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


DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION 


NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37243-0435 


JAMES H. FYKE PHIL BREDESEN COMMISSIONER GOVERNOR 

December 28; 2009 

Mr. A. Stanley Meiburg 


Acting Regional Administrator 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 


61 Forsyth Street, SW 


Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104 


RE: Smokey Mountain Smelters NPL Listing 

Dear Mr. Meiburg: 

I appreciate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) consideration of the State 

of Tennessee's position on the potential for listing Smokey Mountain Smelters to the National 

Priority List (NPL). 

We understand that USEP A Superfund will use a removal action followed by remedial action 

to address this site and the approach will include: 

• 	 Removal action to address the aluminum dross and other contamination within the 

dilapidated and collapsing main process building. 

• 	 Remedial action to address aluminum salt cake and other contamination remaining after 

the USEPA removal action. 

• 	 Evaluating the site to determine whether contamination from former agricultural 

chemical manufacturing may pose an unaccepfable threat and, if it does, to require 

potential responsible parties to address that contamination. 

The State ofTennessee concurs with placing this site on the NPL to implement this approach. 

This concurrence letter does not obligate the State ofTennessee to provide any matching funds 

to the remedial action. Further, it is Tennessee's preference that the remedial actions not result 

in a future high cost operation and maintenance obligation for the State. Any obligation for 

matching funds or operation and maintenance would be effectuated in a fhture Superfund State 

Contract. 
1 

Mr. A. Stanley Meiburg 

December 28, 2009 

Page 2 

If you have questions, please contact Mr. Andy Binford, Director of TDEC's Division of 

Remediation, at (615) 532-0911 or Andy.Binford@tn.gov. 

Deputy Commissioner 

PLS:AB:cm 

Cc: 	 Franklin Hill, EPA 

John Nolen, EPA 

Chuck Head, IDEC 

Andy Binford, TDEC
S. 2167

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

An Act

To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of certain provisions

of that Act and the lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism

Prevention Act of 2004 to July 1, 2006.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUNSET OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE

USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE LONE WOLF PROVISION OF

THE INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004.

Section 224(a) of the Uniting and Strengthening America by

Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct

Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001 (18 U.S.C. 2510 note)

is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2005’’ and inserting ‘‘February 3, 2006’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6839

MICHAEL RANKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus DENNIS ROWLAND; MICHAEL A. MUNNS; RICHARD T. JONES; BOBBY MONTAGUE; J. A. REID; SHARON SNIDER; NURSE CRAIG, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:05-ct-00621-FL) Submitted: August 14, 2006 Decided: August 29, 2006 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Rankins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Michael Rankins appealed the district court’s order granting his pro se motion to reconsider the dismissal of two defendants, denying his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, denying his motion to reconsider dismissal of one defendant, denying his motion for appointment of counsel, and ordering him to particularize his claims against some defendants in his § 1983 action. In his action, Rankins sought compensatory and punitive money damages, declarative relief, a temporary restraining order, and preliminary injunctive relief. While we grant Rankins leave to proceed without prepayment of fees under the PLRA, we dismiss this appeal. As in his previous appeal before this panel, Rankins v. Rowland, No. 05-7811, 2006 WL 1836671 (4th Cir. June 27, 2006) (unpublished), Rankins alleged the ventilation system of the “H-Con Supermax Unit” in which he was housed at the Butner Correctional Facility was inadequate because the air contained dust and lint particles that caused him to have burning eyes, to cough excessively, and to cough up mucus mixed with blood. He alleged in his complaint that his grievances were denied in June and July 2005 and that his medical treatment for the cough, chest pain, stomach pain, vomiting, and blood in his stool was inadequate. He also claimed he was denied exercise.- 3 - Rankins is now incarcerated in Central Prison in Raleigh, North Carolina, so his claims for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief are now moot, and we dismiss the appeal as to those claims for that reason. Though Rankins does not complain on appeal about the district court’s disposition of his claims for damages (which are not mooted by his transfer) based upon inadequate medical care and harm from the alleged inadequate ventilation system at Butner, his appeal as to those claims is interlocutory. The district court ordered Rankins to particularize those claims, so the court’s order is not a final, appealable order in that respect. For these reasons, we dismiss Rankins’ appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 21, 2023

No. 04-23-00575-CR

IN RE Juan Manuel GONZALEZ

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On June 7, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the 

petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition 

for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

It is so ORDERED on June 21, 2023.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of June, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. K-89-000237, styled State of Texas v. Juan Manuel Gonzalez, pending in 

the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Elma T. Salinas-Ender presiding.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-40512

Conference Calendar

 

JAMES EUGENE GOEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SCOTTY KYLE, Deputy Warden; JOEL WATKINS,

Hearing Officer; MARVIN BYNUM, Program

Manager; BRADSHAW STATE JAIL; MANAGEMENT

TRAINING CORP. (MTC),

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:99-CV-680

- - - - - - - - - -

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

James Eugene Goen, a Texas prisoner (# 823930), appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). 

