alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carolyn BRYE, Appellant, v. Gordon BRYE, Appellee.

No. 69-415.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Jan. 5, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

Shane Young 

Facility Manager 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 941.05 

November 8, 2013 

Sierra Pacific Industries -Anderson Division 

19758 Riverside Avenue 

Anderson, CA 96007 

In Reply 

Refer To: 

AIR-3 

SAC 12-01 

Subject: Proposed PSD Permit for Sierra Pacific Industries -Anderson Division 

Dear Mr. Young: 

This letter and the enclosed materials are in response to your application for a Clean Air Act 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air quality permit to construct and operate a new 

cogeneration unit and ancillary equipment at the Sierra Pacific Industries' existing lumber 

manufacturing facility in Anderson, California. 

We have reviewed your application, and supporting materials, based on the criteria in the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. Enclosed are the 

proposed PSD permit, Supplemental Fact Sheet/ Ambient Air Quality Impact Report (AAQIR), 

and public notice. The public notice announces the commencement of the public comment 

period for the proposed permit, and the public hearing scheduled for December 10, 2013. The 

public notice will also be published in the Redding Record Searchlight on Friday, November 8, 

2013. 

If you have any questions, you may contact me at (415) 972-3974 or rios.gerardo@epa.gov, or 

Shaheerah Kelly at (415) 947-4156 or kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov. 

Gerardo C. Rios 

Chief, Permits Office 

Air Division 
Enclosures 

cc: Eric Albright, ENVIRON International Corporation 

David C. Brown, Sierra Pacific Industries 

Ross Bell, Shasta County Air Quality Management District 

John Waldrop, Shasta County Air Quality Management District 

Robert Fletcher, California Air Resources Board 

2
#### Phillip B. WHITTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-27.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 8, 1970.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and Edwin T. Mulock, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Kaminski v. State, Fla. 1954, 72 So.2d 400; Champlin v. State, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 412.

HOBSON, C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 12.1

NTL INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

|                                       |            | Year ended December 31, |       
|-------------------------------------- | ---------- | ----------------------- | ------
|
|
|
|
|Fixed charges:                         |            |                         |       
|Interest                               |            | $                       | 496.6 
|Interest portion of rental expense     |            |                         | 27.3  
|                                       |            |                         |       
|Fixed charges                          |            | $                       | 523.9 
|                                       |            |                         |       
|Earnings:                              |            |                         |       
|(Loss) from continuing operations      |            | $                       | (891.4
|Fixed charges                          |            |                         | 523.9 
|Less: capitalized interest             |            |                         |      
|                                       |            |                         |       
|                                       |            | $                       | (367.5
|                                       |            |                         |       
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (2) |            |                         |       
|                                       | Deficiency |                         |       

---

The
ratio of earnings to fixed charges and combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends is not meaningful for the periods that result in a deficit.

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-Q of GenTek Inc. (the
"Company") for the nine months ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Richard R.
Russell, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Matthew R. Friel, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 'SS' 1350, as adopted pursuant to 'SS' 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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.

/s/  Richard R. Russell
     -------------------------------
     Richard R. Russell
     Chief Executive Officer
     November 14, 2003


/s/  Matthew R. Friel
     -------------------------------
     Matthew R. Friel
     Chief Financial Officer
     November 14, 2003

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to 'SS' 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
'SS' 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by 'SS' 906 has been
provided to GenTek Inc. and will be retained by GenTek Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
USGS CMG EQUIPMENT LOG

ACTIVITY ID: 11BIM01

EQUIPMENT 

SYSTEM

EQUIPMENT

TYPE

EQUIPMENT

CODE

EQUIPMENT

BRAND

EQUIPMENT

MODEL

EQUIPMENT

MEDIA COMMENTS

Chirp High-resolution 

seismic Chirp (C) EdgeTech 3200 SB-424 Subbottom Profiler Digital

DISCOVER

acquisition 

software, version

3.51.

Navigation IMU/GPS DGPS CodaOctopus

Octopus F190

Precision 

Attitude and 

Positioning 

System

Digital

OmniSTAR-High 

Performance (HP) 

correction; 20-cm 

accuracy. Used for 

chirp and swath.

Navigation Hydrographic 

survey software Hypack HYPACK, Inc. Hypack version 9 Digital Hypack 2010, used for ship navigation.

Swath

Swath 

interferometric 

sonar and highresolution 

bathymetry

Swath (M)

Systems 

Engineering and 

Assessment 

(SEA), Inc.

