alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1237

NANCY J. NEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus XEROX CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 98-1244

NANCY J. NEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus XEROX CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie and J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judges. (CA-96-1235-2, CA-97-553-2) Submitted: April 21, 1998 Decided: July 2, 19982 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. No. 98-1237 dismissed and No. 98-1244 affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy J. Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Ann Bertini, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, Norfolk, Virginia; Eva Susan Tashjian-Brown, Rodney Allen Satterwhite, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals Appellant appeals from the voluntary dismissal of her Title VII * complaint. (No. 98-1237). We find that Appellant’s complaint was voluntarily dismissed by final order entered on June 2, 1997, and Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on February 12, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a timely appeal leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. Appellant further appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss her second complaint filed on the same facts as the first. (No. 98-1244). We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss No. 98-1237 as untimely and we affirm No. 98-1244 on the reasoning of the district court. Neal v. Xerox Corp. , Nos. CA-96-1235-2; CA-97-553-2 (E.D. Va. June 2, 1997; Jan. 15, 1998).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.

No. 98-1237 - DISMISSED No. 98-1244 - AFFIRMED
#### Edward C. KELLERMEYER, and Computer-Dial Corporation of America, Appellants, v. John BRETT and Harry Twichen and the First National Bank of Miami Springs, a Banking corporation, Appellees.

No. 69-195.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 24, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

December 2, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Recommendation for a General W aiver for the A quatic Field Dissipation Study Requirement for Proposed Watercress Uses

FROM: Donald J. Brady, Ph.D., Director Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) Office of Pesticide Programs

TO: Susan Lewis , Director Registration Division (7505 P) Office of Pesticide Programs

Rick P. Keigwin, Jr., Director

Pesticide Re

- evaluation Division (7508P) Office of Pesticide Programs

This memorandum recommends a general waiver for the aquatic field d issipation study requirement for proposed and registered uses on watercress. The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 158.1300) indicates that an aquatic field dissipation study (Guideline 835.6200) is required to support aquatic use patterns including use on watercress. However, the cost of the study is disproportionate to the extent of watercress grown in the United States (the Census of Agriculture indicates that 733 acres were harvested nationwide in 2012 (USDA, 2014))

. Therefore, this study requirement should be waived except for a proposed use on watercress for a pesti cide that is not proposed or currently registered for any other outdoor agricultural uses. In practice, this general waiver recommendation removes the requirement for FIFRA Section 3 applicants to submit an aquatic field dissipation study or to request a waiver for this study to support a proposed use on watercress, unless watercress is the only proposed use for the pesticide.

This general waiver recommendation for watercress uses should apply to all FIFRA Section 3 applications and to Registration Review actions. However, in the absence of this study

, if risks

of concern are identified that cannot be mitigated

, EPA may require an aquatic field dissipation study to address special concerns. This general waiver recommendation may be rescinded if the

exten t of watercress grown in the United States increases substantially.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service. United States Summary and State Data, Volume 1

. AC

12

- A

- 51

. Issued May 2014

. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Isabel Marie GONZALES et al., Appellees.

No. FF-143.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 7, 1978.

William E. Whitley, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Larry G. Turner, Gainesville, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before this Court on certification under Rule 4.6, F.A.R. by the Circuit Court of Alachua County, sitting as an appellate court, in an appeal from a county court. The rule does not provide for certification under these circumstances. *American Express Company v. Habersin Camera Shops, Inc.,*209 So.2d 283 (3d DCA 1968).

The question certified is not properly before us and is hereby DENIED.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JUN 26 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM PATRICK BABCOCK,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. BOBBY BOONE, Warden, Mack H. Alford Correctional Center; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 96-7105 (E. Dist. of Oklahoma) (D.C. No. 95-CV-167-S)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , PORFILIO, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

This case is before the court on petitioner William P. Babcock’s application for a certificate of appealability to appeal the di strict court’s denial of Babcock’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. After con cluding that Babcock had procedurally defaulted his claims for post-convicti on relief by failing to raise them on direct appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Crim inal appeals, Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 750-53 (1991), the district court d enied Babcock a certificate of appealability. Section 102 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Deat h Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 requires state habeas petitioners to obtain certificates of appealability prior to seeking appellate review of final orders i n habeas proceedings. Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217 (April 26, 1996) (codif ied at 28 U.S.C. § 2253). A habeas petitioner is entitled to a certificate of appealability only if the petitioner has made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This court has recognized that the standard for granting a certificate of appealability under the AEDPA is the same as the standard set out by the Supreme Court in Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880 (1983). See Lennox v. Evans , 87 F.3d 431, 434 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 746 (1996). Under the Barefootstandard, a certificate will issue only where the petitioner has demonstrated that the issues raised are debatable a mong jurists of reason, a court-3-

could resolve the issues differently, or the questi ons presented are deserving of further proceedings. 463 U.S. at 893 n.4. This court has reviewed Babcock’s application for acertificate of appealability, briefs and contentions, and the enti re record on appeal. Because Babcock has not demonstrated that the district cour t’s conclusion that Babcock’s claims are procedurally barred is subject to debate or deserving of further proceedings, we DENY Babcock a certificate of appealability and DISMISS his appeal. ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
Treasury approves South Dakota’s plan to invest $69.6 million of CPF 

funding in a multi-purpose community facility to improve resources for 

communities that enable work, education, and health monitoring.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

