alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gloria COUNTER, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, et al., Appellees.

No. 00-3430.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 5, 2001.

Filed July 9, 2001.

*484Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Gloria Counter, who has worked as a revenue office cashier in Magnolia, Arkansas, since 1991, filed this action against the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration and two supervisory employees, claiming defendants singled her out for harsher discipline and punishment than her coworkers on the basis of her race, and in retaliation for her pursuit of her rights. The district court1 granted defendants summary judgment as to Counter’s retaliation claim, finding no evidence of a causal connection between any alleged adverse employment action and Counter’s protected activity. Following a jury trial on the race discrimination claim, the district court granted defendants judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Counter appeals, and we affirm.

Having carefully reviewed the record and Counter’s arguments on appeal, we conclude (1) the grant of summary judgment on Counter’s retaliation claim was proper because there was no evidence that the supervisors who perpetrated the alleged adverse employment actions were aware of Counter’s EEOC claims, *see Barge v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,*87 F.3d 256, 259-60 (8th Cir.1996); (2) Counter failed to preserve her claim of instructional error, and there was no plain error, see *Kehoe v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.,*96 F.3d 1095, 1104 (8th Cir.1996); (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict on the issue of race discrimination, *see Smith,*151 F.3d at 818 (standard of review); and (4) Counter was not entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief absent undisputed evidence, or a jury finding, that race was a motivating factor in defendants’ actions. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g); *Browning v. President Riverboat Casino-Missouri,*139 F.3d 631, 634 (8th Cir.1998).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The HONORABLE HARRY F. BARNES, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Fact Sheet

Tri-Cities Landfill, Draft Air Operating Permit Renewal 

August 20, 2013

Background

Tri-Cities Landfill (TCL) was required to obtain an air operating permit under the Clean Air Act 

for certain air pollutants emitted by the landfill. TCL initially applied for an operating permit in 

2005, and was issued a specific type of air operating permit, known as a Title V Operating 

Permit, by the EPA on May 25, 2006. Under the Title V program, TCL must periodically apply 

for renewal of this operating permit. We have reviewed TCL’s renewal application, and have 

prepared a draft version of the Title V permit renewal. As described in the public notice, we are 

now requesting public comments on the draft version of the permit renewal. This fact sheet 

contains a summary of certain details contained in the draft permit and Statement of Basis (SOB) 

for the facility. 

Facility Description

• TCL accepted residential and commercial wastes from 1972 to 1993.

• TCL ceased accepting waste in 1993, and is now a closed landfill.

• TCL operates an active landfill gas collection system, which is the most stringent capture

technology required by federal regulations. 

• The majority of the landfill gas captured by TCL is delivered offsite to a separate facility, 

and is typically combusted to generate electricity.

• The captured landfill gas has an NMOC destruction efficiency of at least 98% or to less 

than 20 parts per million (ppm).

• Because TCL does not accept new waste, the amount of landfill gas it generates has been 

declining since 1993, and is projected to continue to decline into the future.

Air Operating Permit Description

• This renewed Title V air operating permit applies only to the air emissions from the 

landfill.

• This draft permit renewal does not contain any significant changes to existing permit 

conditions.

• As described in the Title V air operating permit and Statement of Basis, TCL is subject to 

multiple federal regulations that are applicable to municipal solid waste landfills. Based 

on the most recent annual compliance certification, TCL is in compliance with these 

federal regulations.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

M ay 14, 2015

N o. 04

- 13

- 00858

- CR

Wesley Allen DOTSON

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 01

- 00015

- CRK Honorable Bert Richardson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On April 15, 2015, the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated this court’s judgment and

remanded for re

- consideration of the issue on appeal in light of the Court’s recent opinion in

Meadows v. State , 455 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). The Court’s mandate has since

issued.

If the a ppellant wishes to file a brief addressing the issue on appeal in light of Meadows

, he must do so no later than June 15, 2015 . If appellant does not wish to file a new brief on remand and wishes to rely on his original brief filed in this cause, appellant must notify this court in writing no later than June 15, 2015

.

The State shall have t hirty days following the filing of appellant’s brief or notification of reliance on appellant’s original brief in which to file its brief or written notice with this court that it does not wish to file a new brief on remand and wishes to rely on its origin al brief filed in this

cause . The case will then be submitted for consideration by this court._________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

c ourt on this 14th day of May, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
From: rboomstra@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:22:26 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,

Ronald Boomstra

Jackson, MI 49203
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS, AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE
NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,431
<SECURITIES>                                    73,071
<RECEIVABLES>                                      780
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,144
<PP&E>                                          24,732
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,961)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,915
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,289
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   106,915
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,923
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,729
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,953
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,953
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,953
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
<FN>
<F1>FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
From: bafarasteve2@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:42:23 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,

BARBARA STEPHENS

Seminole, FL 33772
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET, STATEMENT OF EARNINGS STATEMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY, STATEMENT OF
CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR
THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 1, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1999
<CASH>                                          68,976
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,959,801
<ALLOWANCES>                                   385,109
<INVENTORY>                                 20,946,211
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,088,100
<PP&E>                                     136,554,167
<DEPRECIATION>                              43,128,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             150,379,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,108,039
<BONDS>                                    176,133,334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,716
<OTHER-SE>                                (75,422,772)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               150,379,980
<SALES>                                    122,933,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           122,935,727
<CGS>                                       98,912,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              108,707,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,606,697
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          11,636,989
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,015,499)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (3,119,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,896,499)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,896,499)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 31, 2014

NO. 03-14-00101-CV

The Texas Department of Public Safety, Appellant

v.

J. W. D., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

REVERSED AND RENDERED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the order entered by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and the 

parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial court’s order. 

Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s order granting expunction and renders judgment 

denying the petition to expunge records related to J.W.D.’s June 28, 2011 arrest. The appellee 

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Swanson, Brian (OST) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Hi Dennis and Brian, 

Joleen Jones <joleen@us.ibm.com> 

Monday, August 06, 2012 12:09 PM 

Devany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Rhinelander, WI air carrier 

ZO!l ·~ b '3: r:: ,. - .,J 

My name is Joleen Jones. I am a consultant for IBM and I fly to client sites every week. My home is in Madison, WI and 

my cabin is in Rhinelander, WI. When Northwest and then Delta operated out of the Rhinelander airport, I flew into or out 

of the Rhinelander airport a couple times a month. Since Frontier has been providing service, I have been flying into/out of 

Wausau, WI or driving back to Madison. I support SkyWest as the air carrier for Rhinelander, WI. They will fly under Delta 

Connection and have 2 flights a day. I am Platinum, soon to be Diamond, Medallion member with Delta so it is important 

to me to have an airline that is affiliated with Delta. 

Thank you, 

Joleen Jones 

Joleen Jones 

IBM Certified Consultant 

IBM Global Business Services 

Email: joleen@ us.ibm .com 

Mobile: 608-217-1880 

1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

STEVEN BRIAN LONG, )

)

Petitioner, ) CASE NO. C06-180-TSZ-JPD

) (CR90-81-TSZ)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) MINUTE ORDER

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable James P.

Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:

On June 1, 2006, the government filed an answer to petitioner’s petition for writ of error

coram nobis. However, the government failed to note the answer on the Court’s calendar as

directed in the service order issued on May 1, 2006. Accordingly, the Court hereby NOTES the

government’s answer on the calendar for consideration on June 23, 2006. Petitioner may file

and serve a response to the government’s answer not later than June 19, 2006.

The Clerk shall send copies of this Minute Order to the United States Attorney’s Office

and to petitioner.

DATED this 2nd day of June, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By: /s/ Peter Voelker 

 Deputy Clerk

Case 2:06-cv-00180-TSZ Document 8 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 1 ORDER OF REMAND- [C06-5018-RBL]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

MARY J. RETHKE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

Civil No. C06-5018-RBL

ORDER OF REMAND

 Based on the stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-captioned

case be reversed and remanded for de novo administrative proceedings, including the following:

the administrative law judge (ALJ) will further develop the record regarding Plaintiff's mental

impairments with the assistance of a medical expert to determine the severity of Plaintiff's mental

impairments; obtain medical expert testimony regarding the materiality of Plaintiff's substance use;

further address the lay witness statements and providing adequate rationale regarding the weight

given to that testimony; obtain supplemental vocational expert evidence; and based on the

Case 3:06-cv-05018-RBL Document 19 Filed 07/19/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Page 2 ORDER OF REMAND- [C06-5018-RBL]

expanded record and all of Plaintiff's limitations determine whether there are a significant number

of jobs available that Plaintiff can perform.

This remand is pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Upon proper

presentation, this Court will consider Plaintiff's application for costs and attorney's fees under 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d) and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b).

 DATED this 19th day of July, 2006.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Recommended for Entry:

__s/ Karen L. Strombom_______________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Thomas M. Elsberry 

THOMAS M. ELSBERRY WSB # 26456

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

701 Fifth Ave, Ste 2900, M/S 901

Phone: 206-615-2112

Fax: 206-615-2531

thomas.elsberry@ssa.gov

Case 3:06-cv-05018-RBL Document 19 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 677 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                    September 26, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 52) making continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes. All points of 
order against the joint resolution and against its consideration are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The joint resolution 
shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as 
ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one 
motion to recommit.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of House Joint Resolution 52 pursuant to this 
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair 
may postpone further con- 

              
sideration of the joint resolution to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
    Sec. 3.  House Resolution 659 is laid upon the table.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
From: jdpoore@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 10:17:05 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,

dorothy poore

Montrose, WV 26283