SWATHplus-M

234 kHz 

Digital

Swath processor 

software version 

3.06.
EXHIBIT 99.2

WRITTEN STATEMENT
 PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned, Kevin W. Pendergest, the Chief Financial Officer, of Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, hereby certifies that:

(i)   the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: March 26, 2003 | /s/ Kevin W. Pendergest
|-------------------- | -----------------------
|                     | Kevin W. Pendergest    



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. and will be retained by Sun
Healthcare Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
FILED: November 3, 2015

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

___________________ 

No. 14-7410

(1:98-cr-00358-LMB-4)

(1:11-cv-01413-LMB)

(1:09-cv-01008-LMB)

___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v. 

WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA

 Defendant - Appellant

___________________ 

O R D E R

___________________

 The court previously denied rehearing and rehearing en banc and issued its 

mandate in this case on October 21, 2015. The court now recalls the mandate and 

grants panel rehearing pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 40. 

 The clerk is directed to consolidate this case with No. 15-6137, United States 

v. Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora. 

 Entered at the direction of the panel: Judge Duncan, Judge Diaz, and Senior 

Judge Davis. 

 For the Court 

 /s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

UNPUBLISHED
SERVED: SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

ARCTIC AIR ALASKA, INC. 

DOCKETNO. FAA2014-0316 

(Civil Penalty Action). 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DECISION 

';' 

On July 22,2014 the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") filed 

a Motion for Decision. On August 26, 2014 we served our Order to Show Cause. On 

September 8, 2014, Arctic Air Alaska, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") filed a letter 

which we treated as a response to our Order to Show Cause. In Respondent's letter he 

represents Respondent is a small company. Respondent is currently prose. 

We amended our Procedural Order. 

We will treat Respondent's letter as an Answer to the Complaint. 

Respondent also filed tax returns which we will seal under Protective Order until 

further review. 

WHEREFORE, FAA's Motion for Decision and Respondent's letter having been read 

and considered it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

1. FAA's Motion for Decision is DENIED, without prejudice. 

.... , . ., 

:,-: i . ~ .. :':"\,. '·· ·-,, 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment- Service List 

