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

**No. 16**  **- 6281** 

JAMES CURTIS COBBERT, III , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. ROBERT M. STEVENSON, III, Warden, Broad River CI , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 8:14

- cv - 03331

- TMC )

Submitted : July 21, 2016 Decided: July 22, 2016

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. James Curtis Cobbert, III, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Curtis Cobbert, III seeks to app eal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the de nial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. 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 consti tutional 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 dispositi ve 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 Cobbert has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny C obbert’s motion for transcripts at government expense , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
LV Final Negotiations Summary of Shipments Data, Schneider prop osal and work group member reactions

Shipments Data

KvA Shipments (MVA) Percent of Total LVDT 15 263 1.6 % 30-500 15, 292 93.1 % 750-2500 213 1.3 %

Schneider proposal

DL7 (15* to 150kVA) Would support a EL4 rule if we could have implemented in 2017 *15 Kva scaled at 0.62 instead of 0.75)

DL8 (225 to 1000kVA) Would support a EL3.5 rule and support having implemented in 2015 Can not support the EL4 due to the unproven ability to use M3 as Miter.

kVA Efficiency Date Improvement

DL7 (EL 4): 15* 97.81% Jan-2017 27.4% 30 98.49% Jan-2017 40.4% 45 98.64% Jan-2017 41.4% 75 98.80% Jan-2017 40.5% 112.5 98.91% Jan-2017 40.1% 150 98.99% Jan-2017 40.9%

DL 8 (EL 3.5): 225 99.14% Jan-2015 43.1% 300 99.20% Jan-2015 43.2% 500 99.30% Jan-2015 46.1% 750 99.36% Jan-2015 47.2% 1000 99.41% Jan-2015 46.3%

*scaling on 15 kvA of 0.62

Responses of other industry participants

Dhiru Patel (Hammond Power)

“We can meet CSL 4 from 30 kVA to 500 kVA, usin g M4 material and cost increases are reasonable.

We can meet CSL4 for 15, and 600 to 1000 kVA us ing M3 material. We had tough time even after using M3 and material costs were doubled compared to base efficiency level. If we drop this to CSL3 for 15 kVA and 600-1000kVA, costs were again in line.In conclusion, for LVDT, we would be OK if ne gotiating team proposed CSL4 from 30kVA to 600 kVA and CSL3 for 15 kVA & from 601 kVA to 1000 kVA.”

Eduardo Robles (Eaton):

“I completed several designs on the representative specification for DL7, and sure enough after several tries I got to an EL4-compliant design usi ng M4, I should say that in order to exceed with limited manufacturing margin EL4 I had to use hybr id windings to make M4 work, you no longer will be able to use 100% Aluminum windings if you want to stretch the M4 performance and of course it had to be a mitered constructi on. Moving down on the rating scale I believe you can do the same but on the opposite direction the 150 kVA rating may present problems.

As you know the representative unit it is probably the least complex of the potential universe of designs, once manufacturers start trying to make low rise, k-rated transformers or transformers with primaries ranging from 208 to 380, M4 will run out of gas and we will have to consider M3, H0 or H1 for those specs.

I do have concerns regarding destruction factors as we move to thinner gage steel grades, I believe this parameter was underestimat ed on the OPS simulations.”
OPP 

Introduction 

Benefit 

Benefit 
2 
Benefit 

Benefit 

Summarv 

3
Incorporation by Reference

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028

December 16, 2011

The contents of the following dockets are hereby incorporated by reference into and are 

considered to be included in, contained in and to have been placed in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0028 (Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for 8 Subparts):

1) EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0924 (Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required Under the 

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule)

Accessing dockets: 

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 

The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 

number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
# Europeiska unionens C 57A/17 f

| | ISSN 1977-1061 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 57A |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 58 årgången17 februari 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1061

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 57A

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

58 årgången17 februari 2015

---

| Informationsnummer | Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Rättelser |
| 2015/C 057A/01 | Rättelse av meddelande om allmänt uttagningsprov EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 – Kontorspersonal (SC 1 och SC 2) inom följande områden: 1. Administrativt stöd 2. Finansiellt stöd 3. Sekretariatstjänster ( EUT C 3 A, 8.1.2015 ) | 1 |

