alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CPennsylvaniaDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtectionRachelCarsonStateOfficeBuildingP.O.Box2063Harrisburg,PA17105-2063July23,2010Secretary717-787-2814Mr.ShawnM.GarvinRECEIVEDRegionalAdministratorU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,RegionIIIJUL2620101650ArchStreet(MailCode:3RAOO)Philadelphia,PA19103-2029EPA,REGIONIllOFFICEOFREGIONALADMINISTRATORDearMr.Garvin:InaccordancewithSection110(a)oftheCleanAirAct,enclosedforyourapprovalisarevisiontoPennsylvania’sStateImplementationPlan(SIP)pertainingtoamendmentstotheAlleghenyCountyHealthDepartment(ACHD)RulesandRegulations,ArticleXXI,AirPollutionControl,relatingtoregulationsincorporatingControlTechniquesGuidelines(CTG)issuedbyEPAforcontrolofvolatileorganiccompounds(VOC)fromlargeapplianceandmetalfurniture;flatwoodpaneling;andpaper,filmandfoilsurfacecoatingprocessesinAlleghenyCounty.TheregulationsarecontainedintheACHDRulesandRegulations,ArticleXXI,AirPollutionControlSections2105.77,2105.78,and2105.79,respectively,andCountyOrdinance16782.TheSIPrevisionalsoincludesrevisionstoexistingregulationsforsurfacecoatingprocessesinSection2105.10andrelateddefinitionsinSection2101.20.Therevisionisidentifiedasrevision65forACHD’sinternaltracking.TheACHDisalocalhealthagencyorganizedunderLocalHealthAdministrationLaw,Act315ofAugust24,1951,P.L.1304,asamended,whosepowersanddutiesincludetheenforcementoflawsrelatingtopublichealthwithinAlleghenyCounty.TheACHDhasanairpollutioncontrolprogramthathasbeenapprovedbyDEPinaccordancewithSection12oftheAirPollutionControlAct.TheSIPsubmittalincludestwohardcopiesandonecompactdiskconsistingofthefinalrulemakingsanddocumentationofthepublicparticipationprocess.Therewerenopubliccomments,soaCommentandResponseDocumentisnotincluded.RECEIVEDJUL272010DivisionDirector(SAPOO)AnEqualOpportunityEmployerwww.dep.state.pa.usPrintedonRecycledPaperShawnM.GainC2CJuly23,2010Thankyouforyourattentiontothismatter.ShouldyouhaveanyquestionsconcerningthisSIPrevision,pleasecontactJoyceE.Epps,DirectorofAirQuality,bye-mailatjeepps@state.pa.usorbytelephoneat717-787-9702.YoumayalsocontactMr.JamesE.Thompson,Manager,AirQualityProgram,ACHDbye-mailatjthompsonachd.netorbytelephoneat412-578-7963.Sincerely,1hnHangerSecretaryEnclosure
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                             List of Subsidiaries*
                             --------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name                                                          Jurisdiction
----                                                          ------------
<S>                                                          <C>
3Com Europe Ltd.                                              England
3Com APR Pte Ltd.                                             Singapore
Huawei-3Com Co., Ltd. ("H-3C")**                              Hong Kong
Hangzhou Huawei-3Com Technology Co., Ltd.***                  China
</TABLE>

*Omits subsidiaries that, considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, do
not constitute a significant subsidiary as of the end of the 2006 fiscal year
(using the definition of "significant subsidiary" in Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation
S-X).

