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

p. 1 

Che nours - 

The Chemours Company FC, LLC 

67 Canal Road, P. 0. Box 9001 

Deepwater, New Jersey 08023 

CBIC Control Number 

366106 

August 19, 2015 rr.) e=, 

Director, Chemical Control Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East 

Room 4146 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Re: EPA — HQ — OPPT — 2003 — 0012 

Chemours Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100 

PFOA Data Submittal — Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples 

July 2015 Sample Data 

Dear Chemical Control Division: 

Attached please find summaries of PFOA analytical results for the Chemours Chambers Works 

weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A in July 2015. 

In accordance with the current site NJPDES permit (NJ0005100, effective September 2011), 

these results are provided to NJDEP on a monthly basis via electronic discharge monitoring 

reports. The enclosures include two paper and two electronic copies of the analytical results 

from this monitoring period. 

NJDEP has asked The Chemours Company FC, LLC to analyze for and report monthly Spot 

662 PFNA concentrations for the next 12 months. The laboratory analyzed both the 7/13/2015 

and the 7/20/2015 samples but going forward we expect to analyze and report one sample per 

month. 

R/1415 

Amu a Jeyarajasingam 

Area Manager-Secure Environmental Treatment 

Chemours Chambers Works 

AJ/cic 

Enclosures 
, p. 2 

Copy to: 

Document Control Office 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East 

Room 6428 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Ms. Heather Genievich (cover letter only) 

NJDEP Division of Water Quality 

Bureau of Surface Water Permitting 

Mail Code 401-02B 

401 E. State Street 

P.O. Box 420 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0420 
P. 3 

represent asingleanalys is,except forthesamplecollected on7/20115. 

lumber for Critical Path ServicesLLC is PA072. 

Jo4 swim pepodei au} pue paule;qo sem uo!speld ei qe4degov 

qei jo ebelene eq weseadai g ./OZ l /L uo pepenoc eidwes eul 

1 

662-GRAB 

0 0 1- 

L VZ 

VN 

, 

III 

L 662-GRAB L 7/20/15 

0 0 

I zz's [Z0170 

PFNA= PerfluorononanoicAcid PFOA= Perflu orooctanoicAcid ug/L =microg ramsperLiter 

ug/L = m icrog ramsper literorpartsper billio 

1 LOQ = lim it of quantification= 0. 100 ug/L 

itical PathSend 

662-GRAB1 

7/13/15 

0 0 

1 9L'E 

i- ct7•0 

=notanalyzed 

duplicateresults. 

TheNJDEP lab certificationr 

I662-GRAB 

l./9/L 

0 0 

I Lvo 1 VN 

al t eidw s e

,ewa 1 (41)dol 

wouos 

j# aw3t idna 

I /CO ielO1 

( a) • s5161 

Isiiun 1/5n -On 

. 

91.A re-Ukf- 

< < 0 Z 

-L LL 

10 

a. <and ND = Nondetect at stated reporting lim it
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Thorpe, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 131]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.), rendered March 5, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant’s omnibus motion which were to suppress certain statements made by him to law enforcement officials and to suppress physical evidence seized from the defendant’s home.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court properly found that the defendant voluntarily and knowingly waived his *Miranda*rights prior to his request to speak with an attorney. The record failed to establish that the defendant was “intoxicated to the degree of mania” or unable to understand the *Miranda*rights or the meaning of his statements *(People v Schompert,*19 NY2d 300, 305, *cert denied*389 US 874; *People v San Juan,*168 AD2d 648). Moreover, assuming that the defendant was actually represented on another pending charge, such representation did not preclude the waiver of his *Miranda*rights in the absence of counsel with regard to the new, unrelated charges *(see, People v Bing,*76 NY2d 331; *People v Melvin,*188 AD2d 555, 556; *People v Goodman,*166 AD2d 541, 542).

