alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Raymond BOOKOUT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44797.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 11, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 285 So.2d 662.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Verlin C. KIRVEN and Beatrice G. Kirven, Appellants, v. The COMMERCIAL BANK AT WINTER PARK, a banking corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-73.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 30, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### FARBOIL COMPANY, a unit of Beatrice Chemical, a division of Beatrice Foods, Inc., Petitioner, v. DELRAY POOLS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Tru Pools, Inc., a Florida Corporation and Timscott Distributors, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Respondents.

No. 78-689.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 7, 1978.

*564Reed A. Bryan of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum, Ferris & Gardner, P. A., Fort Laud-erdale, for petitioner.

Ryan, Ryan & Fitzgerald and Malcolm Anderson, North Palm Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.

CROSS, ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
House Calendar No. 1

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–1

IN THE MATTER OF REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH--

pages 701 to 800
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
#### Edward R. MARSHALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-283.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 8, 1969.

Edward R. Marshall, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen. and James Robert Yon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*724PER CURIAM.

We have here for review the second of two motions made by defendant to vacate judgment and sentence for the crime of robbery, which was rendered on February 5, 1963. Upon the first motion to vacate being filed, the trial court appointed counsel who represented defendant throughout the full hearing held upon same and who perfected a full appeal from the final judgment. After a full appellate review by this Court, the judgment was affirmed, Marshall v. State, 176 So.2d 110 (Fla.App. 1st 1965).

The second successive motion filed by defendant contains basically the same grounds of attack as the first. Rule 1.850, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A., states inter alia that the sentencing court shall not be required to entertain a second or successive motion for similar relief on behalf of the same prisoner, or appeal on behalf of appellee.

We conclude that this defendant has had his “days” in court and, therefore, sua sponte dismiss this appeal.

Dismissed.

JOHNSON, Chief Judge, and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
No. 9611.

#### Hepburn *v.*Firestone.

(Decided January 22, 1907.)

Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana County.

*Messrs. Billingsley, Clark & DeFord*and *Mr. Lodge*Riddle, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Potts & Wells,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
#### Ex parte Justin Wayne WOOD.

6 Div. 618.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 4, 1977.

Rehearing Ex Mero Motu Denied Oct. 25, 1977.

Certiorari Granted Nov. 29, 1977.

No opinion.

All the Judges concur.

Writ Quashed, Ala., 355 So.2d 734.
Order entered Decem ber 23 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00717
- CR
FRANCISCO JAMES HURT ADO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. 366
- 81421
- 2012



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeal. On October 31, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to
pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and Stephanie Hudson has been appointed to represent him; (3) Ms. Hudson’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is her workload; and (4) Ms. Hudson needs thirty days from the December 19, 2014 findings to file appellant’s brief. We note that appellant’s brief is already three months overdue, Ms. Hudson at no time filed a motion to extend time to file the brief, and the appeal has been abated for nearly sixty days awaiting the findings. Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file his brief by JANUARY20, 2015 . No further extensions will be granted. If appellant’s brief is not filed within the time

specified, the Court will utilize the available remedies to obtain the brief, which may include ordering that Stephanie Hudson be removed as appellate counsel and that the trial court appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this case.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Ray Wheless, Presiding Judge, 366th Judicial District Court; Stephanie Hudson; and John Rolater.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

CORRPRO COMPANIES, INC. (34-1422570)

1)    Bass Software, Inc. (Texas)

2)    CCFC, Inc. (Nevada)

3)    Ocean City Research Corporation (New Jersey 52-1210791)

4)    Corrpro International, Inc. (fka Corrpro Companies Latin America, Inc.)
      (Delaware)

      a)    Corrpro Companies C.A. (Venezuela)

      b)    Commonwealth Seager Holdings, Ltd. (Alberta)

            1)    Corrpro Canada, Inc. (Alberta, co. no. 206094559)

                  A)    Corrpro Tecna Ltda (Columbia, LLC) (50%)

                  B)    Borza Inspections Ltd.

                  C)    Fusion Alloys Ltd.

5)    Wilson Walton Group Ltd.

      a)    Basco Limited (England, CN 1636357)

            1)    Basco Actel Ltd. (Texas)

      b)    Bosford Anode Supply Company Limited (England, CN 1269369)

      c)    Activatede Titanium Electrodes Limited (aka ACTEL) (England, CN
            3164967)

      d)    Wilson Walton Overseas Holdings Ltd. (UK)

            1)    Wilson Walton Anti Corrosivos (Portugal)

      e)    Corrpro Companies Europe Ltd.

      f)    Wilson Walton Investments Ltd.
#### MARTIN CO. v. COMMERCIAL CHEMISTS, INC.

No. 37977.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 213 So.2d 477.
#### HOLCOMB v. BARDILL.

