alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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

STEPHEN M. LERNER (State Bar No. 176688)

McDONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN PC

Attorneys at Law

555 Capitol Mall, 9th Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916.444.3900

Fax: 916.444.3249

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant/Counterclaimant

QuesTech Financial California, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

QUESTECH FINANCIAL CALIFORNIA,

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

JYM CORPORATION,

Defendant.

v.

BASKIN-ROBBINS USA CO., TOGOS

EATERIES, INC.,

Third-Party Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV S-04-2553 FCD GGH

ORDER RE: QUESTECH FINANCIAL

CALIFORNIA, LLC’S REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE WITH RESPECT TO

BASKIN-ROBBINS USA, CO.’S AND

TOGO’S EATERIES, INC.’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

“AS MODIFIED”

BASKIN-ROBBINS USA CO., TOGOS

EATERIES, INC.,

Third-Party 

Defendants/Counterclaimants/

Counter-Defendants

v.

QUESTECH FINANCIAL CALIFORNIA,

LLC,

Counter-Defendant/Counterclaimant

Case 2:04-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 12/15/05 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

Proposed Order re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Hearing 2

The court has reviewed the Motion of QuesTech Financial California, LLC (“QuesTech”)

for a Continuance of the Hearing on Baskin-Robbins USA, Co.’s and Togo’s Eateries, Inc.’s

(collectively “Baskin/Togos”), and the opposition to the motion filed by Baskin/Togos and finds

that good cause exists and hereby GRANTS the motion. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. QuesTech’s Motion is granted.

2. The hearing date on Baskin/Togo’s Motion for Summary Judgment, currently set 

for January 13, 2006 at 10:00 a.m., is vacated.

3. The hearing date on Baskin/Togo’s Motion for Summary Judgment shall be reset 

for January 27, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. The opposition shall be filed on or before January 13, 2006

and the reply on or before January 20, 2006.

DATED: December 15, 2005

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02553-FCD-GGH Document 56 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 2
Order entered July 16, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00555-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.S., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 104418-CC

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Shelly L. Crossland’s July 12, 2021 

request for a thirty-day extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT 

the request and ORDER the record be filed no later than August 18, 2021. 

Because this is an accelerated appeal in a parental termination case, further 

extensions will not be granted absent extraordinary circumstances and the trial 

court must arrange for a substitute reporter, if necessary, to ensure the timely filing 

of the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4(b)(1),(2).
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to the 

Honorable Tracy Gray, Presiding Judge of Kaufman County Court at Law, Ms. 

Crossland, and the parties.

/s/ LESLIE OSBORNE

JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gennaro DiPalo, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 803]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered May 25, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Barasch, J.), of the branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention concerning the reliability of the hearing court’s findings is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Sumpter,*192 AD2d 628). Where, as here, the defendant fails to move to reopen the hearing, trial testimony cannot be used to challenge the suppression ruling *(see, People v Diaz,*194 AD2d 688, 689). In any event, the defendant’s contentions are without merit, insofar as the arresting officer’s testimony at the *Wade*hearing did not raise a substantial issue as to the constitutionality of the identification procedure *(see, People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 337, *cert denied*498 US 833; *People v Harvall,*196 AD2d 553).

Nor has the defendant preserved his contention that the court erred in precluding him from testifying about two unrelated lineups in which he had not been identified by witnesses *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Black,*138 AD2d 498, 499). In any event, this contention is without merit, since the defendant failed to make a clear and unambiguous offer of proof demonstrating the relevance of the defendant’s proposed testimony regarding the two other lineups *(see, People v Billups,*132 AD2d 612, 613). " 'While due process requires that a defendant in a criminal case be permitted to call witnesses in his [or her] own behalf and to introduce evidence that a person other than he [or she] committed the crime charged *(see, Chambers v Mississippi,*410 US 284), "such evidence must do more than raise a mere suspicion that another person committed the crime; there must be a clear link between the third party and the crime in question” ’ ” *(People v Santano,*187 AD2d 618, quoting *People v Zanfordino,*157 AD2d 682, 683).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was *464legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). While the People’s case depended on the eyewitness identification made by the complainant, the testimony of a single eyewitness can be sufficient to support a judgment of conviction *(see, People v Arroyo,*54 NY2d 567, 578, *cert denied*456 US 979; *People v Livingston,*184 AD2d 529, 530; *People v Azzara,*138 AD2d 495). Bracken, J. P., Miller, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
#### Edwin C. Stanton, Plaintiff, and Joanne Stanton, Appellant, v Gasport View Dairy Farm, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[635 NYS2d 560]

