alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6431** 

JOHN DWAYNE GARVIN , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. CHUCK WRIGHT; MAJOR NEAL URCH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv - 00442

- DCN )

Submitted : September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. John Dwayne Garvin , Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; Lisa Robette Claxton, Virginia Merck Dupont , SPARTANBURG COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Spartanburg , South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Dwayne Garvin seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ( 2012 ) petition Garvin filed while he was a state pretrial detainee . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (1) (A) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S . 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Garvin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Garvin’s motions for a certificate of appeal ability and for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with3 oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
§ 602.11 Pre-award authority. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, pre-award authority for the Emergency Relief Program shall be effective beginning on the first day of the incident period, subject to the appropriation of Emergency Relief Program funds.
( b ) Recipients may use section 5307 or section 5311 formula funds to address an emergency, and, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, pre-award authority shall be effective beginning on the first day of the incident period of the emergency or major disaster.
( c ) For expected weather events, pre-award authority for evacuations and activities to protect public transportation vehicles, equipment and facilities, shall be effective in advance of the event under the following conditions: ( 1 ) The Governor of a State declares a state of emergency and requests concurrence by the Secretary of Transportation or makes a request to the President for an emergency declaration, in advance or anticipation of the impact of an incident that threatens such damage as could result in a major disaster;
( 2 ) The Governor takes appropriate action under State law and directs execution of the State emergency plan;
( 3 ) The activities are required in anticipation of the event; and
( 4 ) Assistance for a pre-disaster emergency declaration is limited to Emergency Protective Measures and Emergency Operations.
( d ) Pre-award authority shall be subject to a maximum amount determined by FTA based on estimates of immediate financial need, preliminary damage assessments, available Emergency Relief funds and other criteria to be determined in response to a particular event.
( e ) Pre-award authority is not a legal or implied commitment that the subject project will be approved for FTA assistance or that FTA will obligate Federal funds. Furthermore, it is not a legal or implied commitment that all activities undertaken by the applicant will be eligible for inclusion in the project(s).
( f ) Except as provided in § 602.15, all FTA statutory, procedural, and contractual requirements must be met.
( g ) The recipient must take no action that prejudices the legal and administrative findings that the FTA Regional Administrator must make in order to approve a project.
( h ) The Federal amount of any future FTA assistance awarded to the recipient for the project will be determined on the basis of the overall scope of activities and the prevailing statutory provisions with respect to the Federal/non-Federal match ratio at the time the funds are obligated.
( i ) When FTA subsequently awards a grant for the project, the Financial Status Report in FTA's electronic grants management system must indicate the use of pre-award authority.
From: Peter Barnidge [mailto:peterbarnidge@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:17 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Quit trying to steal more of the citizens' money!
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe Langley Research Center CSI phase-0 evolutionary model testbed-design and experimental resultsA testbed for the development of Controls Structures Interaction (CSI) technology is described. The design philosophy, capabilities, and early experimental results are presented to introduce some of the ongoing CSI research at NASA-Langley. The testbed, referred to as the Phase 0 version of the CSI Evolutionary model (CEM), is the first stage of model complexity designed to show the benefits of CSI technology and to identify weaknesses in current capabilities. Early closed loop test results have shown non-model based controllers can provide an order of magnitude increase in damping in the first few flexible vibration modes. Model based controllers for higher performance will need to be robust to model uncertainty as verified by System ID tests. Data are presented that show finite element model predictions of frequency differ from those obtained from tests. Plans are also presented for evolution of the CEM to study integrated controller and structure design as well as multiple payload dynamics.Document ID19910009142Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsBelvin, W. K.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Horta, Lucas G.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Elliott, K. B.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1991Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-102762NAS 1.15:102762Meeting InformationMeeting: NASA/DOD CSI ConferenceLocation: Orlando, FLCountry: United StatesStart Date: November 5, 1990End Date: November 7, 1990Accession Number91N18455Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 590-14-61-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910009142.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.B

                            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 on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2002, of El Paso CGP Company (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D.
Dwight Scott, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify (i)
that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                                    /s/ D. Dwight Scott
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 D. Dwight Scott
                                                 Executive Vice President and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 (Principal Financial Officer)

                                                 March 31, 2003
From: Kevin Rogers [mailto:krogers58@gmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 12:51 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

To whom it may concern, 

I am writing to comment on the idea that retirement accounts may be further regulated in 

the belief that retirement security may be enhanced. It is my belief that the rules that are 

currently in place are more than adequate. One should look to the recent legislation 

known commonly as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for examples of 

unintended consequences for rules, which on face value look like good ideas, but when 

put into effect had near catastrophic consequences. I could envision the number of 

people, realizing that their ability to take risk would be minimized, would withdraw their 

funds to avoid the new regulations. I would seriously consider taking the tax hit and 

withdrawing my retirement accounts. I could take the cash and go to a cash brokerage 

account, and using margin trading, I could quickly recoup the tax charges. I can't 

imagine what would happen when the general public realizes that the US Gov't would 

channel employees retirement accounts into "acceptable" investments. What would 

happen to our stock markets if many people decided to withdraw their retirement funds 

from the mutual funds they are currently invested in? It would probably make the recent 

market crash look mild. I have heard numerous examples of what type of investments are 

envisioned, and I understand that one of the primary investments would be sovereign 

debt. It is bad enough that the government created a large ponzi scheme (aka Social 