1 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE 

COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence A venue, 

S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 · 

James I. Hamilton, President /CEO 

Arctic Air Alaska, Inc., Respondent 

3540 University Ave. South 

Fairbanks, AK 99709 

Peter Lynch, Complainant's Counsel 

Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Enforcement 

Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-300 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-7728 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-31 0) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0316 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 S~rvice was by p.s. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federa 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S. W., Wilbur Wrig_ht Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
```

[113th Congress Public Law 45]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 127 STAT. 557]]

Public Law 113-45
113th Congress

                                 An Act

 
    To ensure that any new or revised requirement providing for the 
  screening, testing, or treatment of individuals operating commercial 
 motor vehicles for sleep disorders is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking 
   proceeding, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Oct. 15, 2013 -  [H.R. 
                                3095]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 49 USC 31305 note.>>  COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE 
                              OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO 
                              SLEEP DISORDERS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation may implement or 
enforce a requirement providing for the screening, testing, or treatment 
(including consideration of all possible treatment alternatives) of 
individuals operating commercial motor vehicles for sleep disorders only 
if the requirement is adopted pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a requirement 
that was in force before September 1, 2013.
    (c) Sleep Disorders Defined.--In this section, the term ``sleep 
disorders'' includes obstructive sleep apnea.

    Approved October 15, 2013.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3095:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113-225 (Comm. on Transportation and Infrastructure).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 159 (2013):
            Sept. 25, 26, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 4, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EDWARD J. NICHOLAS, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) C.A. No. 06-211 Erie

) District Judge McLaughlin

NATIVA WOOD, et al, ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

Defendants. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice

to Plaintiff’s right to pay the filing fee of $350.00 before October 20, 2006. 

II. REPORT

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Albion, presented

this civil rights complaint, along with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Section 804(g) of Pub.L. No. 104-134, enacted April 26, 1996, amended 28 U.S.C. §

1915 to provide:

[i]n no events shall a prisoner bring a civil action ... under this section if the

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any

facility, brought an action or appeal in the court of the United States that was

dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. §1915(g).

Plaintiff has been a prolific advocate in this federal court. At least three of Plaintiff’s

prior lawsuits have been dismissed as legally frivolous: Civil Actions Numbers 06-98Erie, 06-

112Erie, and 06-201Erie, all filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania. 

Case 1:06-cv-00211-SJM-SPB Document 4 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

An indigent inmate may overcome the “Three Strikes Rule” if he can show that he is

under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307

(3d Cir. 2001) (interpreting imminent danger). Plaintiff has not alleged such imminent danger.

Accordingly, Plaintiff must pay the full filing fee before October 20, 2006, or risk

dismissal of this action.

III. CONCLUSION

Because of these prior dismissals, and because Plaintiff has not alleged that he is in

imminent danger of serious physical injury, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed

without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to pay the full filing fee of $350.00 to the Clerk of Courts

before October 20, 2006. 

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local

Rule 72.1.4B, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written

objections to this report. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the

date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to timely file objections may constitute

a waiver of any appellate rights.

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: October 2, 2006

Case 1:06-cv-00211-SJM-SPB Document 4 Filed 10/02/06 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53685-53686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27242]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Partnership Council Meeting

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) announces a meeting of 
the DOT Partnership Council (the Council). Notice of this meeting is 
required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

TIME AND PLACE: The Council will meet on Thursday, October 30, 1997, at 
10:00 a.m., at the Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, the 
Fletcher Room, room 10214, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. The conference room is located on the 10th floor.

TYPE OF MEETING: These meetings will be open to the public. Seating 
will be available on a first-come, first-served basis. Handicapped 
individuals wishing to attend should contact DOT to obtain appropriate 
accommodations.

POINT OF CONTACT: John E. Budnik or Jean B. Lenderking, Corporate Human 
Resources Leadership Division, M-13, Department of Transportation, 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., room 9425, Washington, DC 
20590, (202) 366-9439 or (202) 366-8085, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this meeting is to provide an 
update of current issues within the Department of Transportation 
including smoking policy, career transition plan update, and labor-
management climate survey status.


[[Page 53686]]


PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: We invite interested persons and organizations to 
submit comments. Mail or deliver your comments or recommendations to 
Ms. Jean Lenderking at the address shown above. Comments should be 
received by October 27, 1997 in order to be considered at the October 
30 meeting. Only comments submitted in advance will be considered.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 8, 1997.

    For the Department of Transportation.
John E. Budnik,
Associate Director, Corporate Human Resources Leadership Division.
[FR Doc. 97-27242 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                    EVANS SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Evans System, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Blair R. Couey,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Blair R. Couey
---------------------------
Blair R. Couey
President and
Chief Executive Officer
December 30, 2002
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES )

) CR 7-25

v. ) CV 16-44

CHARLES YEAGER

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On July 21, 2008, Defendant was convicted of one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). 

Subsequently, in December 2008, Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 216 

months, followed by a term of supervised release. The sentence rested, in part, on Defendant’s 

career offender status under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924. 

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

Relief is available under Section 2255 only under exceptional circumstances, when the 

claimed errors of law are "a fundamental defect which inherently results in a complete 

miscarriage of justice," or "an omission inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair 

procedure." Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 428, 82 S. Ct. 468, 7 L. Ed. 2d 417 (1962). A 

district court need not hold an evidentiary hearing on a Section 2255 motion if the motion, files, 

and records show conclusively that the defendant is not entitled to relief. United States v. Ritter, 

93 Fed. Appx. 402 (3d Cir. 2004). In this case, a hearing is unnecessary, and the Motion will be 

disposed of on the record. 

At a December 11, 2008 sentencing hearing, Judge McLaughlin sentenced Defendant as a 

career offender based on three predicate convictions, including one for terroristic threats. On 

February 19, 2016, Defendant filed a Section 2255 Motion, contending, inter alia, that the 

Case 1:07-cr-00025-DWA Document 90 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 2
2

terroristic threats conviction could only have qualified as a violent felony under ACCA’s 

residual clause, and thus is no longer valid pursuant to Johnson v. United States, __ U.S.__, 135 

S. Ct. 2551, 192 L. Ed. 2d 569 (2015). Following Defendant’s Motion, before being transferred 

to my docket, the matter was assigned to Judge Cercone, who established a two-phased briefing 

schedule. Phase I would address the predicate offenses actually relied on at sentencing 

supported a constitutionally valid sentence, and Phase II would, if necessary, address the 

resentencing process. In response, the Government correctly concedes that Defendant’s 

conviction for terroristic threats no longer qualifies as a predicate conviction under ACCA. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion is granted, and his sentence vacated. The Clerk of Courts is 

directed to transfer this matter, along with the corresponding criminal matter at CR 7-25, to 

Judge Cercone for further proceedings in accordance with his June 1, 2016 Order.

AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2016, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

BY THE COURT:

/s/Donetta W. Ambrose

________________________________

Donetta W. Ambrose

Senior Judge, U.S. District Court

Case 1:07-cr-00025-DWA Document 90 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 2
#### METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. John STOPKO and the Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 41067.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 29, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.