The hearing record demonstrates that the police searched the defendant’s apartment with the consent of his mother, who lived in the apartment. Accordingly, the evidence seized from the apartment was properly admitted into evidence *(see, People v Cosme,*48 NY2d 286, 290; *People v Greenberg,*187 AD2d 528).

The defendant’s contention that the circumstantial evidence *492was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). In any event, viewing the circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Williams,*84 NY2d 925), we find that it was legally 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 was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Finally, the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on the defense of intoxication is unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Humphrey,*186 AD2d 148, 149; *People v Powell,*181 AD2d 923; *People v Adams,*166 AD2d 711), and, in any event, is without merit *(see, People v Rodriguez,*76 NY2d 918; *People v Carpenter,*199 AD2d 524; *People v Powell, supra).*Ritter, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals3070815-MAR-201108:25 AM
#### Patricia E. McQURTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF ATLANTA, Georgia, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees.

No. 83-8743.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 19, 1984.

Elizabeth J. Appley, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.

*882Before HILL, JOHNSON and HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Plaintiff-Appellee Patricia McQurter prevailed at the district court in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Atlanta and the other defendants (collectively referred to as Atlanta). The district court, 572 F.Supp. 1401, entered final judgment on September 12, 1988, and Atlanta did not file its notice of appeal to this court for 31 days, one day beyond the thirty day period of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4. Atlanta did not move, under Appellate Rule 4(a)(5), for the district court to extend its time to appeal. McQurter now moves that this court dismiss Atlanta’s appeal. Atlanta argues that the appeal should be maintained because the district judge on September 12 did not enter judgment on McQurter’s motion under section 1988 for attorney’s fees (and apparently has not done so yet). Atlanta requests that we hold its appeal premature and allow another notice of appeal later to be filed because, absent a decision on attorney’s fees, the September 12 order was not final and ap-pealable. We hold that the order was final and appealable and dismiss Atlanta’s appeal.

The problem apparent in this case has arisen in several other circuits and may be stated as follows: when the district court enters an order resolving all issues presented in a case except the award of attorney’s fees, has a final, appealable order been entered? We need not review the numerous cases dealing with the issue in detail because we believe our sister circuit in *Holmes v. J. Ray McDermott & Co.,*682 F.2d 1143 (5th Cir.1982) properly decided that the answer to the question is: “it depends on the circumstances.” In *Holmes,*the court held that:

> When attorney’s fees are similar to costs *(White)*or collateral to an action (Obin), a lack of determination as to the amount does not preclude the issuance of a final, appealable judgment on the merits. When, however, the attorney’s fees are an integral part of the merits of the case and the scope of relief, they cannot be characterized as costs or as collateral and their determination is a part of any final, appealable judgment.

*Id.*at 1146. As the *Holmes*court noted, this distinction is in accordance with the holding in *White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security,*455 U.S. 445, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982), in which the Court held that attorney’s fees are collateral and independent when claimed under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and thus not subject to the ten day time limit set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Our own cases are also in accord. *See Varnes*v. *Local 91,*674 F.2d 1365 (11th Cir.1982). Since the Supreme Court has clearly stated that attorney’s fees are collateral in a section 1983 action, it is clear that Atlanta filed its notice of appeal too late.

DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the Report) of TICC Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Patrick F. Conroy, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



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



|            |  |                              
|----------- |  | -----------------------------
|            |  | /s/ PATRICK F. CONROY        
|Name: Date: |  | Patrick F. Conroy May 8, 2008
EX-10.5



 Exhibit 10.5 

 

			
	



	  	The Boeing Company
	  	P.O. Box 3707
	  	Seattle, WA 98124-2207        

  
  

6-1162-LKJ-0696R6 
 Federal Express Corporation

 3131 Democrat Road 
 Memphis, TN
38118 
  

			
	Subject:	  	[*]
		
	Reference:	  	Purchase Agreement No. PA-3712 (Purchase Agreement) between The Boeing Company (Boeing) and Federal Express Corporation (Customer) relating to
Model 767-3S2F aircraft (Aircraft)