**51%-owned by 3Com Corporation through its wholly-owned subsidiary 3Com
Technologies.

***100%-owned by H-3C.
French-Led Combined Task Force 150 seized more illegal narcotics in the Arabian Sea
 
  By U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs
  On September 7, UK warship HMS Lancaster (F229), operating in support of the French-led Combined Task Force (CTF) 150 seized more than 450kg of illegal drugs including heroin and hashish in the Arabian Sea. With a street value of approximately $9.5 million this is the first narcotics seizure since the French Navy took over command of CTF 150 from the UK in July. The Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) remain committed to disrupting criminal and terrorist activities by restricting their freedom of maneuver in the maritime environment. Capt Yannick Bossu, CTF 150 Commanding officer said, “This seizure demonstrates once again the operational effectiveness of CTF 150 and illustrates the UK and France’s commitment to maritime security alongside their regional and international partners.” Cmdr Chris Sharp, HMS Lancaster Commanding Officer remarked, “This success again demonstrates how international partners can work together in stopping illegal maritime activity which funds terrorist activity. This was a great success shared by all those involved.” CTF 150 is one of the five operational forces of CMF, a 38-nation maritime partnership headquartered in Bahrain. CMF strengthens the maritime security in this strategic area, by countering activities that finance terrorism and international crime. This is the twelfth time that France commanded CTF 150.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00035-CV

BRIDGET BROWN PARSON, Appellant

V.

LAKEWIND, LLC, RANDALL BAGGS, OWNER, ET AL., 

AND CHINN EXPLORATION, Appellees

On Appeal from the 123rd District Court

Panola County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-396

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Previously, on October 4, 2011, the trial court had dismissed Bridget Brown Parson’s 

lawsuit due to her failure to prosecute the case. Over two and one-half years later, the trial court 

entered a May 21, 2015, order setting the case for trial and, subsequently, a June 4, 2015, order 

striking that trial setting.

Parson seeks to appeal from the June 4 order granting Lakewind, LLC’s “Motion to Strike 

Order Setting Trial.” By letter of August 13, 2015, we notified Parson that it appeared we lacked 

jurisdiction over this appeal because the order appealed from was void, as it was signed well after 

the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction had expired. We afforded Parson ten days to demonstrate 

proper grounds for our retention of the appeal. Having received no response as of September 8, 

2015, we sua sponte consider our jurisdiction over the appeal.

“A trial court retains plenary power over its judgment until that judgment becomes final.” 

In re Sheppard, 193 S.W.3d 181, 186 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) 

(citing Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993)). “It is well-settled that an 

order signed after the trial court’s plenary power has expired is void.” Id. The order of October 4, 

2011, dismissing Parson’s lawsuit was a final, appealable order from which Parson could have 

perfected an appeal, though the time for filing a direct appeal from that dismissal expired long ago. 

When that dismissal became final thirty days after it was signed, the trial court’s plenary power 

expired. Consequently, any orders entered by the trial court after that time, including the May 21, 

2015, order setting the case for trial and the June 4, 2015, order striking the trial setting, were void.
3

Our jurisdiction, as an appellate court, is constitutional and statutory in nature. See TEX.

CONST. art. V, § 6; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (West Supp. 2014). Unless we are granted 

specific authority over an appeal from a particular type of order, we have jurisdiction only over 

appeals from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). It is 

clear under Texas law that an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order 

signed after the trial court’s plenary power has expired, such as the order from which Parson 

attempts to appeal in this case. See State ex rel. Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 15, 2015

Date Decided: September 16, 2015
AtATat4\o PkTTE.a'Scm V. THE STfcTE dF TEXT'S
PRO ^E Mdt\6M FoR kxT&US\fcM oF TiKt To PtL& PETlT.ioia. Ftott. fc\-SCtl6TiortPvSm &EVt£viUN 102015

-r. _. , ^53®'Anosta.Clerk TO THE ttoKioSAWUS. CoutCT or ca\tMi4kL kPPEM-S ». Ca<>r\e.s nou)
. Ahe. Qppel\a^\ / pe-Vt-tio'nec lr\ -vW aVjoue S^v^Wd ar\di r\umVi«Lfedl cause. ar^A rcs^ec\$WvW tnoues tK\t> .konoccfeU .cou*V \ii exlertd 4-\\e Vi^e ftc ftVirxa Wve 

### appeViar\Vs pe-V\-t\o<v Voc olListreA-ioracv^ fevneuj \r\ -vh\* cause arv^ t* Suppoc-V +Y\«eo-P' uaauVd Shoui Vo -VW. CcucV *\\eft\\ou3\W. 1. The 5Ax^W a.-\cV (maiaWc o£ -VK\^ cast. \<\ 4A\e CourA uP ftppea\s is* Ai\W>o Pa-VWcson \f. The ^>\aAe oP TeKQS> Qppeal (\t>. OS-t^~GoM5o-C0. 

