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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1736

BRENDA M. LOCKLEAR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KECIA GAITHER, M.D.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:04-cv-00111-F)

Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: April 20, 2007

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry M. Coe, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Charles

D. Creech, W. Gregory Merritt, HARRIS, CREECH, WARD & BLACKERBY,

P.A., New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*Locklear originally brought suit in the North Carolina

Superior Court for Robeson County. Gaither, a New York resident,

removed the action to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332

(2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Brenda Locklear appeals from the jury verdict in favor of

Kecia Gaither, M.D., whom Locklear named as the sole Defendant in

a medical malpractice action.*

 Locklear contends that the district

court improperly instructed the jury on the governing law and that

the district court abused its discretion in declining to instruct

the jury in accordance with her proposed instructions. Because we

find neither of Locklear’s contentions have merit, we affirm.

This court reviews de novo whether a district court’s

instructions are a correct statement of the law. Emergency One,

Inc. v. American FireEagle, Ltd., 228 F.3d 531, 538 (4th Cir.

2000). In reviewing the instructions, however, “we are mindful

that district courts are necessarily vested with a great deal of

discretion in constructing the specific form and content of jury

instructions, and they are not required to accept all the suggested

instructions offered by the parties.” Id. (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). 

We review a district court’s decision to give (or not to

give) a jury instruction for abuse of discretion. See United

States v. Abbas, 74 F.3d 506, 513 (4th Cir. 1996). A district

court abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses to exercise
- 3 -

its discretion or when its exercise of discretion is flawed by an

erroneous legal or factual premise. James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233,

239 (4th Cir. 1993). When jury instructions are challenged on

appeal, the issue is whether, taken as a whole, the instructions

fairly stated the controlling law. United States v. McQueen, 445

F.3d 757, 759 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 116 (2006). 

We have thoroughly reviewed the jury instructions given

by the district court and conclude that they accurately apprised

the jury of the governing law. Further, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in declining to give the jury instructions

proposed by Locklear. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of The State ofConnecticut and Devon Power, LLC ) ) ) ) ) Trading Agreement and OrderNo. 825 I Modification No.3

Whereas, the Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Devon Power, LLC ("Respondent") having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and Order No. 825 I and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modify said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows: I. All references to May I, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to comply with the emissions limits ofSubsections 22a-I74-22(d)(I) through 22a- 174- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ("Regulations") are hereby replaced with May I, 2010. 2. Any references to October Ist with respect to the date by which the Respondent shall estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits ("DERCs") and/or allowances for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009. 3. Any references to May 3I, 2007 and May 3I, 2008 with respect to calculation and retirement ofnon-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 3I, 2009 and May 3I, 2010. 4. All references to September I, 2008 with respect to the submission ofFuture Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009. 5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading Agreement and OrderNo. 825 I and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent shall comply with the requirements ofSections 22a-I74-22(d)(I) and 22a-I74- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations. 6. All other terms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and OrderNo. 825 I, as modified, shall remain in effect.

( Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 Elm Street • Hartford. CT 06106 - 5127 http://www.ct.govldcp All Equal Opportullity EmployerDevon Power, LLC 2 Trading Agreement and OrderNo. 8251 Modification No.3 The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement and Order without further notice. Devon Power, LLC

Name: ------""----"---------''------------''-- Signature:

# --+2~.~· _>'_y,;;$"":......:c

_

## t~f>L 1:[

Date: 

### -----------'----- Title: -'-f_L-_Jlr.J

__ 

## -r

__ fY'_/1)...J_·

### _t1_.~_~ __

### /...!-13-~ol Issued as a modification ofa Trading Agreement and Order.
GarkJRost} Director Engineering and Enforcement Division Bureau ofAir Management Date
#### LEONE HOMES, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. FRANK W. KOESTNER, *ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Messrs. Mainardi & Mainardi*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Major & Major*for the respondents.

April 18, 1967.

Denied.
January 8, 1942

No. 46814.

#### Protests 35727-K, etc., of Gruyére Cheese Corp. et al.

C. D. 562. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-079-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Stevens Voisin, *Appellant, v.*The Providence, Washington Insurance Company, *Respondent.*

— Order modified as directed in opinion, and affirmed as modified, without costs. Opinion *Per Cv/riam.*
Exhibit 31.3**CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony J. Orlando, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MSW Energy Finance Co., Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 3, 2006         By:                   /s/ Anthony J. Orlando    Anthony J. Orlando    Chief Executive Officer and President   
47
No. 59064.

protest 248274-K (New York).