South Dakota

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

 Program Summary: $69.6 million for a Multi-Purpose Community Facility (60% of 

CPF allocation)

 Program Description: The construction of the 

Department of Health Workforce Development 

and Education Center will provide public access to 

computers and Wi-Fi to enable community members 

to complete job searches, prepare resumes, submit 

job applications, and conduct telehealth appointments. The center will also host 

in-person and virtual programs such as literacy events and career fairs as well as 

classes across a variety of topics including: safe sleep education for new parents; 

new parent classes; injury prevention; first aid and CPR; healthy relationships; 

substance use and abuse; suicide prevention; mental health and resiliency; and 

senior health and insurance education. 

 Key State Contact: South Dakota Department of Health (SDDOH)

South Dakota Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information

The programming and 

services offered through 

this facility are designed 

to serve all residents of 

the state, a population of 

over 913,000 individuals.
Attachment 012– TS1201UC – A risk Assessment 

1 of 2 pages

Sanitized
Attachment 012– TS1201UC – Risk Asessment

2 of 2pages

sanitized
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         856,846
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,179,875
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (6,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,185,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,633,798
<PP&E>                                       2,327,459
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,659,169)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,765,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          367,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           77,500
<PREFERRED>                                        597
<COMMON>                                        85,189
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,235,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,765,926
<SALES>                                      1,812,205
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,818,310
<CGS>                                        1,172,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,172,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               458,023
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                187,791
<INCOME-TAX>                                    63,849
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            123,942
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   123,942
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01


</TABLE>
## HEAL BORROWER LOAN STATUS UPDATES RECORD LAYOUT

1 Item # Field Name Required/ Optional Type Size Column Format 1 Loan ID R Number 12 1 - 12 YYYYBB999999 2 Social Security Number R Character 9 14-22 999999999 3 Last Name of Borrower R Character 30 24-53 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4 First Name of Borrower R Character 25 55 -79 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5 Middle Initial of Name O Character 1 81 -81 X 6 File Type R Character 2 83 -84 SO (status original) or SE (status errors) 7 Holder ID Number R Number 6 86-91 999999 8 Servicer ID Number R Number 6 93 -98 999999 9 New Social Security Number O* Character 9 100- 108 999999999 10 Current Loan Status R Character 2 110- 111 Values: G, R, F, I, Q, PB, PO, EP 11 Effective Date of Loan

Status R Date 8 113 - 120 YYYYMMDD 12 Actual

Graduation/Separation Date R Date 8 122 - 129 YYYYMMDD 13 Deferment Type R** Character 2 131 - 132 Values: FT, IR, GF, PC, AC, AP, PP, CH, IH 14 Repayment Date R*** Date 8 134- 141 YYYYMMDD 15 Current Repayment Plan R**** Character 1 143 - 143 G (Graduated), I (Income Sensitive), L (Level) 16 Current Outstanding Loan

Balance R Number 9 145 - 153 999999.99 17 Current Principal Balance R Number 9 155 - 163 999999.99 18 Current Monthly Payment

Amount R Number 7 165 - 171 9999.99 19 Current Interest Rate R Number 6 173 - 178 99.999 20 # of Days Delinquent/Past

Due R Number 4 180- 183 9999 21 Refinanced Loan R Character 1 185 - 185 Y (Yes), N(No) 22 Borrower’s Street Address

(home) - 1 st R Character 60 187 - 246 Street Number and Name 23 Borrower’s Street Address

(hm) - 2 nd R Character 60 248-307 Street Number and Name 24 Borrower’s City (home) R Character 30 309 -338 City

## HEAL BORROWER LOAN STATUS UPDATES RECORD LAYOUT

2 Item # Field Name Required/ Optional Type Size Column Format 25 Borrower’s State (home) R Character 2 340-341 State or FC if Foreign Country 26 Borrower’s Zip Code (home) R Number 9 343 -351 Can be either 5 or 9 digits. No dashes. 27 Borrower’s Country (home) R Character 25 353 -377 XXXXXXXX Spell Out Country XXXXXXXX 28 Borrower’s Phone Number