### J. The tyVv^le ar\*A (Number o£ -V\\e case \r\ \W. M\a\ CourV \s\ The SVaW op Texas V. Aa-Voaio Pa-Hecson» cause oo, F\0-5ct^04"^: &o*v% *h<f Hvh tovsVfd Cojl*\ o£ Octttas 

### 3. The appeWaM was Ces(\u\ck<} oP \V\e -Pctibrxu, o-P-PervSc o$ Qa^a/a^aAe-dl CfiHhefM| U3\\V\ (k deadly weapon 

### M. Pa/x\<iV\m€i\\ uJas assessed aA \\& \«\pr\sonmeat. ^>« The Cjqcnusc^da uias <vP$u<v\ea \r\ \\\t RPvK 

### (WV o9 Precis On ffW VI, A0\6S ri,rnm * FILEDIN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS JUN 102S;5 AbelAcosta, Clerk CMlSt KXfc.
ISOhV 4 1v\ tue. court of 4 CftlH\ KlAL NP?EN_S

=X<*6 4: 

### OF TExKs •RECEIVEDIN nOtl,RTOFCR«ALAPPa(o. The <dieadUf\e Aor ViUru^ -VY\e appeWacvVs peAcAta*. 

### *1. An extension a£ \\one period £>P t\\<\eV\^ CAoT^ ektus \S rea^uesAed 4\>aV ioouAd <v\a.k* A-W<^ue daAe Auau^t11»aoIS
. £. Mo pr^Df reoue^l for on ex\er\sto<v oP V\«xe has Wen made. 

### S. The WAs fe\\ed upon \o sWu> c^gqcJI Cause tarA-W ex4©\slon are as ^oUfeas '. The QppeA\a<U I•• pe.+\W<ve* usqs 

### tepces«n4«d V*^ coucV appoinWd CcurxseA dutxna appeaA o£ +kis Case, The CculA Wis ce&sed Vo appoint counse\ ^ 

### rvk a |ti-iV(fl(\ftr dliscx^onGtvj^ ceuveto.. Thtfe-fecev addltAtonal -Kme Vs needed ftr +ke Gppe\W\ Ao e.tAW prepare orA 

### P»\t \Ye. peAvVfon Pre,-S«
. 6( Seek \ec^a\ QSS\sW\ce in AW \wV\ete&ce »9(eW\Ses <£o<xsM&recl » A-Y\e appettarxA I<*fcA\A\DA£r 

### respecAftiW^ ceases4 AhaA 4A\\s VWjtaVAt(W\ exAe'xd V;*ve ftr Q\xac^ Ata peAiAion tor dt\$cCeA\o<\af^ -fevveuj \n AKk cause ta Auqus4 Hi ao\s. 

### iWecAtUk SiWWlj AtvW'vo PetAAeTSOrN* ft0-5e TDavlb. IB50693 Te\&td UcsiA KW^dsW) sTeXQS 1557&
Exhibit 32

Section 1350 Certifications



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Virginia Financial Group, Inc., respectively, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Virginia Financial Group, Inc. at the dates and
for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), and shall not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to
update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|                        |  |  | 
|----------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: November 12, 2003 |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|Date: November 12, 2003 |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 
|                        |  |  | 



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowleding, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Virginia Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by Virginia Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



27
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 5EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 5

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 5
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 5EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 5

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 5
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 5

EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 5
#### Francis J. Moissen, Appellant, v. Adolphe Kloster and others, Respondents.