No. 38121.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 214 So.2d 522.
Mission: Improving transportation to and within federal and tribal lands by providing technical services to the highway transportation community. This report only includes fiscal year (FY) 2013, FY 2014 and FY 2015, for updated 

information please visit: 

http://www.efl.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/fed

-lands-louisiana.aspxIf you have any questions please contact: Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager 571-434-1543, Jacinda.Russell@dot.govProgramming Decision Committee (PDC) members: Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, Jacinda.Russell@dot.govRobin Romeo, State Representative robin.romeo@la.govMarie Walsh, Local Representative mbwalsh@lrtc.lsu.edu

Louisiana 

Federal Lands Access Program (FLA

P) 

Improving access to and within federal and tribal lands

MAP-21 Funding Authorized: FY 2013: $1,253,394 FY 2014: $1,262,809 FY 2016: $1,237,493 Federal land acreage for the five core FLMAs: 3.92% Federal public road miles: 932.4 Number of Federal public bridges: 189 Recreational visitation: 3,964,480 visitors per year 

FLAP Project Selection Process 

The PDC establiincluded prefere “Shovel Re

Programminranking. 

 Projects that 

investments new project 

 Projects that 

Policy Act (Nexisting StatProgram (ST

0.0M 0.0M 0.0M

1.3M

2.5M

3.8M

2013 2014 2015

Obligations Allocations

Each FLAP project is selected from a pool of applications submitted by the facility owner in response to a state-wide call for projects. The applications are screened, rated, and ranked using PDC approved rating criteria. The PDC unanimously agreed which projects met the established State program goals and conformed with the project ranking criteria contained in the “Call for Projects SOP”. Based upon these evaluations, the 

proposed projects are recommended for programming within the available funding for each state. Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) are coordinated and executed for each programmed project prior to obligation of FLAP funds. There was one call for projects that generated 1 application totaling $960,000 funds requested. The project was considered ineligible by the PDC.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7895
JANET LIVINGSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DEBORAH A. HICKEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Chief District Judge. (1:05-cv-00015) Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 5, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janet Livingston, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Janet Livingston, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Livingston v. Hickey , No. 1:05-cv-00015 (S.D.W. Va. Oct. 18, 2006). We deny Livingston’s motion for bail pending appeal and 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
CERTIFICATION OF CEO



 
Exhibit 10.1

 
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 Matrix
Service Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I Bradley S. Vetal, Chief Executive 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 based on 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.


 
This certification is deemed to accompany this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, but is not deemed “filed” for purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise. 
 

	 /s/    Bradley S. Vetal


	 Bradley S. Vetal

	 Chief Executive Officer
 January 9, 2003
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 240.13a-14 or240.15d-14of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended**

 
| I, Stephen S. Galliker,  certify that: |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 1.                                     | I have reviewed this  Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Dyax Corp.; and                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                                   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
| 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. |
|                                        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |  |

 

 
| Date:       May 6,  2005 |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                   |   |   |   | /s/ Stephen S. Galliker |   |
|                                                   |   |   |   | Stephen S. Galliker |
|                                                   |   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Step 1                    Identify                    Stakeholders                

                    Step 2                    Use                    Safety Data                

                    Step 3                    Choose Proven                    Solutions                

                    Step 4                    Implement                    Solutions                

                    Finish Line                

# Systemic Approach Training – Part 3

Content will open in a new window

## Tools and Resources

Guides
              - Implementing a LRSP

Training
              - Tutorial - Implement Solutions
              - Systemic Approach Training – Part 3

Webinars
              - LRSP Part #1: LRSP Implementation
              - LRSP Part #2: A Roadmap to Getting Home Safely
              - Implementing a Local Road Safety Plan
              - Local Safety Funding Options
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6916

ROBERT L. F. BARBER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-96-1006-R)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: April 29, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. F. Barber, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Barber v. Angelone, No. CA-96-1006-R (W.D.

Va. June 12, 1997). 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
#### Carl Franklin BREWER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. K-54.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

June *12, 1969.*

Rehearing Denied July 29, 1969.

T. Edward Austin, Jr., Public Defender, and Ralph W. Nimmons, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed on the authority of King v. State, 145 Fla. 286, 199 So. 38 (1940) and Marshall v. State, 89 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1956).

WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
##### 



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 Annual Report of ESS Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, James B. Boyd, 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 my knowledge: (1) The 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. March 16, 2005 /s/ JAMES B. BOYDJAMES B. BOYDChief Financial Officer
1

Moran, Nicole

From: William Bider <wbider@kdheks.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:40 AM

To: Moran, Nicole; Toensing, Don

Cc: John Mitchell; Gary Mason; Christine Mennicke

Subject: Kansas Part 256 CCR Plan - Submitted for Final EPA Approval

Attachments: CCR SWMP with Appendices 2015-09-29.pdf; CCR SWMP Report of the Hearing Officer 

2015-09-29.pdf; Sec. adoption of CCR plan, Oct 7, 2015.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Nicole, 

