alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Talc investigations in Vermont, preliminary report

By: A.H. ChidesterM.P. BillingsW.M. Cady

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir95

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus DeLEON-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-20316.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jeffery Alan Babcock, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Michael L. Herman, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for D efendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO Circuit Judges.

*ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES*

PER CURIAM: *

This court affirmed Jesus DeLeon-Garcia’s guilty-plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States, after having been deported and convicted of an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2); and his sentence to, *inter alia,*56 months in prison. *United States v. DeLeon-Garcia,*04-20316, 119 Fed. Appx. 605 (5th Cir.23 December 2004) (unpublished). The Supreme Court granted DeLeon-Garcia’s petition for writ of certiorari and for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis;*vacated our previous judgment; and remanded the case for further consideration in the light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. *589738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). *DeLeon-Garcia v. United States,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1997, 161 L.Ed.2d 852 (2005). We requested, and received, supplemental briefs addressing the impact of *Booker.*Having reconsidered our decision pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instructions, we reinstate our judgment affirming the conviction and sentence.

DeLeon-Garcia first raised *Booker-error*on direct appeal; therefore, our review is only for plain error. *See United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed,*(U.S. 31 Mar. 2005) (No. 04-9517). As DeLeonGarcia concedes, he cannot show “that the error ... affected the outcome of the district court proceedings”. *Id.*at 521 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, he fails the third prong of plain-error review.

DeLeon-Garcia also contends: the district court committed “structural error” when it sentenced him under a mandatory guidelines system; therefore, prejudice to his substantial rights should be presumed. He recognizes, however, that our court has rejected this contention as inconsistent with *Mares, see United States v. Malveaux,*411 F.3d 558, 561 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005), and raises it only to preserve it for possible further review by the Supreme Court.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2288

ERIC EMANUEL TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District 

Judge. (2:12-cv-00522-AWA-TEM)

Submitted: December 13, 2012 Decided: December 18, 2012

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Emanuel Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Emanuel Taylor appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing without prejudice for failure to state a claim his 

civil complaint against the Commonwealth of Virginia. On 

appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Taylor does 

not challenge in his informal brief the basis for the district 

court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the 

court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
Prolec GE Designs - Optimized on 11/4/2011 

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

160%

dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4

DL1 - 50 kVA Pad

Silicon

SA1

90%

110%

130%

150%

170%

190%

210%

dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4

DL2 - 25 kVA Pole

Silicon

SA1

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

140%

150%

160%

170%

dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4

DL4 - 150 kVA 3-Phase Pad

Silicon

SA1

90%

110%

130%

150%

170%

190%

210%

dEL0 dEL1 dEL2 dEL3 dEL4

DL5 - 1500 kVA 3-Phase Pad

Silicon

SA1

Prolec GE Design Plots 2011-11-08 .xls
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>              1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 961
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       13,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (1,120)
<INVENTORY>                                          4,624
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    19,428
<PP&E>                                              93,906
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (37,920)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               13,150
<BONDS>                                             20,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             4,993
<OTHER-SE>                                          32,474
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100,766
<SALES>                                             68,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    68,052
<CGS>                                               38,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       58,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    20,610
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      7,228
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,252
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  4,976
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         4,976
<EPS-BASIC>                                         1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.00



</TABLE>
# C_2015328EN.01000901.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/9

---

Order of the General Court of 16 July 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

(Case T-106/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Revocation of the contested decision by OHIM - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 328/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: G Farrington, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2014 (Case R 2387/2014-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear all of the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear all of the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1885

ANITA RHINEHART, Widow of Will Rhinehart,

Petitioner,

versus

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(96-311-BLA)

Submitted: January 7, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997

Before WIDENER, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anita Rhinehart, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Rodger

Pitcairn, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision

and order affirming the administrative law judge's denial of black

lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.

1996). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision

is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Rhinehart v.