 All terms used but not defined in this letter agreement (Letter Agreement) have the same meaning as in
the Purchase Agreement. Other than as provided in this Letter Agreement all terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement are hereby ratified and confirmed. 
 1. [*] 
 2. Customer understands that Boeing considers certain commercial and
financial information contained in this offer as confidential. Customer agrees that it will treat this offer and the information contained herein as confidential and will not, without the prior written consent of Boeing, disclose this offer or any
information contained herein to any other person or entity without the written consent of Boeing. 
 Please sign and return this
offer on or before January 22, 2015. 

  

			
	  
 6-1162-LKJ-0696R6

January 22, 2015
 [*]
	  	  
      

     
 Page 1


 BOEING PROPRIETARY 


  

	*	Blank spaces contained confidential information which has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 









 



 

 



					
	AGREED AND ACCEPTED this	 	
			
	 1/22/2015
	 		 	
	Date	 		 	
		
	THE BOEING COMPANY	 	
			
	/s/ L. Kirsten Jensen	 		 	
	  
	 		 	
	Signature	 		 	
			
	 L. Kirsten Jensen
	 		 	
	Printed name	 		 	
			
	 Attorney-in-Fact
	 		 	
	Title	 		 	

 


			
	    	 	
		
	    	 	
	    	 	
	    	 	
	
	FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
		
	/s/ George Silverman	 	
	  
	 	
	Signature	 	
		
	 George Silverman
	 	
	Printed name	 	
		
	 Vice President Materiel Management
	 	
	Title	 	

 
 


  

			
	  
 6-1162-LKJ-0696R6

January 22, 2015
 [*]
	  	  
      

     
 Page 2


 BOEING PROPRIETARY 


  

	*	Blank spaces contained confidential information which has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 









 Attachment to Letter Agreement 6-1162-LKJ-0696R6 

 
 



 
 [ * ] 
 Note: Boeing acknowledges that as of the date of this Letter Agreement Customer has executed a definitive agreement (Supplemental Agreement No. 5) for four (4) LDS Additional Aircraft.

 [ * ] 

  

			
		  	

 BOEING PROPRIETARY 


  

	*	Blank spaces contained confidential information which has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### In the Matter of Seymour S. Detsky, a Disbarred Attorney.

[636 NYS2d 610]

—Motion *pro se*for reinstatement to practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law denied. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Williams, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report) of Technology Investment Capital Corp. (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Patrick F. Conroy, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



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



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ PATRICK F. CONROY                         
|Name: Patrick F. Conroy Date: November 7,
2007
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

The Water Cycle - USGS Water Science School

LinksGlossaryHelp

      - Home
      - Water Basics
      - Water Properties
      - Water Cycle (Adults)
      - Water Cycle (Kids)
      - Surface Water
      - Groundwater
      - Water Quality
      - Water Use
      - Activities
      - Photos
      - Q&A
      - Teachers
      - Contact

 Back to previous page

Back to:O Ciclo d'água.

# O Ciclo d'água para Crianças

O Serviço Geológico dos Estados Unidos (em inglês, U.S. Geological Survey, conhecido pela sigla USGS) e a Organização das Nações Unidas para Agricultura e Alimentação (em inglês, Food and Agriculture Organization, instituição conhecida pela sigla FAO) uniram-se para criar um diagrama didático e divertido sobre o ciclo d'água, voltado para crianças de ensino básico. 

Downloads:  PDF (838mm x 610mm - 2 Mb) | JPG (432mm x 279mm - 0.4 Mb) | JPG (poster - 2.5 Mb)

Obtenha o Adobe Reader para visualisar estes arquivos PDF. A versão mais recente do Adobe Reader (gratuito) ou software similar é necessária.

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |			U.S. Geological Survey                        	URL: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle-kids-portuguese.html	Page Contact Information: Howard Perlman	Page Last Modified: Friday, 02-Dec-2016 12:52:45 EST
Before the Third Division,

January 29, 1944

No. 49177.