— Judgmeut affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                            4657
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            1963
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      23421
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           64704
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         127952
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (20157)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  226033
<DEPOSITS>                                      187320
<SHORT-TERM>                                      4359
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1954
<LONG-TERM>                                       7000
<COMMON>                                          1617
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       23783
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  226033
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  10860
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 5627
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   150
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 16637
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                7450
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 821
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             8366
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      372
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   4556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4406
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        4406
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3486
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.39
<LOANS-NON>                                        557
<LOANS-PAST>                                        68
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1853
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1801
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      186
<RECOVERIES>                                        27
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2015
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2015
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            565
        

</TABLE>
From: christswrestler@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:40:36 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Austin Anderson

Colorado Springs, CO 80921
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the report of CommScope, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), eachof the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

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

 
| By:    | /s/ FRANK M. DRENDEL                                 |   |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   | Frank M. Drendel                                     |   |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
| Date:  | November 7,  2005                                    |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
| By:    | /s/ JEARLD L. LEONHARDT                              |   |   |
|   | Jearld L. Leonhardt                                  |   |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |                                                 |   |
| Date:  | November 7,  2005                                    |   |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

Order 

December 22, 2016

150298

________________________________________

In re Contempt of KELLY MICHELLE DORSEY.

_________________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 150298

COA: 309269

Livingston CC Family Division:

08-012596-DL

TYLER MICHAEL DORSEY,

Respondent,

and

KELLY MICHELLE DORSEY,

Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 9, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), 

in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we AFFIRM the result reached by the Court of 

Appeals. We agree that MCL 712A.2 gave the Livingston Circuit Court Family Division 

(“family court”) subject matter jurisdiction over the juvenile proceeding in which it 

entered the drug test order underlying the contempt orders. The appellant has mounted a 

collateral attack on that order, asserting that the family court lost subject matter 

jurisdiction because it violated MCL 712A.6. That argument amounts only to a claim 

that the court improperly exercised its subject matter jurisdiction to hear the juvenile 

delinquency case. The appellant’s collateral attack is accordingly barred. See Jackson 

City Bank & Trust Co v Fredrick, 271 Mich 538, 544-545 (1935). We decline to address 

whether this Court should adopt any other exceptions to the general rule barring such 

collateral attacks because, under the circumstances presented in this case, the appellant 

had a meaningful opportunity to appeal the drug test order, and there is no indication that 

her rights could not have been vindicated had she pursued an appeal through the normal 

procedures. We therefore VACATE that part of the Court of Appeals judgment

addressing whether the family court order for random drug screens constituted an illegal 

search and seizure, because it was unnecessary to decide the case.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 December 22, 2016

d1214

2

Clerk

However, the appellee conceded in its first supplemental brief that the appellant 

may be entitled to some form of relief. See Rose v Aaron, 345 Mich 613, 615 (1956)

(“We do not think, in view of the circumstances of this case and the provisions of the 

lower court’s order, that that court is called upon to protect its dignity by resentencing 

defendant for violation of a temporary restraining order improperly entered.”), citing 

Holland v Weed, 87 Mich 584, 590 (1891). Given that the appellee conceded the 

underlying order was improperly entered, and that enforcement of the contempt orders 

has been stayed pending appeal, the Livingston Circuit Court Family Division shall not 

be required to enforce the contempt orders on remand.
No. 137.

#### General Motors Corp. *v.*United States et al.

*Aloysius F. Power, Walter R. Frizzell*and *E. J. McGratty, Jr.*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox, Robert W. Ginnane*and *Arthur J. Cerra*for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission.

*J. Edgar McDonald*for respondent railroads.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: Nick Nicholas

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Access to Preventive Care and Contraception

Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:26:42 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new

health care law, and to reject any exemptions for "religious employers." These preventive services are a

critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that "religious refusal" exemptions unjustly deny women access to contraceptive

services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the

government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply

to religiously-run health providers, so Catholic hospitals would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny

access to thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM's recommendations

and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

Best regards,

Deborah Nicholas

908 Harold Drive, #42 Incline Village, NV 89451

Nicholas89451@gmail.com