Informationsnummer

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

Rättelser

2015/C 057A/01

Rättelse av meddelande om allmänt uttagningsprov EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 – Kontorspersonal (SC 1 och SC 2) inom följande områden: 1. Administrativt stöd 2. Finansiellt stöd 3. Sekretariatstjänster ( EUT C 3 A, 8.1.2015 )

( EUT C 3 A, 8.1.2015 )

1

---

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

Rättelser

| 17.2.2015 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | CA 57/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2015

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

CA 57/1

---

Rättelse av meddelande om allmänt uttagningsprov EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 – Kontorspersonal (SC 1 och SC 2) inom följande områden: 1. Administrativt stöd 2. Finansiellt stöd 3. Sekretariatstjänster

(
  Europeiska unionens officiella tidning C 3 A av den 8 januari 2015
  )

(2015/C 057 A/01)

På sidan 2, rubrik I punkt 3, ska det

| i stället för: | ”Sista ansökningsdag (inklusive validering): Den 10 februari 2015 kl. 12 (lokal tid Bryssel).” |
| --- | --- |

i stället för:

”Sista ansökningsdag (inklusive validering): Den 10 februari 2015 kl. 12 (lokal tid Bryssel).”

| vara: | ”Sista ansökningsdag (inklusive validering): Den 17 februari 2015 kl. 12 (lokal tid Bryssel).” |
| --- | --- |

vara:

”Sista ansökningsdag (inklusive validering): Den 17 februari 2015 kl. 12 (lokal tid Bryssel).”

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001037120
<NAME> LOOMIS, FARGO & CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,694
<INVENTORY>                                        972
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,927
<PP&E>                                          91,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,558
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 196,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,073
<BONDS>                                        140,804
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,619)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   196,494
<SALES>                                         94,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                94,050
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,450
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    936
<INCOME-TAX>                                       468
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                468
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       468
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-02-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-02-2000
<CASH>                                           1,700,420
<SECURITIES>                                     1,369,520
<RECEIVABLES>                                      547,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                       192,384
<INVENTORY>                                        285,942
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,425,431
<PP&E>                                           1,533,501
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (827,677)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,492,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,182,476
<BONDS>                                             14,740
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         2,101,242
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,941,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,492,954
<SALES>                                          4,333,942
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,333,942
<CGS>                                            2,484,883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,484,883
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,830,258
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10,047
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,612
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    961,854
<INCOME-TAX>                                       341,672
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                615,563
<DISCONTINUED>                                      58,740
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       674,303
<EPS-BASIC>                                           1.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.88



</TABLE>
From: mgcgt@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:59:04 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,

pat farrell

Brant Lake, NY 12815
No. P66/179. —

#### Castelazo & Associates and E. Mariscal *v.*United States, protest 58/21116 (Los Angeles).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of harvest hats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bailey-Mora Co., Inc., a/c Vera Lou, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 55, C.D. 2508), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 66452.

#### American Thermo-Ware Company *v.*United States,

protest 61/1371 (New York).

*335Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of map measure^ similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kaufman & Vinson Co.*v. *United States*(44 Cust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2180), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60469.

#### Meadows Wye & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 268708-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
From: patti-phillips@cox.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:31:36 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,

Patti Phillips

Cantonment, FL 32533
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #17852 and #17853; California Disaster Number CA-00380]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 8.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of California (FEMA-4699-DR), dated 04/03/2023.

*Incident:*                         Severe Winter Storms, Straight-line Winds, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.                    

*Incident Period:*                         02/21/2023 through 07/10/2023.                    

# DATES:

Issued on 09/01/2023.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         Filing Period for San Mateo County ends 10/31/2023.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         Filing Period for San Mateo County ends 06/03/2024.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of California, dated 04/03/2023, is hereby amended to include San Mateo County. Please contact the SBA disaster assistance customer service center by email at                     *disastercustomerservice@sba.gov*                     or by phone at 1-800-659-2955 to request an application. Applications for physical damages may be filed until 10/31/2023 and applications for economic injury may be file until 06/03/2024.                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Francisco Sánchez, Jr.,

Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience.

[FR Doc. 2023-20500 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
From: bm432-gav@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:41:27 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,

Steven Pasillas

Chico, CA 95973