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in concluding that mud is not included within the scope of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1219 *(see, People v Bunton,*128 Mise 2d 162; *see also, Nielsen v City of New York,*38 AD2d 592, *appeal dismissed*30 NY2d 568). The court further erred in holding that the quantity and source of the mud were not at issue in this case. Plaintiffs presented proof of excessive mud and Deputy Sheehan testified that the muddy conditions were caused by defendant farm. Thus, the court erred in precluding plaintiffs from completing their proof with respect to mud and in refusing to present that issue to the jury. Therefore, plaintiff Joanne Stanton is entitled to a new trial. (Appeal from Judg*1001ment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Mintz, J.— Negligence.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASIDNGTON, D.C.
IN THE MATTEROF 

### 2

# zao,; •J) MACH ONE AIR CHARTERS, INC. FAADOCKET NO, [TO BEASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Proceedings) FDMS NO. FAA-2015-0643 ;'=-<:

COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FORADDTIONAL TIME TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY Complainant, through counsel, moves for a modificationto the Procedural Order served
on June 15,2015, to allow the parties additional time in which to conduct discovery. The complaint inthis matter was served onApril28, 2015, and by Order served onMay 28, 2015, it was assigned to Judge Goodwin. By letter dated June 5, 2015, counsel for Mach One Charters, Inc., submitted a letter to Judge Goodwin in which he states he will be out ofhis office from Mid-July throughthe end ofOctober 2015 and requests that no matters be set during that period. Consequently, 

### inthe June 15,2015 Procedural Order, the parties were given until November 6, 2015, inwhich to conclude all discovery. Three ofComplainant's witnesses were deposed on October 29, 2015. These depositions
were done concurrently with counsel for the pilots who faced certificate actions arising out ofthe incident. On aboutNovember 16, 2015, counsel for the pilots informed Complainant that because ofan oddity withthe specific aircraft in question, the checks conducted bytwo ofthe deposed witnesses may nothave beenreliable. Itis, thus, now apparent that additional discovery is needed.

1Complainant requests that the deadline for completing discovery be extended until June 1, 2016. Respectfully submitted this 5th day ofJanuary 2016. Peter J. Lynch Assistant ChiefCounsel

for Enforcement
By: Glenn H. Brown EnforcementDivision, Western Team

2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Mach One Air Charters, Inc. FAA Case No. 2014WP210018 DMS NO. FAA-2015-0643 I hereby certify that onthis date I served a copy ofthe COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR ADDTIONAL TIME TO CONDUCT DISCOVERYpostage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: Hon Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 Steven L. Graff, Respondent's counsel Steven L. Graff, Inc. 43399 Calle De Velardo Temecula, CA 92592 I further certify that on this date I have served the original and a copy ofthe COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FORADDTIONAL TIME TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY bypostage-prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1000

National Enforcement Progr Western Team 222 West 7thAvenue Box 14 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7587

3
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4549]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10780]


Missouri Disaster Number MO-00007

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Missouri 
(FEMA-1673-DR), dated 12/29/2006.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storms.
    Incident Period: 11/30/2006 through 12/2/2006.

DATES: Effective Date: 3/5/2007.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 2/27/2007.