(home) R Number 10 379 -388 9999999999 29 Borrower’s E - mail Address O Character 50 390-439 Email Address 30 Borrower’s Street Address

(business) - 1 st O Character 60 441 -500 Street Number and Name 31 Borrower’s Street Address

(business) - 2 nd O Character 60 502 -561 Street Number and Name 32 Borrower’s City (business) O Character 30 563 -592 City 33 Borrower’s State (business) O Character 2 594-595 State or FC if Foreign Country 34 Borrower’s Zip Code

(business) O Number 9 597 -605 Can be either 5 or 9 digits. No dashes. 35 Borrower’s Country

(business) O Character 25 607 -631 XXXXXXXX Spell Out Country XXXXXXXX 36 Borrower’s Phone Number

(business) O Number 10 633 -642 9999999999 37 Filler R 58 643 -700 Space characters R=Required O=Optional, report when data is available *If reporting SSN change, then “required” on all loan records for the borrower reported on this file. **Required only when loan status is a “I” or “Q” ***Required except when submitting statuses of “G” or “I” ****Required for all loan statuses except “G” or “I”
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63089-63093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30985]



[[Page 63089]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary
[Transmittal No. 98-09]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Defense Security Assistance Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of P.L. 104-164 dated 21 July 
1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmitted 98-09, with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, Section 620C(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
and sensitivity of technology pages.

    Dated: November 20, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 63090]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.008



[[Page 63091]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.009



[[Page 63092]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.010



[[Page 63093]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.011



      
[FR Doc. 97-30985 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JEFFREY SCOTT, :

:

Plaintiff :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-2379

:

WARDEN DOMINICK DEROSE, : (Judge Brann)

ET AL., :

:

Defendants :

ORDER

August 23, 2016

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, , IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. Defendants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the Complaint (Doc.

14) is GRANTED.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

3. Any appeal from this Order will be deemed frivolous, without

probable cause and not taken in good faith.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02379-MWB-JVW Document 17 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 1
December 6, 2012

Mr. Denny Mantello

Director of Operations

Evergreen Helicopters of Alaska, Inc.

3850 Three Mile Lane

McMinnville, OR 97128

Dear Mr. Mantello:

We regret to inform you that, based on similar petitions we have received, we may have to 

deny your petition for exemption. This letter explains why we may deny your petition and 

what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We May Deny Your Petition

On November 5, 2012, you sent us a letter in which you requested an exemption from 

Operation Specification B050-1of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). We have 

added your petition to the public docket (No. FAA-2012-1201).

In your petition, you state that you would like to be allowed to conduct fixed wing medical 

evacuation for United States civilian and DoD contracted personnel from various locations 

within Iraq to international hospital facilities.

It is important for you to know that the FAA has issued denials of exemption in circumstances 

similar to those presented in your petition. An example of this type of denial, Exemption 

No. 10523, is enclosed for your review. As noted in this denial, the FAA found that the 

petitioner failed to provide needed safety and security information regarding planned flight 

operations in Iraq.

Because the previous denial of exemption dealt with circumstances very similar to those 

presented in your petition, there is little reason to believe that we would grant your petition for 

exemption.

What You Should Do

• Before we commit agency resources to process and analyze your exemption request, we 

suggest that you review the enclosed denials of exemption.
2

• If, after that review, you still want the agency to process your petition, you must tell us 

how the facts and circumstances of your particular situation are significantly different 

from the previous denials of exemption.

• Send the information about your particular situation to reach us within 30 days. We will 

consider the docket on your request open for that period.

If We Don’t Hear From You

If we don’t hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further.

If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Sound Aircraft Services, Inc. COMPLAINANT 

### v. Town ofEast Hampton and East Hampton Airport RESPONDENT. Docket No. 16-14-07

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME


### This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-AssistedAirport EnforcementProceedings, 14 CPR Part 16 (Rules ofPractice). Pursuant to the Rules ofPractice, 

### §16.11(a), the date by which the Director, FAA Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis will issue a Director's Determination in this matter is hereby extended to on or before November 8, 2015.

Randall S. Fiertz Director, Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August_l_L 2015, I placed in the United States mail (first class, postage paid), a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime addressed to: Counsel to the Complainant Paul A. Lange, Esq. Alison L. Squiccimarro, Esq. Law Offices ofPaul A. Lange, LLC 80 Ferry Boulevard Stratford, CT 06615 pal@lopal.com als@lopal.com Counsel to the Respondent Elizabeth Vail, Esq. Town Attorney Town ofEast Hampton 159 Pantigo Road East Hampton, NY 1193 7 Mr. James Brundige Airport Manager Town ofEast Hampton Airport 200 Daniels Hole Road Wainscott, NY 11937
Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100

laudm Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis