alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

150) ll-E-110 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:08 AM Sheet 150 of 264 
P 2 -

K.I. GILLETT Fax:414-855-1300 Nov 20 '9? 14=31 P. 03 

J 

Contact Report 

Melanie Proctor, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

November 20,1997 

Mr. James Spang 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: Krueger International. Inc 

Telephone Number: (920)855-2188 

Fax Number: (920)855-1300 

TO 72)899 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

•A-94-52 

ll-Eno' 

Contact Summary: 

Ms. Procior explained that PES is working with the U.S. EPA on the development of a 

national emission standard for the reinforced plastic composites industry. Ms. Proctor added that 

Krueger International, Inc. was contacted to update information provided in the 1993 EPA screening 

survey submitted for their facility located in Giliett, Wisconsin. 

When Mr. Spang was asked about the use of flow coaters and pressure-fed rollers at Krueger 

International, Inc., he indicated that all of their resin spray operation was converted to non-atomized 

application by switching to flow chopper guns. 

Ms. Proctor inquired whether Krueger International, Inc. is still using a vapor suppressed 

resin with an average weighted HAP content of 41 percent. Mr. Spang responded that the average 

weighted HAP content of their resin is still 4] percent but he pointed out that their resin is not vapor 

suppressed. 

INFORMATION IS ACCL'RATET_WV^S (-> 5y)f0f r 
P.3 

K.I. GILLETT Fax:414-855-1300 Nov 20 '97 14:30 P.01 ^ 

.•WWiW, **»• -

FAX TRANSMISSION 

KI-GILLETT, 

^~,^...- - £^431iE^MAIN STREET^-^s^.^. 

TM~;: GILLETT, Wl.54124-0197 

: TEL 920-855-2188 

FAX 920-855-1300 

""'DATE: //--?£5-ib"'.;':. '•:•"•'•• 

COMPANY: D £ S . 

FAX#: ?.? _ •7«//-<533'f 

FROM: 3 ~ SpftfiJisiTOTAL PACES INCLUDING COVER SHEET -

MESSAGE: " _ =~ S^^_\ upD^V^ 

• j . .«,#. . •-.*»,. , 

4-
P.4 

i 

K.I. GILLETT Fax:414-855-1300 

^**V 

' MemC9fVKI9MMTM.S01MCa.MC. *25 

•^r-1996 

Nov 20 '97 14:30 P. 02 

Central Park W«« 

5001 South Miami Boulevard, Suite 300 

P.O. BOX 18077 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-8077 

(919) 0*1-0333 

FAX(0ie)04i<ea* 

FAX COMMUNICATION 

Date: ///go/^v 

FROM: sfatr"" £*'*•* 

TO: Name: 

Address: 

^M :*fs l£±y-

* Tit * ye« J/* J'* /»i r»°" «Sr J** c 

Phone Nu^r- ff**) **?-*> ?f 

FAX NUMBER: C 1 *>*) ***- '*** 

REFERENCE CODE: S^i7". <"" 

THIS COMMUNICATION COMPRISES ^ PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE. 

COMMENTS: 3V- ^ Sf~- $/?*"Jeftv^s-i Aon jeart&xs- ^+o6>f. /$&a$*r c*i-*e1rf*_s <>y»ot£ 

at*A Vow Jjuyou* /i*//3 

HOfctwOTOM. D,C. • XMAWCH1WM8U WML. WC • Ifli AltOM*. ft* .BMeiNN4.T1.OM 

3
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0623. STRAUCH v. THE STATE.

Appellant has failed to file a brief and enumeration of errors within 20 days

after the appeal was docketed as required by Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a) and as

notified in the Notice of Docketing. As Appellant has abandoned the appeal, the

appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

November 27, 2018

11/27/2018
#### Christina Barden, *Appellant, v.*Henry E. Millius and Charles H. Wheadon, *Respondents.*

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Learned, P. J., and Westbrook, J.
1 Michael. B. Mukasey has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as responde nt pursuant to Federa l Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-1198

___________ Pedro Aldaba Barrientos, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the * Board of Immigration Appeals. Michael B. Mukasey, 1 Attorney General * of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: December 12, 2008 Filed: January 8, 2009

