)(l ) stat e that , B [n] o stationarysourc e o r modification...shal l begi n actua l constructio n withou t a permi t whic hstate s tha t th e stationarysourc e o r modification...[ha s me t variou s require

ments]. " Th e terr

a "begi n actua l construction " a t §52.2Kb ) (11 ) i n th e PS D regulation s refer s t o "constructio n activitie s o n an emission s unit. " Emission s uni t i s define d a t §52.2 1 (b)(7 ) a s "...an

ypar t o f a stationarysourc e whic hemit s »o r woul d hav e th e potentia l t o emi t an ypollutan t subjec tP. 4 

## "•••£ •

sourc e o r modificatio n(i.e . the sourc e o r modificatio n woul d no t serve i n accordanc e wit hit s origina l intent , excep t fo r inclusio no f th" > Rmiseior. g unit) , the PS D permi t mus t b e obtaine d befor e constructio nonthe entir e sourc e commences . Th e polic ystatemen t from197 8 reflect s the curren t polic yo n th

e type s o f constructio nactivitie s whic har e pro hibited , o r aa yoccu r a t ris k t o th e owne r prio r t o issuanc e o f a PS D perait . Language change s in the regulation s afte r thi s guidanc e wa s issue d di d no t alte r EPA' s interpretatio n o f wha t a ! sourc e ma yd o prio r t o obtaining a PS D permit .

you* * a t PTS : 382-?2875 . X £ ya&hav e an

yquestions ? pleas e contac t Sall yM . Parrel l

Edwar d E . Reic h cc : Kir t Co**:OAQP S GregoryFoot© , OG C Dougla s A . Johns , DO J Judit hKatz , OECS 8 Ti mOsag , Regio n VII I NS RRegiona l Contact s
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:15−mj−30085−DUTY

Al−Hamzah Mohammad Jawad,

Defendant(s),

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT

 This matter coming before the Court on the Government’s motion, with notice having been

provided to the defense, for the reasons stated in the Government’s motion, the Court grants

the Government leave to dismiss the complaint against Al−Hamzah Mohammad Jawad.

 Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the Complaint against Al−Hamzah Mohammad

Jawad be dismissed and that the Appearance Bond, if any, and the Order Setting Conditions

of Release be cancelled.

s/R. Steven Whalen 

R. Steven Whalen

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Certificate of Service

 I hereby certify that this Notice was electronically filed, and the parties and/or counsel of

record were served.

By: s/C Ciesla 

Case Manager

Dated: April 6, 2016

2:15-mj-30085-DUTY Doc # 17 Filed 04/06/16 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 35
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 236 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 236

    To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to protect Social 
       Security beneficiaries against any reduction in benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2009

 Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida introduced the following bill; which 
    was referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to protect Social 
       Security beneficiaries against any reduction in benefits.

    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 ``Social Security Protection Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES.

    Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Point of Order To Protect Social Security Benefits.--(1) It 
shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to 
consider any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or 
conference report thereon, that--
            ``(A) reduces or has the effect of reducing any current 
        benefits under the old-age, survivors, and disability insurance 
        programs under title II of the Social Security Act; or
            ``(B) provides for or has the effect of providing for cost-
        of-living increases of benefits under the old-age, survivors, 
        and disability insurance programs under title II of the Social 
        Security Act that are less than what would be provided under 
        title II of the Social Security Act as of the day of 
        consideration of the applicable measure.
    ``(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term `current', when referring 
to benefits, means benefits payable as of the day of consideration of 
the applicable measure.''.

SEC. 3. SUPER-MAJORITY REQUIREMENT IN THE SENATE.

    Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended--
            (1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``and 312(c)'' and 
        inserting ``312(c), and 312(g)''; and
            (2) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``and 312(c)'' and by 
        inserting ``312(c), and 312(g)''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20513 Summary Calendar

DWAYNE ALLEN ROE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JESS HOWELL; SPARKMAN, Lt.; HIENZE, Cpl; MARK HOFFA; JERRY MICHNA, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CV-1524