The Kansas Part 256 CCR Plan was adopted on October 7, 2015 following our public participation process and public 

hearing held on September 28, 2015. I am submitting the following documents to EPA for your final review and 

approval: 

• Final version of the Kansas Coal Combustions Residuals Part 256 Plan 

• The hearing officers report, including KDHE’s “Responsiveness Summary” related to received public comments 

on the CCR Plan 

• The CCR Plan adoption statement signed on October 7, 2015 by the Secretary of KDHE 

The Responsiveness Summary describes the minor edits made to the draft plan which EPA had previously reviewed and 

commented upon. These changes were based upon limited focused comments received from the Kansas Department of 

Agriculture which has authority related to the construction, operation, and maintenance of certain dams in 

Kansas. KDHE did accept and incorporate these comments into the plan to add clarity and detail. If you have any 

questions about these comments and edits, please let me know. 

KDHE hopes that EPA will be able to promptly review and approve of the plan so that all CCR compliance and 

enforcement protocols will be in place on the effective date of the first CCR regulations, October 19, 2015. We 

appreciate your efforts to work with us over the past year to accomplish this goal that we established in late 2014. 

Kansas intends to begin implementing our standard compliance monitoring and enforcement program at all CCR 

management facilities on October 19. All facility permits will be updated by that time including operations plans that 

address all applicable requirements in the CCR regulations. Phase 1 of our compliance and enforcement strategy that is 

based upon thorough and detailed permit conditions will be in place on October 19. Soon after that date, KDHE will 

initiate Phase 2 which is the adoption of the federal CCR rules by reference over the next year. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Bill Bider 

Director 

Bureau of Waste Management 

(785) 296-1612
Project Name Program 

Year

State County Applicant Cong. 

District

Primary Fund Source

Project Description Category FLMA 

Region

FLMA Unit 

SD FLAP CS23A(1) DELTA-01 ACCESS ROAD

FY23 SD Jackson Jackson SD at- large FLAP

The scope of this project will include 0.6 miles of roadway rehabilitation, asphalt surfacing, including drainage and safety improvements accessing the Minuteman Missile NHS.

3R4R NPS- MWR Minuteman Missle NHS 

SD FLAP WAUB 10(2) WAUBAY ENTRANCE ROAD

SD Day Day SD at- large FLAP

The scope of this project will include intersection realignment at the entrance to the NWR. Includes asphalt surfacing and roadway obliteration.

Safety FWS-R6 Waubay NWR 

SD FLAP 392(1) MAGA TA-HOHPI ACCESS ROAD

FY23 SD Beadle Hartland SD at- large FLAP

The scope of this project will include 1 mile of roadway reconstruction and aggregate surfacing, including drainage improvements, parking,and trail work inside Refuge.

4R FWS-R6

Huron WMD, Maga TaHohpi WPA 

SD FLAP 454(1) MYRON GROVE ACCESS ROAD

FY23 SD Clay Norway SD at- large FLAP

The scope of this project will include rehabilitation and paving of 1.5 miles of an existing gravel road.

3R NPS- MWR

Missouri National Recreational River

SD FLAP 185(1) LITTLE BEND ROAD

FY27 SD Sully Sully SD at- large FLAP

The scope of this project will include 8 Miles of roadway rehabilitation and asphalt surfacing accessing Lake Oahe.

3R USACE- NW Lake Oahe 

SOUTH DAKOTA FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM - CYCLE 3 - SELECTED PR
Mink & Duke, PLLC 

September 15, 2014 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS- 8029 3463 8913 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue SW 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2Wl000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Dear Sir/l\1adam: 

RE: Docket No. 2011CE190020 

In Re: Our Client: Smyrna Air Center, Inc" 

Our File No: SAC-2258 

Thomas F" Mink, ll "---

P.O. Box t98742 

219 Second Avenue North, Suite 400 

Ntdhvilie, TN 37219-8742 

Phone: (615) 256-·0 l38 

Fax: (615} 730-5997 

RECEIVED 

SEP 1 6 2014 

HEARING DOCKET 

;(Oll./- Qlp&S 

We are representing Smyrna A.ir Center, Inc. in the above matter. We recently received a 

Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty issued to Smyrna Air Center, Inc. on August 27, 2014. 

Please constitute this letter as a request for hearing on behalf of Smyrna Air Center, Inc., as set 

forth in the Final Notice. 

As instructed, we are providh1g a copy of this request for hearing to attorney Ryan M. 

Landers, in the office of Regional Counsel, Randy Ellen Hyman" 

If you have any questions regarding the request for a hearing, or requrre further 

information for the same, please do not hesitate to contact our offices. 

Nashvilh:~ @> Lawrenceburg 
Federal Aviation Administration 

September 15,2014 

Page2 

With kindest regards, I remain, 

Very truly yours, 

MINK & DUKE, PLLC 

By: ne.wM r. !&.qt 11 . -·······- -·-·······-l--

Thomas F. Mink, II 

TFM/nw 

cc: Ryan M. Landers