alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
7/20/2005 Revised INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 0 of/ This report revised based on revised Initial Review Engineering Report of6/29/2005. Case Number: P040600 Assessor: Flessner ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#: 1 Number ofRelease Sites: Release Activity: Manufacturing Ielease Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LM4D/INCIN FUGITIVE 

### Total Releases: 

# I (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) 

### Release Days/yr: 

# [ 1." Per Site Release: (kg/day) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) Remarks:

Consumer use expected? 

# IExBased Persistent Exceedance value]

Drinking(Surface) WaterDose (mg/kg/day) FishIngestion Dose (ing/kglday) InhalationDose (mg/kg/day) GroundwaterDose (mg/kg/day) SurfaceWater Release aftertreatment(kg/yr) TotalRelease AfterTreatment(kg/yr) Consuer Exposure Dose?

50(INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 

## 2. of/c_ CASE NUMBER:P040600 

# 1/)DY*INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page

# 3 of CASE NUMBER: P040600Page **'f** of15 INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Case Number: P040600 Assessor: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#: 2 Number ofRelease Sites: . Release Activity: Processing jelease Description: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE 

### Total Releases: (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) 

### Release Days/yr: 

## .[ Per Site Release: (kg/day) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kg/day) Remarks:INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page

## 3~of 1< CASE NUMBER:P040600INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page Oft CASE NUMBER: P040600INITIAL 

### REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORTPae 

# O

Case Number: P040600 Assessor: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#: 3 Number ofRelease Sites: Release Activity: Processing
- 

### Ielease Description: WATER - LANDFILL INCINER LANT)/NCIN 

## FUGITIVE_1 Total Releases: 

### 010
- 

### 0.00 ~ (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kg/yr) 

### ReleaseDays/yr: 

# [ 7 .0. Per Site Release: (kg/day) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kg/day) Remarks:*INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 8' of 1, CASE NUMBER:P040600INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 

### of CASE NUMBER: P040600INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page/V of
Case Number: P040600 Assessor: 

### ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES j Scenario#: 4 Number ofRelease Sites: Release Activity: Use
-

ele Deciption: WATER LANDFILL INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVEJ Total Releases: 

# I (kglyr) (kg/yr) (kglyr) (kglyr) (kglyr) 

### Release Days/yr: 

## 0.] 

# [% 7 Per Site Release: (kg/day) (kglyr) (kg/yr) (kglyr) (kg/day) Remarks:INITIALREVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 

## (1 of/( CASE NUMBER:P040600INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page 12 ofp; CASE NUMBER: P040600INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Pg 3o
Case Number: P040600 Assessor: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES Scenario#: 5 Number ofRelease Sites: Release Activity: USE
- jelease Description: WATER LANDFILL -INCINER LAND/INCIN FUGITIVE Total Releases: (kglyr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kglyr) (kglyr) 

### ReleaseDays/yr: 

# [ 7 .[ 

# 7 Per Site Release: (kg/day) (kg/yr) (kglyr) (kg/yr) (kg/day) Remarks:INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page /4Of5 CASE NUMBER:P040600INITIAL REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT Page ,5 Of( CASE NUMBER: P040600
#### SNYDER v. BURNS.

No. 38079.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 214 So.2d 636.
<PAGE>
                         MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C Section 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, (the "Form 10-Q") of Mackinac
Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Eliot R. Stark, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Issuer, certify that:

     (1)  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Issuer.


/s/ Eliot R. Stark
-------------------------------------
Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
(chief financial officer)
August 15, 2005
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-102122 and 333-71608) andin the related Prospectuses, and on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1989 Incentive Stock Plan and the 1992 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (No. 333-07707), the 1998 Incentive Stock Plan (No. 333-59633), the 2001 Nonstatutory Stock Plan and Employee StockPurchase Plan (No. 333-42644), the 2001 Director Option Plan (No. 333-63398), the Calydon, Inc. Management Incentive and Retention Plan, as amended (No. 333- 71606), the 2001 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan and the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan(No. 333-91796), and the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1998 Incentive Stock Plan (No. 333-1087) of Cell Genesys, Inc. of our report dated January 20, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cell Genesys, Inc,included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

Palo Alto, California 

February 27, 2004
Anytown, USA

Local Post Office USPS Processing &

Distribution Center

USPS International

Service Center

Commercial Air

(Contracted/Paid by DOD)

Joint Military 

Mailing Terminal

Contracted or Military Military Post Office Unit Mail Clerk

Air or Ground Transportation

Overseas Airport

Military MCA

DOD RESPONSIBILITY

USPS RESPONSIBILITY

1

2 3 4

7 6 5

8 9 10
-80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500
100 18 12 06 00 05/29 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
 RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the annual report of Rick’s Cabaret International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Phillip K. Marshall, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date: December 14, 2010
By:
/s/ Phillip K. MarshallPhillip K. MarshallChief Financial Officer/Principal Accounting Officer
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 28438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13094]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4363-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]


Indiana; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-4363-DR), dated May 4, 2018, and related 
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued June 5, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following 
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of May 4, 2018.