Security) from which I will not be able to receive the money I paid in, but to now tell me 

I have to reinvest in the new government "retirement system" that has left a mountain of 

IOU's in the social security trust fund, that I would do all that I could to prevent this from 

happening, including complete withdrawal of my retirement funds. I cannot imagine 

what the public ire would be, should these rules be proposed and the usual media 

megaphones informing the extremists that this is a government takeover of their 

retirement accounts. Let's face it, the US Government, as it is currently running, is a poor 

credit risk that I am not willing to supply with additional capital. 

Thanks for your time, 

Kevin Rogers 

P.O. Box 71 

Campton, NH 03223
Hillsborough,

June, 1896.

#### Thayer *v.*Standard Life and Accident Insurance Co.

In an action upon a policy insuring against loss of time resulting from bodily injuries which wholly disable the insured from “transacting any and every kind of business” pertaining to his occupation, the insured is not required, as matter of law, to show such mental or physical disability as renders him incapable of giving attention to any part of the business in which he is engaged.

Under a provision that such policy shall cover only those injuries “of which-there is a visible mark upon the body,” it is sufficient that there was visible evidence of an internal strain within a reasonable time after the injury.

Assumpsit, on an accident insurance policy. Facts found by the court. The policy insured the plaintiff “ against loss oí time . . . resulting from bodily injuries caused solely ... by exter*578nal, violent, and accidental means, which shall, independently of all other causes, immediately and wholly disable him from transacting any and every kind of business pertaining to the occupation under which he is insured,” and provided that it should not cover *“*any injury, fatal or otherwise, of which there is no visible mark upon the body.” The plaintiff’s shoulder was accidentally injured by a fall, causing pain and depriving him of the use of the arm. He was disabled thereby from attending to his business,— that of a shoe dealer,— although he went to his store two or three times a week. The only visible mark of the injury was a discoloration of the arm and shoulder. The court found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants excepted.

*Andrews Sp Andrews,*for the plaintiff.

*Burnham, Brown £ Warren,*for the defendants.

Pike, J.

As long as one is in full possession of his mental faculties, he is capable of transacting some parts of his business, whatever it may be, although he is incapable of physical action. If the words “ wholly disable him from transacting any and «very kind of business pertaining to the occupation under which lie is insured,” were to be construed literally, the defendants would be liable in no case unless, by the accident, the insured should lose his life or his reason. *Hooper*v. *Insurance Co.,*5 H. & N. 546. It is certain thát neither party intended such a result. It cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s disability was not sufficient to entitle him to compensation under the terms of the policy.

The “ visible mark upon the body” required by the policy need not be a bruise, contusion, laceration, or broken limb ; but may be any visible evidence of an internal strain which may appear within a reasonable time after the injury is received. *Pennington*v. *Insurance Co.,*85 Ia. 468; *Mutual Accident Ass’n*v. *Barry,*181 U. S. 100; *Freeman*v. *Association,*156 Mass. 351, 354.

*Exception overruled.*

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
# U n ited S ta te s C o u r t o f A ppe a ls F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F C O L U M B I A C I R C U I T

_______ _____ 

## N o . 1 3 -1 0 7 0 S e p te m b e r Te r m , 2 0 1 3 EPA-78F R2882 Fil ed O n: Aug ust1, 201 4 Stat e of Maryl and, etal. , Petit ioners
v. Envi ronm enta l Pro tec tion Ag ency,

Responde nt

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Utility Air Reg ulatory Group,

Int ervenor

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Consolidate d with 13- 1072 BEFORE: Brown, Mil lett , and Pill ard, Circ uit Judg es O R D E R Upon consider ation of

t he m otions t o g overn f utur e pr oceeding s a nd t he r espons es ther eto; and EPA’s mo tion for part ial vacatur and r em and, which no part y has oppose d, it is ORDERED t hat the mo tion for part ial vacatur and r em and be g rant ed, and thatEPA’s decision not to ma k e f inding s with r espec t to Clean Air Act Sect ion 110 (a) (2) (D) (i)( I) , 42 U. S.C. § 74 10(a )( 2)( D)( i)(I ), as se t fort h at78 Fed. Reg

. 2,88 2, 2,88 4-85 ( Jan. 15, 201 3), be vacated and rem anded to EPA for f urt her consider ation in lig ht of EPA v. EM E Hom er City Ge n., L. P., 134 S. Ct. 158 4,16 10 ( 2014)