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 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Missouri, dated 12/29/2006, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
Primary Counties: Callaway, Camden, Marion, Miller
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008.)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-4549 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
6 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

ll l dvlso th 4 t l o - 

p ula tlo n or M a n* 

0 v4 lu4 t1 o n ror 

tomoy or the elm Judloiml m8- 

trlat Attommy r0r Ibnyarr*r~r Cowty 

a oonprlelng tbo aatriat. 

Artlo 3iG%d, Vernon’s Annotated ‘f4~4Lab ciVi.1 ~%A&- 

utea, m4d4 15 mrt ae So11wrr
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 47 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 47

   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to modify a 
            provision relating to acquisition of beach fill.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 24 (legislative day, January 3), 2023

   Mr. Rubio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to modify a 
            provision relating to acquisition of beach fill.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sand Acquisition, Nourishment, and 
Development Act of 2023'' or the ``SAND Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. ACQUISITION OF BEACH FILL.

    Section 935 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 
U.S.C. 2299) is amended by striking ``if such materials are not 
available from domestic sources for environmental or economic 
reasons''.
                                 <all>
```
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-1165

___________ Leonard C. Lee, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, * United States Department of Health * [UNPUBLISHED] and Human Services, * * Appellee, * * Vicky Ross-Barsch, Individually and * in her official capacity as Assistant * Deputy Director, NCTR; Victor G. * Attwood, Individually and in his * official capacity as Deputy Director, * NCTR; Mary Ann Hutchinson, * Individually and in her official capacity * as Personnel Director, NCTR; Dick * King, Individually and in his official * capacity as Personnel Specialist, * NCTR; Kimberly Carter, Individually * and in her official capacity as Director * Division of Personnel Operations, * ORA; George Calvert, Individually * and in his official capacity as Director, * Classification Services, FDA, * * Defendants. *

___________1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Submitted: December 24, 2004 Filed: January 24, 2005

___________ Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Leonard Lee appeals the district court’s 1 adverse judgment after a bench trial in his Title VII action against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. After carefully reviewing the record, we find no clear error in the district court’s findings that Lee did not prove race discrimination, retaliation, or harassment. See Tadlock v. Powell , 291 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review). We also agree with the court that Lee did not exhaust his administrative remedies on his claim that supervisors discriminated and retaliated against him by accusing him of fraud in a worker’s compensation case. SeeBurkett v. Glickman , 327 F.3d 658, 660 (8th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
No. 54038.