    Pulaski County for Public Assistance (already designated for 
Individual 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; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-13094 Filed 6-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20043

Summary Calendar

MICHAEL NELSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BRYAN COLLIN, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Huntsville, 

Texas; WARDEN BAILEY, Senior Warden of Estelle Unit; UNKNOWN 

CORRECTION OFFICER #1; UNKNOWN CORRECTION OFFICER #2,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CV-2340

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Nelson, Texas prisoner # 1498715, filed a civil action under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Nelson alleged 

that, while he was housed in the wing for prisoners with sight and hearing 

disabilities, his hand was injured because a prison guard failed to follow the 

proper procedures. The district court dismissed the civil action, under 28 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 16, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20043 Document: 00514918232 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2019
No. 18-20043

2

U.S.C. § 1915A, for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted. We 

review dismissals for failure to state a claim de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 

F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against

cruel and unusual punishment when they demonstrate deliberate indifference 

to a prisoner’s safety. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). Mere 

negligence is not enough. See Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 

1999). Nelson’s allegations do not suggest that the guard acted deliberately or 

knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to his health or safety. 

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under Title II 

of the ADA, a plaintiff must prove “(1) that he has a qualifying disability; 

(2) that he is being denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities for 

which the public entity is responsible, or is otherwise discriminated against by 

the public entity; and (3) that such discrimination is by reason of his 

disability.” Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 499 (5th Cir. 2011). Nelson’s 

allegations do not set forth facts supporting a claim that he was discriminated 

against in any way because of his disability. See id. 

For the first time on appeal, Nelson asserts that he was denied medical 

care for the injuries he suffered in the Estelle Unit. Because he did not raise 

this claim in the district court, we need not consider it on appeal. See Leverette 

v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

The district court did not err in dismissing Nelson’s complaint, and the 

judgment is AFFIRMED. Nelson’s motion for the appointment of counsel is 

DENIED.

 Case: 18-20043 Document: 00514918232 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2019
#### Alexon CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HARRISON PIPELINE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 3805.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 19, 1972.

*83Dubuisson & Dubuisson by Jimmy L. Dauzat, Opelousas, for defendants-appellants.

Preston N. Aucoin, Ville Platte, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, HOOD, and CULPEP-PER, JJ.

FRUGÉ, Judge.

This is a tort case for property damage. Plaintiff, Alexon Chapman, was driving a Datsun automobile. While attempting a passing maneuver, he collided with the left side of a left-turning truck on Highway 3042 about one and one-half miles north of the City of Ville Platte. The defendants are Ronald Lee Franklin, driver of the truck, and Henson Pipeline Construction, Inc., the owner of the truck. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in the amount of $194.00, against Henson Pipeline Construction, Inc. Defendant Henson has appealed from that judgment. We affirm.

There is no dispute as to the employee’s actual negligence. However, the appellant contends that plaintiff, Alexon Chapman, was contributorily negligent by attempting to pass at an intersection in violation of LSA-R.S. 32:76. The determination of whether a junction is an intersection under the statute rests upon the particular facts of the case. In Normand v. American Home Assurance Company, 171 So.2d 804 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1965), we said:

> “In determining whether a particular junction constitutes an ‘intersection,’ as that term is used in LSA-R.S. 32:76, we think it is proper to consider all of the facts and circumstances relating to that junction, including facts as to the character and appearance of the crossing, the width and type of each of the intersection thoroughfares, and the presence or absence of any signs or markings which would indicate to an approaching motorist that there is an intersection at that point.”

The trial court concluded that the gravel road was a very minor road in relation to the highway and held plaintiff was not contributorily negligent.

The intersection of the gravel road with the highway was poorly defined. There were no warning signs in the direction from which the parties came. There was no yellow strip to indicate a no passing zone. While the gravel road did lead to some farm houses and eventually to another highway, it was not a heavily traveled road.

The evidence is clear that the intersection was not a well-defined intersection and it could hardly be seen except from a distance very near the junction. We find no manifest error in the decision of the trial judge.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed. The appellant Henson is to pay the costs of this appeal.

Affirmed.
#### James H. CRAVEN v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47439.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Oct. 22, 1973.

Clayton Taylor Lewis, Philadelphia, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by T. E. Childs, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before RODGERS, P. J., and INZER, ROBERTSON, WALKER and BROOM, JJ-

Appeal from Circuit Court, Scott County; O. H. Barnett, Judge.

