alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J, ,IED 314,,, i9 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

o 

### ~~~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

yr qC PROS'- G< 

### AUG 2 7 2013

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Mr. J. R. Stroble Director, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221

Dear Mr. Stroble:

This is in response to your August 26, 2013, request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence with the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) draft expansion memo to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) characterizing transuranic (TRU) waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS). Your request is in accordance with the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) procedures that are intended to ensure that DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) site certifications correlate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization activities at DOE TRU waste generator sites. We concur that DOE's latest draft expansion memo comports with all of EPA's existing approvals for CH TRU waste (debris, soils, and solids) and RH TRU debris waste at SRS including the addition of RH waste stream SR-RH-221H.01 (EPA approval August 20, 2013 See A-98-49; II-A4-177 in the EPA Air pocket).

EPA issued a baseline approval of the SRS-CCP's CH TRU waste characterization program on July 10, 2006 (See A-98-49; II-A4-64 in the EPA Air pocket) and the RH TRU (non BCL) waste characterization program on April 18, 2012 (See A-98-49; II-A4-161 in the EPA Air pocket). EPA has also received and reviewed quarterly tiering reports covering Tier 2 changes to the waste characterization program implemented by CCP at SRS and have found all changes made to be 

### acceptable.

Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft expansion memo for SRS-CCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 202-343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at 202-343- 9462.



### Sincerely, 

# a 52 

# l

Edward Feltcorn Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100 0 /6 Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Papercc:

Joe Franco, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Marcus Pinzel, CBFO Site Documents
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELON MICHEAL WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2284 GEB DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ September 16, 2005 request for enlargement of time to file

responsive pleading is granted; and

2. Respondents’ response to Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus shall be filed on or before October 19, 2005.

DATED: September 20, 2005.

/will2284.111ap2

Case 2:04-cv-02284-GEB-DAD Document 22 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

November 14, 1960

No. 64875.

#### Sunwear, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/8788 (Boston).

Ford, Judge:

The merchandise in the case at bar, invoiced as “Chipwood Hats, Item No. 5250,” was classified under paragraph 1504(b) (3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dee. 150, T.D. 54108, .and assessed with duty at the rate of $2.28 per dozen and 11% per centum ad valorem under the provision for “Hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed wholly or in chief value of straw, chip, * * * Blocked or trimmed, whether or not bleached; dye.0? epjpred, or stained * * *.”

*369Plaintiff, by its protest, claims that said bats are not trimmed and, accordingly, are properly dutiable at 15 cents per dozen and 12% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1504(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Protocol of terms of accession by Japan to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 90 Treas. Dec. 234, T.D. '53865, and T.D. 53877, as “Hats, bonnets, and hoods, composed wholly or in chief value of chip, * * * Other, if bleached, dyed, colored, or stained.”

When this case was called for hearing, counsel for the respective parties stipulated in effect that the merchandise described as item No. 5250, covering 20 dozen shipwood hats, consisted of hats in chief value of chip, bleached and colored, but not blocked, trimmed, or sewed.

Accepting these facts, we find that said item No. 5250 consists of hats in chief value of chip, which are not trimmed, and, accordingly, are properly dutiable at the rate of 15 cents per dozen and 12% per centum ad valorem under paragraph 1504(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, *supra\*as claimed by plaintiff herein.

To the extent indicated, the specified claim in this suit is sustained; in all other respects and as to all other merchandise, all the claims are overruled. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 48531.

#### Protests 981733-G, etc., of John Zimmermann Co. (New York).

*213Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of Tiemp hats similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218). The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was therefore sustained.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6948

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. EDWARD DANE JEFFUS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

No. 18
- 7000

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. EDWARD DANE JEFFUS , Defendant

- Appellant.
Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 6:92

- cr - 00184

- NCT

- 2; 1:16

- cv - 00085

- NCT

- JEP; 1:16

- cv - 01276

- NCT

- JEP )

Submitted : December 18, 2018 Decided: December 26, 2018

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.2 Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Edward Dane Jeffus, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Edward Dane Jeffus seeks to appeal the district court’s order s accepting the recommendation s of the magistrate judge and dismissing his “Motion for Indicative Ruling” and “Motion for Modification and/or Clarification of Sentence” as unauthorized and successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion s. The order s

are not appealable unless a circuit justice o r judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district cour t 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 motion states a debatable claim of the d enial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record s and conclude that Jeffus has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificate s of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma paupe ris, and dismiss the appeal s . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
FILED IN