#### Copeland & Thompson, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 142346-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that cask No. 7864 was landed in bad order and upon examination was found to contain 31 wrapped packages, whereas the invoiced quantity of the cask indicated that 51 packages were shipped; that the 20 packages reported short by the inspector were not received in any other package covered by the entry; and that the issues herein are the same as those the subject of *United States*v. *Washington State Liquor Control Board*(34 C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 352). In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon said 20 packages of chinaware figures indicated as short in the report of the discharging inspector. The protest was sustained to this extent.
#### Richard K. Singh et al., Respondents, v Wietze Zuidema et al., Appellants.

[634 NYS2d 301]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens *(see,*CPLR 327) was improperly denied. Balancing the interests and conveniences of the parties and the court, we conclude that the action could be better adjudicated in another forum *(see, Varkonyi v S. A. Empresa De Viacao Airea Rio Grandense [Varig],*22 NY2d 333, 337-338). Plaintiffs and one defendant are residents of the Province of Ontario and the other defendant is an Ontario resident and the other is an Ontario corporation. The accident occurred during a round-trip bus ride that originated and terminated in Toronto, Ontario. The only connection with New York is "the adventitious circumstance that the accident occurred here” *(Martin v Mieth,*35 NY2d 414, 418). That fact alone does not constitute a nexus sufficient to warrant the retention of jurisdiction *(see, Martin v Mieth, supra,*at 418). The interest of justice requires, however, that conditions be imposed upon the dismissal of the action so that plaintiffs are not left without an alternative forum *(see, Crown Cork & Seal Co. v Rheem Mfg. Co.,*64 AD2d 545). The action is dismissed, therefore, upon condition that: (1) defendants agree to accept service of process in the Province of Ontario and appear in an action to be commenced in Ontario for the same relief demanded in this action, provided that service is made within four months of service of a copy of the order herein with notice of entry; and (2) defendants agree that in any such action commenced in Ontario they will not plead the Statute of Limitations, but will waive that defense. In the event of defendants’ failure to *1021comply with the foregoing conditions, the action should be reinstated upon appropriate application by plaintiffs. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Cornelius, J.— Forum Non Conveniens.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
\,t>A \*if>\

. . .. , ©OUHTOFCRIWilNALAPPEALS

\ri/2 \-\A.tofAW/« Ana-rtDhi \eS\ex JAN 12 2015

rr^iA'vaa A_rU/-.or Th^_ T**aS ^JfVyZLPvmUXai l^sAs Abet Acosta, Clerk

P.O. (Sol V>3o2 '

AosV.a -n-ur -\n\\

OvA. jVI:WoH, XF^A 2L\Klf\ I of \AaWs £>pxr £ha\W\<iiu\/i \V>^ ^aVAiJ o>F%\^Z2haMiK\n ii^^lMM^nVV, a>\A_M^

£oA\fi/Alou\ Wr^LZ>)A» (W^A oil \K^. \/»al z^ur^V/f^awn-KlAa.^^

\\a;^Zjdu4A^.Av^A aWdain/A rai&sA,

Z2ha/^ Jaguar *j ajvA V»3'jWiwi»AaJKk.tci W\^ o^J/^'/Yj^A.^WI

aViD>J W\ %VuT £ou/+ Af.K\L^^\alrtAr m%°X IkUvU'I of \4aksa_r ^zy-pLK CrM/°& e' ^<A FacY, awA ak\n iuA^al /^M.^vf v!^l.\A k-
^tV/2_c ajv\ aoraji^AY^. ar^oLjaV ^or Yh^ Y^i a\ ^ouAs /y^/A.

VvlorYViLi or kl^Y^^iYW .SVakli" oV W/izs. ^Aia^K-ld *i k\5W»h^k\Y

aWY YV\/- ^zjAjt' av]a/\£.K\/£rr -Wna-V A^^i.oa LkvWlin^r iall

wh,v_h_L aw h^Fdl. *

I\k\l| /^OKLfiiz2.ra-lioa iiA WitLr MaJW vjrlV k

<3/i°3+\i_| Y\i_i a^^aWL1

A_aWi_ ITLku "AYu 0^i£

^.
, .••,.._ . f?iw;^A A

screen .°rint from AbleTerm session (I 0248] 01:47 PM 12/31/2003

Cause: 05-20934A-01010 (32791]

StyJLe^j.-Benny Earl Hunter ..,,,,,

Of-fei.s'*fc-^R-@bbery --.^ *.«.;

Court

___^_Ei;le date

—.-*:-^t-t-orney :

Memo'

42nd Judicial District C

01/02/2003. ,(3,6.3 days).

Watson, .MichaeiCa.^......

1.

2.

3 .

4 .

5:

6.

7.

8.

. 9.

10.

12 .

13 .

Date Event

- SUBPOENA RETURNED/UNSERVED (£} JAILTIME DATA

TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OF

STIPULATION OF EVIDENCE

PLEA ADMONISHMENTS

- SUBPOENA RETURNED/SERVED £0

JUDGMENT-AND SENTENCE'

DOCKET SHEET

LETTER

INMATE CORRESPONDENCE

Yes

No

No

No (/ o&t~>fli\l&&

No \s~

Yes

No VNo \s~

Yes

Yes