Goen has asserted that the defendants violated his First

Amendment rights by filing a disciplinary report against him in

retaliation for his filing of a grievance against a prison

official. He has also alleged that the defendants had violated
No. 00-40512 

-2-

his due process rights at the disciplinary hearing that followed,

when they prevented him from calling inmate witnesses in his

defense and his substitute counsel performed ineffectively. The

district court concluded that Goen’s retaliation claim was

conclusional and that his due process claims were frivolous under

the rule of Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing Goen’s complaint as frivolous. See Ruiz v. United

States, 160 F.3d 273, 274-75 (5th Cir. 1998) (Bivens-type civil

rights claim by federal inmate). Goen’s allegations in support

of his retaliation claim have been and remain too conclusional to

state a claim that the defendants acted in a retaliatory manner

against him. See Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir.

1995). Insofar as Goen has asserted that his due process rights

were violated at his disciplinary hearing, the punishments

imposed for the purported disciplinary violation did not

implicate a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest. 

See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 274; Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193

(5th Cir. 1995). 

AFFIRMED.
#### Soshana DASHEW, Appellant, v. Hy MARKS, Appellee.

No. 77-1644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 29, 1977.

Shevin, Shapo & Shevin and David A. Freedman, Miami, for appellant.

Nelan Sweet, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., HAVERFIELD, J., and DREW, E. HARRIS (Ret.), Associate Judge.

DREW (Ret.), Associate Judge.

On 26 May 1977 the trial court, pursuant to Rule 1.420(e), Fla.R.Civ.P., dismissed this cause for failure to take any action by the filing of pleadings, order of court, or otherwise for one year. Plaintiff moved to rein*555state the cause, because “the plaintiff was under the impression that the attorney for the defendant was to prepare (an) appropriate order” for the court, reducing to writing the court’s oral rulings on certain motions filed in the cause, but “the order was never prepared and the cause remained dormant awaiting said order” for more than the time allowed by the rule. Further, the defendant alleged he “has a good and valid law suit and in the interests of justice is prepared to proceed to trial upon notice * * * The trial court, after hearing, granted the motion and reinstated the cause, from which order this appeal has been prosecuted. The appellee has not favored this court with a brief.

As to the first ground for reinstatement, the delay of the court in handing down a written order after an oral decision on the pleadings does not relieve the plaintiff of his duty to proceed and does not affect the defendant’s right of dismissal.1 It is plaintiff’s responsibility to expedite the litigation commenced by him and ensure the prompt dispatch of the court’s business.2

The second ground alleged is wholly without merit to warrant reinstatement of an action dismissed under the rule. The court’s determination that the case should be reinstated because the interests of justice would be served by allowing the defendant his day in court finds no support in the reported cases, and is clearly not a basis for reinstatement contemplated by the rule.3

Reversed, with directions to reinstate the order of dismissal.

1

. *Karkeet v. Snyder,*275 So.2d 302 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1973); *Moore v. Gannon,*178 So.2d 618 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965).

2

. *Elmer A. Yelvington & Sons, Inc. v. Sheridan,*65 So.2d 44 (Fla. 1953). Also see: *Dobson v. Crews,*164 So.2d 252 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964).

3

. *Laug v. Murphy,*205 So.2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); *Schreyer v. Liniado,*100 So.2d 199 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1958).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 173 (Monday, September 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23670]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[MT-020-1430-00]


Order--Closure of Public Lands in Yellowstone County, MT

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Montana, Miles City District, 
Billings Resource Area, Interior.