1ST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON. TEXAS

JUN26 2015

In The CHRISTOPHER fMFmpCourt of Appeals

For The

CLERK Y_M\

First District of Texas

NO. 01-015-00063-CV

Patrick Cox, Appellant(s)

Cara Cox, Appellee(s)

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-21966

Appellant's First Motion to Request Extension of Time to File

Appellant's Brief

Appellant acting pro se comes before this Court and submits this

Appellant's First Motion to Request Extension of Time to File Appellant's

Brief.

Appellant has contacted opposing counsel on this matter and submits
submits this motion as an unopposed motion.

Appellant requests an extension of 30 days to file his initial brief with

the Court. Due to other legal matters in other courts requiring Appellant's

involvement with his attorneys in those matters, Appellant needs additional

time to properly develop the arguments in this matter for this Court.

Appellants prays that this Court will order the relief sought by

Appellant in this motion.

Respectfully Submitted by:

Patrick Cox

Pro Se Appellant

Mailing address: 247 Hedwia Rd

Telephone number: 832-495-9416

Fax number: 855-280-1504

e-mail address: divorce_cara@yahoo.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy of the above was served on each attorney of record or party in

accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on June 26, 2015.

email to:

Alan Daughtry by email: alan@alandauahtrvlaw.com

Attorney for Appellee

Patrick Cox
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent, No. CR S-93-0043 GEB JFM P

vs.

CURTIS ANTHONY SLATON,

Movant. ORDER

 /

Movant, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed

a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

General Order No. 262.

On March 25, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-01846-GEB -JFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/05 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

2

Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings

and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 25,

2005, are adopted in full; 

2. Movant’s September 2, 2004 motion to vacate, set

aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is

denied; and 

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the

companion civil case, No. CIV S-04-1846.

Dated: April 27, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01846-GEB -JFM Document 1 Filed 04/28/05 Page 2 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD MANUEL BURGOS,

Petitioner,

v.

M. YARBOROUGH, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CIV S-04-0021 FCD DAD P

ORDER

Respondents have requested a thirty-day enlargement of time to file a response to the

second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to this Court’s order of March 22, 2005.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents’ request for an enlargement of time is granted;

2. Respondents are granted thirty days from the service of this order in which to file a

response to petitioner’s second amended petition.

DATED: May 31, 2005.

DAD:4

burg0021.eot2

Case 2:04-cv-00021-FCD-DAD Document 36 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 55973.

petition 6809-R (New York).

#### Majestic Shipping & Forwarding Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The import manager of the petitioner testified that prior to the preparation of the entry, he submitted the invoice to the appraiser for information as to the proper value and that after the original entry had been filed, he was notified by the appraiser that the factory price of the merchandise had been advanced. The entry was amended in accordance with the exact values on the various items that he had received from the appraiser, but prior to the filing of the amended entry, both the invoice and the merchandise had come under the observation of the appraiser for the purpose of appraisement. Upon the record presented it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
**SOLOMON
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**





Supplemental
      Employment Agreement








THIS
      AGREEMENT supplements the Employment Agreement between Peter W. DeVecchis,
      Jr.
      (“Employee”) and Solomon Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) dated May 24, 2004,
      as modified from time to time (“Agreement”). Capitalized terms not defined
      herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement.





1. *Payment of Compensation in Shares.* Employee
      and the Company agree that, at the Company’s option upon five business days
      notice to Employee, the Company may pay Employee some or all of Employee’s Base
      Salary up to an aggregate of $70,000 over the course of 12 months beginning
      May
      2008, in installments of up to $5833.33 per month, in shares of its common
      stock, par value $.001, registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on Form S-8 or equivalent, rather than in cash (each such payment a “Stock
      Payment”).





2. *DWAC* .
      Stock
      Payments shall be made available to Employee via DWAC to his brokerage
      account.





3. *Withholding
      and Employee Taxes.* The
      Company will timely advise Employee of the required employee portion of
      employment taxes that Employee shall pay to the Company with respect to each
      Stock Payment. The Company will also timely advise Employee of the amount of
      income tax withholding Employee should pay based on amounts withheld from his
      cash compensation. In all other respects, the Company will cooperate with
      Employee to establish all procedures necessary to assure that Employee’s
      withholding and employee tax obligations are satisfied with respect with Stock
      Payments of Base Compensation.