___________ Before MELLOY, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pedro Aldaba Barrientos petitions for re view of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmedan Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of Barrientos’s motion to reopen removal proceedings. We deny the petition.-2- Barrientos, charged with being removable, was notified that his removal hearing was scheduled for January 21, 2004, in Council Bluffs, Iowa . Prior to the hearing, Barrientos moved for permission to particip ate by telephone from his attorney’s office in Des Moines, Iowa. On January 21, 2004, the IJ denied the motion for a telephonic hearing and entered an in absentia orde r finding Barrientos removable as charged. Barrientos moved to reopen, asserting that telephonic hearings were routinely granted, and that he had been present at his attorn ey’s office on the day of the hearing and had been ready to participate. The IJ denied the motion to reopen, and the BIA affirmed without opinion.
After careful review, we conclude the denial of the motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion because the mere submission of a motion for a telephonic hearing did not relieve Barrientos of the oblig ation to personally appear at the hearing, and Barrientos did not show exceptional circ umstances to excuse his absence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C) (removal order issuedin absentia may be rescinded upon motion to reopen, if alien de monstrates he did not receive proper notice of hearing or failure to appear was attributable to exceptional circumstances); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) (defining exceptional circ umstances); Alanwoko v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 908, 914 (8th Cir. 2008) (sta ndard of review); cf. Tang v. Ashcroft , 354 F.3d 1192, 1195-96 (10th Cir. 2003) (submission of moti on for change of venue did not excuse alien’s failure to appear at hearing, and obligation to attend scheduled hearing continued unless and until IJ granted motion; burden of inquiry regarding status of motion remained on alien, and assuming that motion would be granted was not exceptional circumstance beyond alien’s control).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of Distributed Energy Systems Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert B. Nieszczezewski, principal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 9, 2006



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    ROBERT B.
NIESZCZEZEWSKI                     
|Robert B. Nieszczezewski Principal financial officer
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43567

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JEREMY RAY WHEELER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 554

Filed: June 1, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. David C. Nye, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years, for possession of methamphetamine, with a 

second or subsequent offense enhancement, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jeremy Ray Wheeler pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, with a second or 

subsequent offense enhancement, Idaho Code §§ 37-2732(C)(1), 37-2739. The district court 

imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three 

years, and retained jurisdiction. Wheeler requested that the court relinquish jurisdiction prior to 

the expiration of the retained jurisdiction period. The district court relinquished jurisdiction and 

ordered execution of the underlying sentence. Wheeler appeals, contending that his sentence is 

excessive.
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Wheeler’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
No. 58116.

protest 219288-K (New York).

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From an examination of the papers in the case the court found nothing therein tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the decision of the collector. The protest was therefore overruled.
Before the

DEPARTM ENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC

INTRA ALASKA BUSH MAIL RATES Docket OST-2003-14694

COMMENTS ON SHOW CAUSE ORDER 2010-12-28

PROPOSING UPDATED MAIL RATES

Communications with respect to this

document should be addressed to:

Joseph Anzalone, Esq.

Office of General Counsel

United States Postal Service

475 L’Enfant Plaza SW Washington, DC 20260-1127 joseph.anzalone@usps.gov

Date Filed: January 27, 2011

12 The Postal Service presents brief comments in response to Show Cause Order 2010-12-28. As to the substance of the rates propos ed, the Postal Servic e has no objection.

The Postal Service wishes to comment that it supports the reporting by air carrier(s) to the Department of mail class costs that are se gmented by actual equipment used to perform service. The Postal Service also supports the Department’s use of such equipmentsegmented cost data to calculate operational costs accordingly. Equipment-segmented cost data is an improved method for calculating accu rate and reliable operational costs for air carriers that operate multiple types of equipmen t. Therefore, the Postal Service believes that such segmented reporti ng by carriers and the Departme nt’s methodology should be the imposed standard practice for all air carrier s with multiple equipment types, such as

Frontier Alaska.

The Postal Service does not support Ryan Ai r, Inc.’s position of excluding specific equipment from the rate class that it legally operates within. All equipment operating under Part 121 or Part 135 bush operations should be included in the appropriate rate class established in the Department’s ratemaking methodology.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

RINGO CHAN,
Petitioner

v.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPP ORTUNITY COMMISSION, Respondent

______________________

2020

- 1239

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. SF

- 4324

- 19

- 0153

- I

- 1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

A DAM A UGUSTINE C ARTER , The Employment Law Group, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also represented by R OBERT S COTT O SWALD

.

D OMENIQUE G RACE K IRCHNER , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by C LAUDIA B URKE

, J EFFREY B. C LARK

, R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN

, J R

.

______________________ Case: 20-1239 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2020T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chie f Judge

, L OURIE and

R EYNA

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

November 10 , 2020
Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court Case: 20-1239 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2020
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Corinne Johnson, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 507]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered July 21, 1993, convicting her of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People failed to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in that the People failed to prove that she knew that the bearer bonds in question were stolen or lost. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Duuvon,*77 NY2d 541). Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses *(see, People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see, People v Garafolo,*44 AD2d 86, 88). 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]).

The defendant’s challenges to the court’s *Allen*charge *(see, Allen v United States,*164 US 492) are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mangano, P. J., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.
No. 58624.

protests 146806-K and 150847-K (New York).