12/29/03

12/17/03

12/12/03

12/12/03

.12/12/03

12/12/03

12/12/03

12/12/03

12/11/03

12/11/03

12/09/03

12/09/03

Vj.ew 1 /

•.•i_-__«j-» T-_ QUACIi Yc3 /"

- SUBPOENA RETURNED/UNSERVED** C3 J Yes V

- SUBPOENA RETURNED/SERVED (?0 Yes

TAB to select ; ' • ' Page

-Exit • F2-Add

Selection: 10

F4-Setup F6-Scan

Volume

MCR8

MCR8

MCR8

MCR8

1 of 2

Page

181

178

179

180

OVR

F8-Next

V

Screen P-rint from AbleTerm session (172.16.02481 01:47 PM 12/317200:

Cause: 05-20934A-01010 (32791]

Style: Benny Earl Hunter

Off. : Robbery

1.

2.

3 .

4 .

5 .

6 .

7.

8.

9.

10.

Date

12/0 9/03

12/08/03

12/08/03

12/05/03

12/03/03

12/02/03

1JL/02/0 3

;:o~27To7o3

02/05/03

Event

-SUBPOENA RETURNED/SERVED*[}J

STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT

STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT

MOTION TO QUASH*•

MISCELLANEOUSMOTION IN LIMINE

MOTION IN LIMINE

DISCOVERY ORDER

WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT

i-i. Ui/u6/v3 - rTGTICE SERVE INDICTMENT S

—-NOTICE SERVE INDICTMENT* '

FELONY INDICTMENT

TAB to select

12. 01/02/03

13. 01/02/03

View 1 /

Court

File date

Attorney

Memo

Yes

Yes

Yes J/

Yes 1/

Yes x/

Yes^

Yes V

Yes ]/"

No j^

No

Ye<?

Yes

No

42nd Judicial District

01/02/2003 (363 days)

Watson, Michael B.

Volume Page

75 2007

Page 2 of 2 OVR

Fl-Exit F2-Add

Selection: 2

F4-Setup F6-Scan F7-Prev
OSWER/OSRTI Wa shington, DC 20460 

## N ATIONAL 

## P RIORITIES 

## L IST 

## (NPL)

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regar ding the effects of exposure to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Su bstances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet
at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html or by telephone at 1

- 888

- 42

- ATSDR or 1

- 888

- 422

- 8737. *** Final Site*** March 2011 

### MILFORD CONTAMINATED AQUIFER Milford , Ohio Clermont County

 **Site Location :**  The Milford Contaminated Aquifer s ite is a ground water plume contaminated with chlorinated solvents in the vicinity of Main S treet and Lila Avenue in the City of Milford, Clermont County, Ohio.

 **Site History:** Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were first detected in City of Milford public wells in 1986. The O hio E nvironmental P rotection A gency began searching for the source of the VOC contamination in 1991. Despite several investigations , the source of VOC contamination has not been identified.

 **Site Contamination/Contaminants:** Chlorinated solvents detected in ground water at the site include tetrachloroethene (PCE); trich loroethene (TCE); cis

- 1,2

- dichloroethene (DCE); and 1,1,1

- trichloroethane (TCA) . The plume is estimated to extend approximately 3, 0 00 feet from the well field to its probable origin east of the well field

.

 **Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/E nvironment**  **:** T he City of Milford’s public supply wells were found to have been contaminated by VOCs. Samples collected from city well 3 before treatment contained PCE above its EPA’s Safe Drinking Wate r Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
, and TCE, cis

- 1,2

- DCE, and 1,1,1

- TCA above background levels. Samples collected from city well s 1 and 2 before
treatment contained PCE and 1,1,1

- TCA a bove background levels , and a sample collected from city well 4 before treatment was found to have 1,1,1

- TCA above backgro und levels. The City of Milford’s well field serves 6,000 people.

 **Response Activities (to date):** The City of Milford installed and maintains an air stripper to remove VOCs from its treated water.

 **Need for NPL Listing:** The State of Ohio referred the site to EPA because of the elevated VOCs found in the ground water that have contaminated the City of Milford’s public water supply wells. EPA received a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the
state.