- - - - - - - - - - May 18, 1998 Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dwayne Allen Roe, Texas prisoner #683943, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim and from the denial of his motion for a default judgment. The appellees move for leave to file a response to Roe’s reply brief; their motion is DENIED. Roe moves for leave to reply to the appellees’ proposed response to his reply brief; Roe’s motion is DENIED.No. 96-20513 -2- Roe contends that the appellees deprived him of his right of access to the courts; that the appellees were not entitled to qualified immunity; that Wharton County, Texas, is liable for pursuing a policy of denying library access; that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint with prejudice; and that the district court erred by denying his motion for defaultjudgment. Regarding his access-to-the-courts and defaultjudgment contentions, we have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment regarding those contentions for essentially the reasons relied upon by the district court. Roe v. Howell , No. H-95-1524 (S.D. Tex. May 3, 1996); Roe v. Howell , No. H-95- 1524 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 1996). Because Roe’s access-to-the-courts claim is unavailing, we do not consider Roe’s contentions regarding qualified immunity or county liability. Because Roe has pleaded his best case and has failed to state a claim, the district court did not err by dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Jacquez v. Procunier , 801 F.2d 789, 793 (5th Cir. 1986). Roe contends for the first time in his reply brief that he should be allowed to pursue his claims against the appellees in their individual capacities. We will not consider Roe’s contention. United States v. Hoster , 988 F.2d 1374, 1383 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
§ 32.02-10 Rails—TB/ALL. ( a ) All tank vessels, except unmanned tank barges, contracted for on or after July 1, 1969, shall have efficient guard rails or bulwarks on decks and bridges. The height of rails or bulwarks shall be at least 391 ⁄ 2 inches from the deck except that where this height would interfere with the normal operation of the vessel, a lesser height may be approved by the Commandant. At exposed peripheries of the freeboard and superstructure decks the rails shall be in at least three courses including the top. The opening below the lowest course shall not be more than 9 inches. The courses shall not be more than 15 inches apart. In the case of ships with rounded gunwales, the guard rail supports shall be placed on the flat of the deck. On other decks and bridges the rails shall be in at least two courses, including the top, approximately evenly spaced. All rails shall consist of solid or tubular sections or chains or wire rope or a combination thereof.
( b ) Where it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Commandant that a vessel is engaged exclusively on voyages of a sheltered nature, the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section may be relaxed.
( c ) Tank vessels contracted for prior to July 1, 1969, except unmanned tank barges, assigned a deeper load line under part 42 of subchapter E (Load Lines) of this chapter shall have efficient guard rails or bulwarks as required by paragraph (a) of this section. Otherwise, existing rails and bulwarks previously approved will be considered satisfactory so long as they are maintained in good condition. Minor repairs and alterations may be made to the same standards as the original construction.
( d ) All tank vessels in ocean and coastwise service, except unmanned tank barges, constructed on or after June 15, 1987, must have suitable storm rails installed in all passageways and at the deckhouse sides on weather decks where persons on board might have normal access. Storm rails must be installed on both sides of passageways which are six feet or more in width. Tank vessels to which this paragraph applies constructed prior to June 15, 1987, may retain previously accepted or approved installations so long as they are maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection.
[CGFR 69-72, 34 FR 17481, Oct. 29, 1969, as amended by CGD 84-073; 52 FR 18362, May 15, 1987; 52 FR 22751, June 15, 1987. Redesignated by CGD 88-032, 56 FR 35820, July 29, 1991]
Stanley Burton

CEO Nation Aerial MMS, Inc.

42050 Humber Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92591 (949)295-2718

Docket No. FAA-2015-3152

U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 !

Attn: Brenda Robeson/ Program Analyst

Re : Request for Additional Information

November 30, 2015

Ms. Robeson,

In response to your letter requesting additional information; Nation Aerial MMS, Inc. would like to amend the above referenced docket so that the proposed operation will not include closed-set filming, so therefore a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual that was requested has not been included in this response.

Sincerely,

Stanley Burton

CEO, Nation Aerial MMS, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 4, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 16336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1666]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of International Regimes and Agreements; Proposed 
Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Subsequent Arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is being issued under the authority of Section 131 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The 
Department is providing notice of a proposed ``subsequent arrangement'' 
under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 
Energy between the United States and Argentina and the Agreement for 
Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United 
States and Brazil.
    This subsequent arrangement concerns the retransfer of two fission 
counters from the Instrumentation and Control Department, National 
Atomic Energy Commission, Argentina, to the IPEN/MB/01 Research 
Reactor, San Pablo, Brazil. The fission counters each contain .01 g 
U235. IPEN/MB/01 Research Reactor is authorized to receive nuclear 
material pursuant to the U.S.-Brazil Agreement for Cooperation on 
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not 
be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 15 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: March 29, 2007.

    For the Department of Energy.
Richard S. Goorevich,
Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements.
[FR Doc. 07-1666 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M
§ 32.50-20 Cargo piping for tank vessels constructed between November 10, 1936, and July 1, 1951—TB/ALL. ( a ) On tank vessels, the construction or conversion of which is started on or after November 10, 1936, and prior to July 1, 1951, the piping shall be arranged so as to avoid excessive stresses at the joints. For sizes exceeding 2 inches in diameter, flanged, welded, or other approved types of joints shall be employed. Packing material shall be suitable for the cargo carried. Connections at bulkheads shall be made so that the plating does not form part of a flanged joint. Piping may be carried through bunker spaces and deep tanks provided it is run through a pipe tunnel. The tunnel may be omitted where the pipe is extra heavy, all joints are welded, and bends are installed to provide for expansion and contraction.
( b ) Cargo piping shall not pass through spaces containing machinery where sources of vapor ignition are normally present: *Provided,* That in special cases the Commandant may permit the piping to pass through such spaces if Grade E liquids only are involved.
( c ) Valve operating rods in the cargo tanks shall be solid and of ample size, well guided and supported, and attached to the valve stems in a manner to guard against their working loose. Where such valve rods pass through the deck, gas tight stuffing boxes shall be fitted. The leads of valve rods shall be as direct as possible. All valves and fittings shall be of material, design, and manufacture for the intended service on the cargo system; either rising or nonrising stem valves may be used.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2214

JEFFERY LEE GORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; DRUG

ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION; HORRY COUNTY

POLICE DEPARTMENT; TOM FOX, Officers: (Horry

County); DAVID BEATY, Lieutenant, Officers:

(Horry County); CHUCK BESSETT, PFC, Officers:

(Horry County); J. C. LILLEY, Corporal, Officers: (Horry County),

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(CA-98-1041-4))

Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffery Lee Gore, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert

Thomas King, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellees.
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

August 10, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on August 11, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Jeffery Lee Gore appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) 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. See Gore v. United States Dep’t of Justice,

No. CA-98-1041-4 (D.S.C. Aug. 11, 1999).* 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
Exhibit
      32








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


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Victory Capital Holdings Corporation
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005 (the
“Report”), Jon Fullenkamp, Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
      certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company’s financial position and results of operations.











Date:
      February 2,
      2006 /s/
      Jon Fullenkamp


Jon
      Fullenkamp


Principal
      Executive Officer


Principal
      Financial and


Accounting
      Officer