#### Radio Corp. of America, RCA Victor Division *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the paper coverings containing phonograph records the subject of *United States*v. *Radio Corp. of America, RCA Victor Division*(41 C. C. P. A. 137, C. A. D. 541), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Robert Crystal et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 67]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered on or about June 30, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs are husband and wife who during the relevant time period were police officers. When the husband suffered a line of duty head injury, the wife requested an accommodation in her assigned shifts to care for him, which was denied. Shortly thereafter, the husband suffered a dizzy spell and fell down a staircase, aggravating his injuries. The IAS Court properly refused to evaluate the wisdom of the decision refusing the wife’s request on the ground that it involved only an exercise of discretion by an executive agency that is not judicially reviewable even if the product of negligence *(see, Tango v Tulevech,*61 NY2d 34, 40; *Haddock v City of New York,*75 NY2d 478, 484; *Weitzner v New York City Dept, of Social Servs.,*212 AD2d 414). In any event, were we to reach the negligence claim on the assumption that defendant did not follow its own procedures in reviewing the request for a change of tour, we would, like the IAS Court, find that plaintiffs have not demonstrated that defendant owed a duty to the husband of enabling the wife to provide him with home care, and that this time and leave decision pertaining to the wife did not proximately cause the husband’s fall down the stairs. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross and Williams, JJ.
* Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Kenneth S. Apfel is substituted for

John J. Callahan, former Acting Commissioner of Social Security, as the

defendant in this action. 

** This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAR 16 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

WANDA L. SUMTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner

of Social Security Administration,*

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 97-5146

(D.C. No. 96-CV-263-M)

(D. N.D. Okla)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
-2-

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Wanda Sumter alleges disability due to back pain and depression

dating from January 1992. The ALJ found her to be disabled from September 30,

1993, but not before that date. The Appeals Council and the district court

affirmed that conclusion.

On appeal, Ms. Sumter argues that the ALJ’s conclusion that she retained

the capacity to do medium work before September 30, 1993, despite her back pain

is not supported by substantial evidence. She further argues that the ALJ should

have developed the record further regarding her allegedly disabling depression

during that same period.

We review this decision to determine only whether the relevant findings are

supported by substantial evidence and whether the Commissioner applied correct

legal standards. See Hargis v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1991). 

“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. We will not reweigh the evidence or

substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. See id.

Our review of the record in this case reveals that the ALJ’s conclusions

were supported by substantial evidence and that the law was correctly applied. 
-3-

We therefore affirm the decision of the district court for substantially the reasons

stated by the magistrate judge in his order of May 28, 1997.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
No. 64222.

protests 59/7274 and 59/19196 (New York).

#### Electric & Musical Ind. (U.S.), Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of recording tapes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Electric & Musical Industries (US), Ltd.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 87, C.D. 2070), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
SCALE 1:24,000

ORANGE QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILE

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETER

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-I

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Orange Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by Janet R. Stone

2013

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1961.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Massachusetts

Geological Survey.

Geology mapped by J.R. Stone in 1976 (unpublished) and by

F.D. Larsen in 1980 (unpublished). Distribution of bedrock

outcrops and shallow-bedrock areas is from Robinson (2008).

Some postglacial units were mapped using 2005 orthophoto

images. CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 5 of 24)

(MILLE

R

S

FALLS)

(A

TH

OL)

(QUABBIN RESERVOIR)

(MOUNT GRACE)

72°15'0"W

72°15'0"W

72°22'30"W

72°22'30"W

42°37'30"N

42°37'30"N

42°30'0"N

42°30'0"N

Stone, J.R., compiler, 2013, Surficial geologic map

of the Mount Grace-Ashburnham-Monson-Webster

24-quadrangle area in central Massachusetts:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-I

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/I.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AND OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (MassGIS),

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

STEVE KOPROWSKI, )

) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9711-CR-00530

Appellant, )

) PUTNAM COUNTY

VS. ) (No. 86-377-F Below)

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) The Hon. Leon C. Burns, Jr.

)

Appellee. ) (Denial of Post-Conviction Relief)

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state's motion to affirm the judgment

of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The

petitioner is appealing the trial court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief as timebarred by the statute of limitations. 

As conceded by the petitioner, he is not entitled to relief based on our

Supreme Court’s opinion in Carter v. State, 952 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1997).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. Costs are

taxed to the appellant.

ENTER, this the ____ day of February, 1998.

_____________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

_____________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

_____________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
#### Checco Estate.

Argued March 20, 1969.

April 23, 1969:

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*Edward F. Urbanik,*with him *Royston, Robb, Leonard, Edgecombe, Miller & Bhorall,*for appellant.

*Milton I. Watsman,*with him *Watzman and Watzman,*for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Decree affirmed. Appellant to pay costs.