#### J. D. Smith Inter-Ocean, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled.
##### 



Certification of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934;(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of MSW Energy Holdings II LLC; and
   /s/ Anthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    /s/ Mark A. PytoshAnthony J. Orlando
    
    
    
    Mark A. PytoshChief Executive Officer and President
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerOctober 30, 2006
    
    
    
    October 30, 2006
 54
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



In connection with the quarterly report of DayStar Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date therein specified (the Report), I, John R. Tuttle, President, and Chief Executive 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, to the
best of my knowledge:



| | 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: May 13, 2005



/s/ John R. TuttleJohn R. Tuttle, President and Chief Executive
Officer




[A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to DayStar Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by DayStar Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
# ·-- 

# ------- NOTICE: If the film Image hs leaa cltar than thla notice. it 1• due· to the of the document



# r.- D ;- 

## mfitlt- 3i5Z--

# ~~ '? c0 

# -. {4

## ~**~ ~** 

# ~ "' 

# - 'ri**~ ~**  

# • 

# ... 

# .. • 

# .. u 

## • 

# ...**~** 

# .. • 

# .. < 

# " 

# • 

# .. "' 

## "' 

# • 

# • "' 

## • 

# • 

# ..

... ..: "' 

# ... "'


# ... 

# "



# ... ...



# .**~** 

# ... 

# 1. 

# o1-oss



# ..**~** 

# ...**~** 

### ·, '1: 

# ., st. .:¥

## -~ q

I t?•-: "''"·,_,...""'"""'=""'"..;:>*·'"'...,'·.,..."==--·. :;;.;::::Gs ,..,.......,...,. __ rm**~---** ... 14-dk,A.:;JiC.r,,. •• :m .z .eN:o, ·'-!"· Ui!'.· :a**=~;:::,.;;::c;w ~**  ... oe;:::;**-~** " ::: _ z L**-~~~~~~~~=~··"•·C'·~~-~~::..·.,~i."""'-'"""~··** ,;.,;: ... :··**.--~** ·-.. 

## _]
| Speaking Effectively*A Guide for Air Force Speakers*John A. KlineAir University Press      Maxwell Air Force Base, AlabamaDecember 1989Contents**
Air University Press Home | AirUniversity | Air UniversityLibrary

 
Feedback? E-mail your comments or suggestions to AirUniversity Press 

Contents of this Web site reviewedand approved by AU/PA  (334) 953-2014   DSN 493-2014This page maintained by Thomas C.Lobenstein (AUL/LP)  (334) 953-6452  DSN 493-6452Report problems or send  comments about this page  to: Webeditor, Air University Press.

  ThisAir Force web site is compliant with Section 508 standards. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Case No. 9,121.

#### MARSH et al. v. WARREN et al.

[14 Blatchf. 263; 1 13 O. G. 7; 14 O. G. 678; 24 Pittsb. Leg. J. 207; 9 Chi. Leg. News, 395; 4 Am. Law T. 126; 23 Int. Rev. Rec. 282, 288; 2 Cin. Law Bul. 203.]

Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

June 19, 1877.

Copyright — Prints—Labels—Registration.

The statutory provisions which confer the rights and regulate the remedies of persons who register in the patent office, under the act of June 18, 1874 (18 Stat. 78), prints or labels designed to be used for any other articles of manufacture than pictorial illustrations and works connected with the fine arts, are those which are contained in sections 4948-4971 of the Revised Statutes, in regard to copyrights.

[Cited in Rosenbach v. Dreyfuss, 2 Fed. 223; Higgins v. Keuffel, 30 Fed. 627.]

• [This was a motion for an injunction by James L. Marsh and others against George Warren and Alexander L. Fairweather.]

Amos Broadnax, for pláintiffs.

Hall & Blandy, for defendants.

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

The statutory provisions which confer the rights and regulate the remedies of persons who register in the patent office, under the act of June 18, 1874 (18 Stat. 78), prints or labels designed to be used for any other articles of manufacture than pictorial illustrations and works connected with the fine arts, are those which are contained in sections 4948-4971 of the Revised Statutes, in regard to copyrights. The exclusive right of printing ■ and publishing, given by section 4952, is given to the author or proprietor only on complying with the provisions of sections 494S-4971. One of those provisions (section 4956) is, that no person shall be entitled to a copyright unless he shall, “before publication,* deliver at the proper office, (in this' case the patent office,) a printed copy of the title of the article in respect of which the copyright is to be claimed. In the present case the first label and its title were registered September 24th. 1875. I understand the bill to state that this label was used by the plaintiffs’ assignors, in the sale of their mixture, and of the bottles containing it, to which such label was affixed, before that date, and as early as the mixture itself was sold, to wit, June or July, 1875. The sale *822of the bottles of the mixture, with the label on it, was a publication of the label. At all events, the bill does not allege that the title and label were deposited before the publication of the label. Such averment is necessary. As to the other three labels, they and their titles were registered March 20th, 1877, and I understand the bill to state that those labels were used by the plaintiffs before that date, in the sale of the mixture.