Affirmed.
#### CONFEDERATION LIFE ASSOCIATION, a Canadian corporation, Appellant, v. Hector de LARA, et al., Appellees.

No. 70-258.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1971.

Shutts & Bowen and Phillip G. New-comm, Miami, for appellant.

Shalle Stephen Fine, Miami, for appel-lees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

■PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Confederation Life Association, a Canadian insurance company, appeals from a final decree for the appellees, who were the plaintiffs below.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the insurance company in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. They alleged that they were beneficiaries of the proceeds of :a life insurance policy which the insurance company had issued on the life of one German Lopez Sanchez.

The complaint sought relief which could be characterized as “equitable” and “legal”. The final decree found that the equities were with the plaintiffs and under the principles of Confederation Life Association v. Vega y Arminan, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 33, Cert, discharged, Fla.1968, 211 So.2d 169, ordered the insurance company to pay plaintiffs the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars plus bonuses and interest from October 31, 1963.

On appeal there is a difference of opinion between the parties as to whether plaintiffs were seeking legal or equitable relief in the trial court. Plaintiffs argue that they were seeking and obtained specific performance of the insurance contract in question.

An examination of the complaint shows that it did not contain any allegation that plaintiffs were without a plain adequate and complete remedy at law. See 29A Fla.Jur. Specific Performance § 14. Neither is there proof that plaintiffs had an inadequate or incomplete remedy at law. Cf. Confederation Life Association v. Vega y Arminan, Fla.App.1968, 207' So.2d 33, p. 35. We hold, therefore, that plaintiff’s ac*540tion was not in the posture of Vega, supra, and this action was not controlled or governed by the equitable principles pronounced therein.

The final decree herein appealed is Reversed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.61
Per Pat -

Borrowed $10,000 from J. Palafoutas, with interest equivalent to 3,333 common
shares per month until repaid.  Loan repaid Jan. 2001.  Interest accrued @ 6 mo.
X 3,333 = 19,998 or 200 shares Series B Pfd. Stock.
#### Robert MONTANA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-427.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 29, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23.3

                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                           
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
Nos. 333-01574, 333-12789, and 333-24581 on Form S-8, Registration Statements 
Nos. 333-10383 and 333-14025 on Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 
333-13133 on Form S-4 of U.S. Office Products Company of our report dated 
June 7, 1996 and October 24, 1996 on the financial statements of Fortran 
Corp. As of and for the period ended March 31, 1996, appearing in the Annual 
Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of U.S. Office Products Company for the 
year ended April 26, 1997.

/s/Gary A. Koehmstedt, CPA
RUBIN, KOEHMSTEDT & NADLER, PLC

Springfield, Virginia
August 18, 1997
Exhibit 12


                           FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
                      Statement of Computation of Ratios
                             (Dollars In Millions)


     Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges:




                                       Twelve-Months         Year Ended
                                       Ended June 30,       December 31,
                                       1997     1996       1996     1995
                                      ------   ------     ------   ------

     Net Income                       $135.6   $231.8     $238.4   $227.0   

     Add:
      Operating Income Taxes            69.5    132.3      135.8    129.5    
      Other Income Taxes                   0      0.2        (.1)     0.1     
                                      ------   ------     ------   ------
     Income Before Taxes               205.1    364.3      374.1    356.6    

     Total Interest Charges             99.9    100.7       98.4    104.5    
                                      ------   ------     ------   ------
     Total Earnings (A)               $305.0   $465.0     $472.5   $461.1   
                                      ------   ------     ------   ------
     Fixed Charges (B)                $ 99.9   $100.7     $ 98.4   $104.5   
                                      ------   ------     ------   ------
      Ratio of Earnings to
       Fixed Charges (A/B)              3.05     4.62       4.80     4.41     
                                       =====    =====      =====    =====
#### Daniel L. RAYBOURN v. BANKERS TRUST SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION and Walter Mack Elliott.

No. 50120.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 14, 1977.

E. Howard Eaton, Taylorsville, Pickering & McKenzie, Laurel, for appellant.

Gibbes, Graves, Mullins, Bullock & Ferris, William S. Mullins, III, Laurel, E. Frank Goodman, Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jones County; James D. Hester, Judge.

Before SMITH, P. J., and LEE and BOWLING, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000037664
<NAME>                        UNITED TELEPHONE COMPANY OF FLORIDA
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         7,868
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,029
<ALLOWANCES>                                   3,551
<INVENTORY>                                    26,593
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               200,595
<PP&E>                                         2,698,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,495,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,447,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          191,948
<BONDS>                                        436,349
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       16,250
<OTHER-SE>                                     604,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,447,852
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               737,190
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  414,651
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             28,068
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                201,615
<INCOME-TAX>                                   88,058
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            113,557
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   113,557
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>