ACTION: Temporary closure of 379.9 acres of public lands to use of 
motorized vehicles and discharge of firearms.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is served that public land south of Laurel, known as 
the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone property (formerly the Altman 
Ranch), is closed to the use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs), and the 
discharge of any firearm including pellet guns. The closure will be in 
effect from the publication date of this notice in the Federal 
Register, until public consultation is complete and an activity plan 
for the area is approved. OHV use includes all types of motor vehicles 
except for those authorized for administrative operations for farming 
and property maintenance or other BLM management programs. The area 
will remain open as a walk-in area for archery hunting, hiking, 
picnicking, skiing, and wildlife watching. This closure is necessary to 
protect the public lands, adjacent private property, and for public 
safety due to shooting.
    The public land protected by this closure is located at:
CLARKS FORK OF THE YELLOWSTONE TRACT

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 2 S., R. 24 E.,
    sec. 22; Lots 5,6
    Sec. 23: Lots 3,4 excluding Tract 1 described as Certificate of 
Survey #1750
    Sec. 23: Lots 2,5,7,8,10,N2SW
    Sec. 24: Lot 2 excluding Tract 1 described as Certificate of 
Survey #1750

DATES: Closure will be in effect from September 8, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Burton D. Williams, Area Manager, BLM, 
Billings Resource Area Office, 810 E. Main, Billings, Montana 59105 or 
call 406-238-1540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for this action is outlined in 
sections 302, 303, and 310 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of October 21, 1976, (43 U.S.C. 1716) and Title 43 Code of Federal 
Regulations, Subparts 8341 (43 CFR 8341.2) and 8364 (43 CFR 8364.1). 
Any person who fails to comply with this closure is subject to arrest 
and a fine up to $1000 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or 
both. This closure applies to all persons except persons authorized by 
the Bureau of Land Management.
Todd S. Christensen,
Acting District Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-23670 Filed 9-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
#### Henry KARWOWSKI, and Charlotte Karwowski, his wife, Appellants, v. Stanley PETERMAN and Lottie Peterman, his wife, Appellees.

No. 69-442.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 26, 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 30, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal quashed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Each of the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  (1)
    this periodic 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 this periodic report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Life Time Fitness, Inc. Dated: May 3, 2005 /s/ Bahram Akradi

Bahram AkradiChairman of the Board of Directors, 
President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Michael R. Robinson

Michael R. RobinsonExecutive Vice President and Chief 
Financial Officer
   29
**EXHIBIT 31**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Russ George certify that:  

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB (“Report”) of Planktos Corp.;  

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;   

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the period presented in this Report;   

 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;   

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and 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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  

 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 7, 2007  

 

/s/ Russ George

| Russ George |
|-------------|

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2089 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1271 North King Street in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, as the ‘‘Hiram 

L. Fong Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 13, 2005 

Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. INOUYE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1271 North King Street in Honolulu, Oahu, 

Hawaii, as the ‘‘Hiram L. Fong Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. HIRAM L. FONG POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1271 North King Street in Hon6 olulu, Oahu, Hawaii, shall be known and designated as 

7 the ‘‘Hiram L. Fong Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 
2 

•S 2089 IS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Hiram L. Fong Post 

3 Office Building’’. 

Æ
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUI LI CHENG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70081

Agency No. A098-539-959

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 19, 2012** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Hui Li Cheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

DEC 21 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-70081

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual

findings, including adverse credibility findings, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962

(9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination,

based on Cheng’s omission from her original asylum application and her asylum

interview of a forced abortion, see id. at 963, and Cheng’s explanations do not

compel a contrary conclusion, see Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.

2011) (record did not compel the finding that the IJ’s unwillingness to believe a

plausible explanation was erroneous in light of the importance of the omitted

incidents to the asylum claim). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s adverse

credibility determination based on his demeanor finding. See Singh-Kaur v. INS,

183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (“special deference” given to credibility

determinations based on demeanor); see also Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1256

(9th Cir. 2003) (evasive testimony supported adverse credibility finding). In the

absence of credible testimony, Cheng’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Because Cheng’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the IJ found not

credible, and she points to no further evidence to compel the finding it is more
3 07-70081

likely than not she would be tortured if returned to China, her CAT claim also fails. 

See id. at 1156-57.

Finally, we reject Cheng’s contention that the IJ exhibited bias in making his

adverse credibility findings. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-8001 SUSAN THOMPSON,

Petitioner,
v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent. On petitioner for review of a decision of the Bureau of Justice Assistance in PSOB claim no. 1998-0126.
ON MOTION Before LINN, Circuit Judge. ORDER Susan Thompson moves for an extension of time, until April 14, 2009, to file her brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT 

### APR 14 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: Susan Thompson Lauren A. Weeman, Esq. s20 FILED U.S.COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
APR 14 2009 Jwu raUllbALY CLERK