The motion for an injunction is denied.
#### Mary A. Richmond, *Plaintiff, v.*Emeline Penoyar and others, Defendants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing-disbursements. Opinion by Learned, P. J.
#### In the Matter of Ronnie Covington, Petitioner, v James Stinson, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 646]

—Yesawich Jr., J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Washington County) to review a determination of respondent Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

While in restrictive confinement and being escorted to a continued session of an ongoing tier III inmate disciplinary hearing, petitioner refused the direct order of the correction officer assigned to escort him to assume the proper position to permit a thorough pat-down frisk, despite specific directions from the officer. The resulting disciplinary charges were supported at a hearing by the misbehavior report and testimony of the correction officer assigned to escort petitioner. Petitioner commenced this proceeding contending that the determination finding him guilty of failing to obey a direct order and failing to permit a frisk was not supported by substantial evidence.

The detailed misbehavior report signed by the witnessing correction officer and his accompanying testimony provided ample evidence to sustain the charges *(see, Matter of Bernacet v Coughlin,*145 AD2d 802, *lv denied*74 NY2d 603). Any discrepancy in the proof introduced by petitioner merely created an issue of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see, supra,*at 803). We also reject petitioner’s argument that his hearing was untimely because it was commenced on the eighth day following the incident. The time limitations (7 NYCRR 251-5.1), which are directory and do not operate to oust jurisdiction absent substantial prejudice not present here *(see, Matter of Taylor v Coughlin,*135 AD2d 992, 993), were complied with. Furthermore, the seven-day time period of 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a) does not apply because petitioner’s restrictive confinement was unrelated to the pending disciplinary charges *(see, Matter of Harrison v Selsky,*198 AD2d 728, 729).

We find petitioner’s contention that the Hearing Officer was biased and not impartial wholly unsupported by the record *(see, Matter of Nieves v Coughlin,*157 AD2d 943, 944). Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been examined and are without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, Casey and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
TVA's John Sevier Combined Cycle Plant 

Begins Commercial Operation

April 30, 2012 

ROGERSVILLE, Tenn. - The John Sevier Combined Cycle Plant, located 

near Rogersville, Tenn., began commercial operation on Monday, April 

30, a month ahead of schedule and about $30 million under budget. The 

plant uses natural gas to produce 880 megawatts of electricity, enough to 

power approximately half a million homes.

Click to download high-res version

"The John Sevier Combined Cycle Plant is a testament to TVA's 

commitment to provide cleaner, lower-cost generation," said Bob Deacy, 

senior vice president, Generation Construction, the organization within 

TVA responsible for the construction project. "Credit for this great success 

goes to the workers and the project management team for implementing 

the construction plan with a tireless eye toward quality work while beating 

our commitments for timing and budget." 

The first cycle of a combined cycle plant uses three combustion turbines 

similar to jet engines to produce electricity. The heat from the exhaust of 

the turbines is captured in a secondary system to produce steam that is sent 

to a steam turbine, which generates additional electricity. 

The John Sevier Combined Cycle Plant not only uses clean natural gas as 

fuel, but also is constructed with equipment that reduces emissions to a 

very low level. This supports TVA's vision to be a national leader in 

improving air quality. 

"During start-up and testing the plant proved consistent and reliable in its 

electricity production, meaning it is going to be a dependable addition to 

our generating fleet," said Bob Dalrymple, vice president of TVA's Gas 

Generation fleet. "It serves a critical role in TVA's transmission system in 

northeast Tennessee." 

The plant will be managed by a TVA staff of approximately 30 

employees. It is located next to the John Sevier coal-fired plant, where two 

of the four units will be retired and two units idled at the end of this year. 

 

TVA: News Release Page 1 of 2

http://www.tva.com/news/releases/aprjun12/johnseviercc.htm 7/23/2012
The plant is the second combined cycle facility to operate within the state 

of Tennessee, and the second new generation site constructed by TVA 

since 2002. It is the fifth combined cycle site for TVA. TVA's other 

combined cycle plants are Caledonia, Magnolia and Southaven, all located 

in Mississippi; and Lagoon Creek near Brownsville, Tenn.

The Tennessee Valley Authority, a corporation owned by the U.S. 

government, provides electricity for business customers and distribution 

utilities that serve 9 million people in parts of seven southeastern states at 

prices below the national average. TVA, which receives no taxpayer 

money and makes no profits, also provides flood control, navigation and 

land management for the Tennessee River system and assists utilities and 

state and local governments with economic development.

Media Contact

Scott Brooks, Knoxville, (865) 632-8031 

TVA Media Relations, Knoxville, (865) 632-6000

TVA Newsroom

TVA: News Release Page 2 of 2

http://www.tva.com/news/releases/aprjun12/johnseviercc.htm 7/23/2012