4. *Agreement.* Except
      as
      modified hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
      effect.











Dated:
      May 19, 2008








/s/Peter
      W.
      DeVecchis, Jr


Peter
      W.
      DeVecchis, Jr.








SOLOMON
      TECHNOLOGIES, INC.







By: /s/
      Gary M. Laskowski


Gary
      M.
      Laskowski


Chairman,
      Board of Directors
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 

-1- 

Alan J. Kessel (Cal. Bar No.: 130707) 

Keli N. Osaki (Cal. Bar No.: 179920) 

Brandon Q. Tran (Cal. Bar No.: 223435) 

BUCHALTER, NEMER, FIELDS & YOUNGER 

A Professional Corporation 

18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 

Irvine, California 92612-0514 

Telephone: (949) 760-1121 

Facsimile: (949) 720-0182 

E-mail: btran@buchalter.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff DIRECTV, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

DIRECTV, INC., a California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

KENNETH NEW, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: CIV-S-04-1261 MCE DAD 

Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. 

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF 

DEFENDANT KENNETH NEW WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND REQUEST TO RETAIN 

JURISDICTION 

HAVING READ AND CONSIDERED the forgoing Stipulation for Voluntary 

Dismissal of Defendant KENNETH NEW (“Defendant”) Without Prejudice and Request to 

Retain Jurisdiction, and such other pleadings, documents and records deemed appropriate by the 

Court, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

(1) Defendant is hereby dismissed from this action without prejudice; 

(2) Each of said parties to bear its/his own costs and attorneys’ fees; and 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:04-cv-01261-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 09/30/05 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 

-2- 

(3) The Court shall retain jurisdiction over DIRECTV and Defendant to 

enforce the terms described above of the Settlement Agreement between those parties dated 

July 29, 2005 and hereby refers any further proceedings in this action to enforce such terms of the 

Settlement Agreement to a Magistrate Judge of this District. 

Dated: September 30, 2005 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01261-MCE -DAD Document 13 Filed 09/30/05 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 13,173.

#### SOMMERVILLE v. FRENCH.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 474.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec., 1807.

Witness — Failure to Attend — Attachment.

The court will send attachments into Maryland for witnesses who reside within one hundred miles of Washington, if they fail to attend according to summons.

W. W. Berry having been summoned by the marshal of the District of Columbia, to-attend as a witness for the plaintiff in this cause, and failing to attend when called,—

THE COURT,

on motion of Mr. Morsell, for plaintiff, ordered an attachment, directed to the marshal of Maryland; it being suggested that the witness resides in Maryland.

DUCK-ETT, Circuit Judge, absent.

Several other attachments were issued in the like case at this term.
(Reap. Dec. 9507)

#### Sears, Roebuck and Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5955, etc.

(Decided September 22, 1959)

*Lane, Young & Foss*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to certain bamboo blinds and hardware accessories on the invoices of Daimaru Kogyo Kaisha, Ltd., exported from Japan and entered at the port of Los Angeles, Calif.

Stipulated facts, upon which the cases are before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the invoice unit values, which values include the cost of hardware as invoiced, and I so hold.

The appeals for reappraisement, having been abandoned as to all merchandise except the items hereinabove identified, are dismissed as to all other merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Kreisler Manufacturing Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                              
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date: September 29, 2008 |  | /s/ Michael D. Stern         
|                         |  | Michael D. Stern             
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                         |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
|                         | 
|Date: September 29, 2008 |  | /s/ Edward A. Stern          
|                         |  | Edward A. Stern              
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                         |  | (Principal Financial Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and will not be deemed (i) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise be subject to the liability of that section; or (ii) incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 whether made before
or after the date of this Form 10-K, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates such certification by reference.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SYLVIA JAMES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1482

[May 5, 2022]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Department of Children and Families; 

L.T. Case No. 19-077CF.

Sylvia James, Belle Glade, pro se.

Jean A. Costa of the Florida Department of Children and Families,

Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 53008.

#### Eastman Kodak Company *v.*United States,

petition 6660-R (Rochester).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Upon the record the court was satisfied that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that returned upon final appraisement was without any intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.