. I t is FURT HER O RDERED t hat the rem ainder of t hese petit ions for review be dism issed in f ull w ithoutvacat ur or rem and of any ot her aspec t of

t he f inal ru le or

any ad ditional r elief

. T his dism issal is w ithoutpr eju dice t o an y claim for cost s o f litig ation and/ or att orne y fees that Petit ioners m ay pres ent purs uantt o 42 U. S.C. § 7607( f ), and any op position ther eto. Purs uantt o D. C. Circuit Rule 36, t his dispo sition w ill notbe published. T he Cler kis direct ed t o iss ue fort hw ith to res pondenta certif ied co py of t his or der in lieu of

form al m andat e. Per Curi am
FO R THE COURT:

M arkJ. Lan g er, Cler k BY: /s/ Amy Yac isin Deput y Clerk/LD 

### USCA Case #13-1070 Document #1505606 Filed: 08/01/2014 Page 1 of 1
# October 28: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published Oct. 28, 2017
October 28, 2017Release # 20171028-01FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**SOUTHWEST ASIA –** On Oct. 27, Coalition military forces conducted eight strikes consisting of 15 engagements against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq.In Syria, Coalition military forces conducted one strike consisting of one engagement against ISIS targets.• Near Dayr Az Zawr, one strike engaged one ISIS tactical unit.In Iraq, Coalition military forces conducted seven strikes consisting of 14 engagements against ISIS targets.• Near Al Qaim, five strikes engaged four ISIS tactical units and destroyed and ISIS command and control center, an ISIS safe house, two ISIS vehicles, one ISIS-held building, four rockets, and damaged two ISIS supply routes.• Near Rawah, one strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle maintenance facility, a VBIED, a tactical vehicle, a transport vehicle and a weapons cache.• Near Qayyarah, one strike engaged one ISIS tactical unit, resulting in terrain denial.Additionally, four strikes consisting of 18 engagements were conducted in Iraq and one strike consisting of one engagement was conducted in Syria on Oct. 17.• Near Al Qaim, Iraq, three strikes engaged three ISIS tactical units and destroyed an explosives storage facility, four ISIS-held buildings, one construction vehicle and four storage cylinders. Additionally, eight ISIS supply routes were damaged.• Near Rawah, Iraq, one strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit and destroyed an ISIS safe house.• Near Ash Shaddadi, Syria, one strike engaged one ISIS tactical unit and destroyed a VBIED.These strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  The destruction of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria also further limits the group’s ability to project terror and conduct external operations throughout the region and the rest of the world.This Coalition strike release contains all strikes conducted by fighter, attack, bomber, rotary-wing, or remotely piloted aircraft, rocket propelled artillery and ground-based tactical artillery.A strike, as defined in the Coalition release, refers to one or more kinetic engagements that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative effect in that location.  For example, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIS vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against a group of ISIS-held buildings and weapon systems in a compound, having the cumulative effect of making that facility harder or impossible to use. Strike assessments are based on initial reports and may be refined.CJTF-OIR does not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. The information used to compile the daily strike releases is based on 'Z' or Greenwich Mean Time.-30-
From: Karen [mailto:FoxFire45@windstream.net] 

Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:13 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

In regards to the government taking a more intimate interest in my retirement, I have just one 

suggestion. Stay out of any more involvement with my retirement.

 

Thank you,

Karen L. Coryell

516 Main Street

Delta, OH 43515
Editorial Note on Part 386
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 386 appear at 65 FR 7755, Feb. 16, 2000, and 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023.

§ 386.40 Supplementation of responses. A party who has responded to a request for discovery with a response that was complete when made is under no duty to supplement his/her response to include information thereafter acquired, except as follows: ( a ) A party is under a duty to supplement timely his/her response with respect to any question directly addressed to: ( 1 ) The identity and location of persons having knowledge of discoverable matters; and
( 2 ) The identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at the hearing, the subject matter on which he or she is expected to testify and the substance of his or her testimony.
( b ) A party is under a duty to amend timely a prior response if he or she later obtains information upon the basis of which: ( 1 ) he or she knows the response was incorrect when made; or
( 2 ) he or she knows that the response though correct when made is no longer true and the circumstances are such that a failure to amend the response is in substance a knowing concealment.
( c ) A duty to supplement responses may be imposed by order of the Agency Decisionmaker or the administrative law judge or agreement of the parties.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6388
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD HAGY, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at R oanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CR-95-10044, CA-97-776-R) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Hagy, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Albert Lloret, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days withinwhich to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on December 11, 1997; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on March 12, 1998, which is beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leavesthis court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### New York State National Bank of Albany, Appellant, *v.*Whitehall Water Power Company, Limited, Respondent.

Reported below, 140 App. Div. 739.

(Argued April 24, 1911;

decided May 2, 1911.)

Motion for leave to withdraw an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered November 17, 1910, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to' recover on contract.

The motion was made upon the grounds that no judgment had been entered upon the order of reversal and that the appeal had been inadvertently taken.

*Marcus T. Hun*for motion.

*Edgar T. Brackett*opposed.

Motion granted on payment of costs and ten dollars costs of motion within twenty days; on failure to make such payment the motion is denied, with ten dollars costs.