Director, OWCP, No. 96-311-BLA (B.R.B. May 30, 1996). 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
# Regulation of Voice Calls from Mobile

Wireless Devices on Aircraft

Sixth Meeting of the Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection October 29, 2014

## Multi

- Agency Issue:

 FCC

– terrestrial communications network

 FAA (component of DOT)

– aviation safety (avionics and operations)

 DOT/OST

– aviation consumer protection

 DHS (TSA), DOJ (FBI) and others

– security



### 2

## History

 1991: FCC bans use of cellular phones while airborne (except in airplane mode). Concern: interference with ground networks

 Technological development: Airborne Access System (AAS) onboard aircraft

 October 2013: FAA announces guidance on expanding passenger use of portable electronic devices during all phases of flight 

### 3

## History, Continued

 December 2013: FCC issues NPRM, proposing a pathway for voice calls (and other transmissions) to be made through AAS above 10,000 feet

 Today: Voice calls on cell phones still banned under 1991 FCC rule



### 4

## DOT ANPRM

 Issued February 2014 (DOT

- OST

- 2014

- 0002)

 Sought comment on whether an airline’s practice of permitting voice calls is “unfair” (49 U.S.C. 41712) or inconsistent with “safe and adequate” air transportation (49 U.S.C. 41702)

 More generally, sought comment on whether DOT should prohibit such voice calls, and if so, the parameters of the restriction 

### 5

## ANPRM Comments

 Comment period February 24 to March 26, 2014

 In favor of ban:

– 96

- 98% of 1700 individual commenters

– Pilots , flight attendants, consumer advocacy organizations Concerns: annoyance, “air rage,” safety, inability to avoid noise 

### 6

## ANPRM Comments, Continued

 Against ban:

– Airline organizations (A4A, IATA); certain foreign airlines

– Suppliers of onboard mobile communications equipment Concerns: DOT authority; no evidence of harm



### 7

## Congressional Concern

 September 22, 2014 77 members of Congress write to DOT, DOJ, FCC, and DHS urging agencies to “continue the ban on voice calls on all commercial aircraft” and to coordinate efforts



### 8

## NPRM

• Broad issues raised by commenters:

• ban voice calls vs. “free market” approach vs. disclosure of voice call policy



### 9

## NPRM, Continued

• Many commented on the scope of a possible ban, including:

• Domestic/international flights?

• Emergency exception?

• Duration? “listen

- only” exception?

• Charters/air taxis?



### 10

## Follow the issue:

 

### www.regulations.gov

 

### DOT

- OST

- 2014

- 0002

Robert M. Gorman Department of Transportation Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings robert.gorman@dot.gov 

### 11
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BOBBY F. HOLLAND, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Appellant

9 USCMA 573, 26 CMR 353

No. 11,121

Decided September 12, 1958

*Colonel Edivard M. O’Connell*and *First Lieutenant William L. Garwood*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel John G. Lee*and *First Lieutenant Thomas M. Lofton*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused maintains he is not subject to military jurisdiction because at the time of induction he scored less than ten on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. However, as a result of *574other tests he was “administratively accepted” for service and entered upon such service.

Before reaching the merits of the ease, the Government contends that the accused’s petition for review was not filed within the statutory period. See Article 67(b)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 867. The accused acknowledges that the filing of his petition was late, but he attributes the tardiness “wholly” to the fact that he was “in transit,” having been transferred from Germany to the United States during the running of the statutory period. See Feld, Manual of Courts-Martial Practice and Appeal, § 122(c) (1957). We need not decide this question. The specific point raised by the accused’s appeal was considered by us and determined adversely to him in United States v Martin, 9 USCMA 568, 26 CMR 348, decided this date. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.
No. 54278.

#### Conay Glove Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 898515-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Exhibit
        32.1
  **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 **(18
        U.S.C. 1350)**
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Competitive Technologies, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2005, as filed with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
        Donald J. Freed, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350),
        that
        to 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 result of operations of the
                  Company.
 
 
 /s/
        Dr. D. J. Freed
 Dr.
        D. J.
        Freed
 President
        and
 Chief
        Executive Officer and Director
 December
        12, 2005
Exhibit 99.2

 

**Certification of Periodic Report**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of National Commerce FinancialCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sheldon M. Fox, 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 requirementsof 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 financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

|                         |   |   |                                          |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
| Date: November 13, 2002 |   |   | /s/ SHELDON M.FOX                             |
|                         |        |        |                                               |
|                    |   |   | **Sheldon M. Fox****Chief Financial Officer** |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1659-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1659-DR), dated August 30, 2006, and related determinations. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

January 11, 2007. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Mexico is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of August 30, 2006: 

The Navajo Nation within San Juan County for Public Assistance. 

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households Program—Other Needs; 97.036, Public Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison, 

Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA.

 [FR Doc. E7-881 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
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 Trinity Learning Corporation (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Christine R. Larson, Chief 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Company.

Date:     November 19, 2003

                              /S/ Christine R. Larson
                                   Christine R. Larson
                                   Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Trinity Learning Corporation and will be retained by it
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
### Water in the Humboldt River Valley near Winnemucca, Nevada

By: Philip M. Cohen

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1816

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.