#### Protests 99399-K, etc., of Eastern Grocery Co. et al. (Los Angeles, etc.).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 53574.

protests 148562-K, etc. (New York).

#### Geigy & Company, Inc. v. United States,

*171Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the product is a color or dye, soluble in water, used for blueing textiles, principally bleached cotton cloth, making it whiter, and that it is obtained, derived, or manufactured, in whole or in part, from toluene, a product provided for in paragraph 1651. The established facts bring the merchandise in question within the provision in paragraph 28 (a), as amended. The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4898 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4898

     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
  Assistance Act to include extreme heat in the definition of a major 
                               disaster.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2024

   Ms. Rosen introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
  Assistance Act to include extreme heat in the definition of a major 
                               disaster.

    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 ``Extreme Heat Emergency Act of 
2024''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF MAJOR DISASTER.

    Section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)) is amended by inserting 
``extreme heat,'' before ``or drought''.
                                 <all>
```
1 A basic tenet of summary judgmen t practic e is that a

party faced with a prop erly

supported motion for summary

judgmen t must come for ward wit h specif ic factsthat would

be admiss ible in evidencedemonstr

ating th at there

are mate rial factual disp utes or that the moving party is not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Byr d v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208, 215 (Tenn. 1 993); Wadlington v. Miles, Inc., 922 S.W.2d 520, 522 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995); Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06.

2 Summary

judgments should not be u sed to mak e credibility deter minations. See Byrd v. Hall , 847 S.W.2d a

t 216. How ever, th

e credi b ility concerns that warrant deny ing a motion for summary ju dg me nt mu st ri se to a l ev el gr ea te r t ha n t he no rm al cr ed ib il it y questions that a rise whenever a witness testifies. See Hepp v. JoeB’s, Inc., App. No. 0 1A01 -9604-CV -001 83, 19 97 WL 266839, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 21, 1997)(No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). 

# FILED

October 29, 19 97 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

JOHN J. BANDEIAN, JR., M.D., ) ) Plaintiff /Appella nt, )

) Davidson C ircuit ) No. 95C- 3587 VS. ) ) Appeal N o. ) 01A01-9703- CV-00140 MARTIN H. WAGNER, M.D., ) ) Defendant/Appellee. )



## CONCUR RING OPIN ION

I concur in t

he results of the cour

t’ s opinion fo r two re asons. First, the affidavi ts submit

t ed b y Dr . Bandei an in respo nse to Dr. Wagner ’s m otion for

summar y judgm ent do not contain specific facts that would be admissible in evidence demons trating the existence of material factual d isputes or that Dr. Wagner is not entitled to a judgment as a matter o f law. 1 

### Second, Dr. Ba ndeian has n ot demon str ated the exi ste nce of h eig hte ned con cern s fo r Dr. Wa gne r’s c red ibi lit y. 2



### _________________

__ ___________

_ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
No. 51762.

#### Protests 2481-K, etc., of Kwong Yuen Shing et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of kumquats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342). In accordance therewith the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained.
Exhibit
32





Certification
Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
connection with the Annual Report of Patriot National Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,
Angelo De Caro and Robert F. O’Connell, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.







/s/
      Angelo De
    CaroAngelo
      De CaroChief
      Executive Officer/s/
      Robert F. O’ConnellRobert F.
      O’ConnellChief
      Financial Officer





March 30,
2009







A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

JAMES MILAS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 602 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40937 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE ORLANDO CRUZ

- VENTURA, also known as Jose Orlando Cruz, also known as Jose O. Cruz, also known as Jose Cruz , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:19

- CR

- 432

- 1

Before ELROD, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Orlando Cruz

Ventura has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cruz

- Ventura h a s not filed a response. We have

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 18, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40937 Document: 00515457362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2020No. 19

- 40937

2 reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Ac cordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 19-40937 Document: 00515457362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2020