alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 29, 2010

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Raw data supporting the following documents:

“Preliminary Review of Environmental Justice Impacts” Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0519,

“Preliminary Environmental Justice Analysis for Diversion of Secondary Materials and Other Impacts Relating to the Proposed Rule: 

Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste” Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329-0527 

FROM: Tab Tesnau

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

The raw data was requested to be posted in the docket that supports the “Preliminary Review of Environmental Justice Impacts” and 

the “Preliminary Environmental Justice Analysis for Diversion of Secondary Materials and Other Impacts Relating to the Proposed 

Rule: Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste.” These data are being added for your convenience

in the docket location that stores copyrighted information. The full data includes copyrighted information so it is not being posted in 

the electronic docket. A version of the demographics without the copyrighted material will be placed in the electronic docket at 

regulations.gov.

Attachment:

Raw Data of Demographics at 1 and 3 miles around Facilities Expected to Receive Diverted Materials
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 574 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 574

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 7, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (S. 1569) to amend the 
Public Health Service Act to establish, reauthorize and revise provisions to 
improve the health of individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, and for other 
purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against its 
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### PITTORE *v.*STATE

[No. 201,

September Term, 1961.]

*113
      *Decided March 16, 1962.*

Submitted on the brief to Henderson, Prescott, Horney, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

Submitted by *Irving Klitzner, Fred Kolodner*and *William Kolodner*for appellant.

Submitted by *Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Robert C. Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, Saul A. Harris, State’s Attorney*and *George J. Helinski, Assistant State’s Attorney,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

The appellant was convicted of robbery in a trial without a jury and sentenced to ten years. The only point raised on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence. The prosecuting witness, Crouse, testified that Pittore seized him on the street, and when he broke away he realized his wallet containing about fourteen dollars was missing from his hip-pocket. Crouse raised the hue and cry, Pittore fled, and various persons who had seen the struggle joined in the chase. One witness saw Pittore, as he ran, throw an object over a fence and down a railroad embankment. When police arrived and arrested Pit-tore, he did not have the wallet, nor was it ever found despite a search of the embankment and the swampy ground beside the tracks. There was evidence to support the trial court’s finding, despite the testimony of Pittore that he merely asked Crouse how he had “made out” with a woman in a tavern where they had recently been drinking together, that he did not take his wallet, and that the accusation was false. On an *114issue of credibility, we cannot conclude that the trial court was clearly wrong.

*Judgment affirmed, with costs.*
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT ToSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200218 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Stephen R. Wherry, Vice President, Treasurer and ChiefFinancial 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:

            (1)   The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

            (2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Goldfield Corporation and will beretained by The Goldfield Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date: November 14, 2003

/s/ Stephen R. WherryStephen R. Wherry Vice President, Treasurer and   Chief Financial Officer
House Calendar No. 177

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 465

[Report No. 103–563]

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill

1995, and for other purposes.offices for the fiscal year ending September 30,agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, andUrban Development, and for sundry independentpartments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and(H.R. 4624) making appropriations for the DeJUNE 28 (legislative day, JUNE 27), 1994
IB

House Calendar No. 177

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 465

[Report No. 103–563]

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4624) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and

Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September

30, 1995, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 28 (legislative day, JUNE 27), 1994

Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4624)

making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans

Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for

sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R.

2 4624) making appropriations for the Departments of Vet3 erans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and
2

HRES 465 RH

1 for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions,

2 corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending Sep3 tember 30, 1995, and for other purposes, all points of

4 order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply

5 with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. The amendment

6 numbered 1 in the report of the Committee on Rules ac7 companying this resolution may be offered only by a Mem8 ber designated in the report, may amend portions of the

9 bill not yet read for amendment, shall be considered as

10 read, shall be debatable for two hours equally divided and

11 controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not

12 be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a

13 demand for division of the question in the House or in

14 the Committee of the Whole. Points of order against the

15 amendments printed in the report of the Committee on

16 Rules for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are

17 waived.
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

 

 

 

In connection with theAnnual Report on Form 10-K of Housing Programs Ltd. (the "Partnership"), for thefiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven D. Cordes, as theequivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B.Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership,each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of hisknowledge:

 

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 

This certification isfurnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended.
# C_2021044EN.01005301.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/53

---

Action brought on 14 December 2020 — Senseon Tech v EUIPO — Accuride International (SENSEON)

(Case T-724/20)

(2021/C 44/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Senseon Tech Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Andreottola and M. Li Trenta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Accuride International Inc. (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SENSEON — Application for registration No 17 758 831

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2020 in Case R 2736/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | uphold the applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

| — | Error in the assessment of the relevant public; |
| --- | --- |

—

Error in the assessment of the relevant public;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in relation to the determination of similarity of goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in relation to the determination of similarity of goods and services;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in relation to the overall assessment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in relation to the overall assessment.

---
#### Alan KARTEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1026.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 27, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1978.

Grusmark, Jaffe & Karten and Milton E. Grusmark, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto and Jose R. Rodriguez, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court, by which the appellant was held to be in contempt of the court and was fined. On the facts, it was within the discretion of the court to so hold. See: *In Re Taylor,*240 So.2d 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). Involved was a direct contempt, and it appears from the record that the procedural requirements therefor were met. Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.830.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-17-2018]

      ( print page 31725)    
                    On March 5, 2018, AGRU America Charleston, LLC (AGRU America) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 21—Site 38,[1]                                          in North Charleston, South Carolina.                

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (83 FR 10657, March 12, 2018). On July 3, 2018, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: July 3, 2018.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Acting Executive Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             The                         *Notification of Proposed Production Activity*                         mistakenly identified the site number as Site 5, instead of Site 38.                         *See*83 FR 10657 (March 12, 2018).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2018-14619 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
No. 11099.

#### The Northern Ohio Traction & Light Co. *v.*Shaber.

Decided October 20, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

*437*Messrs. Rogers, Rowley & Rockzvell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Musser, Kimber*¿7 *Huffman,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ:, concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 05, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 05, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20A0982. COOPER SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LP v. CITY OF 

SNELLVILLE.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
# C_2022368EN.01000902.xml

| 26.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/9

---

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 — Marie-Christine Arnautu v European Parliament

(Case C-573/21 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Law governing the institutions - Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament - Article 33(1) and (2) - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of undue payments - Plea of illegality - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Assessment of the evidence - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2022/C 368/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Marie-Christine Arnautu (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Ms Marie-Christine Arnautu shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Marie-Christine Arnautu shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.

---
#### M'DOWELL *vs.*COOPER.

A return of “ served personally,” is a good return to a summons.

Where the first process is a *summons,*the presumption is, that the defendant is *a. freeholder,*and execution cannot issue without oath, &c.

Certiorari to justice M'Caulley. Record. Summons returned “ served personally,” and service verified judgment by default.

*Exceptions.*— 1st. That it does not appear that the summons was served *on the defendant.*2d. That the execution issued against the defendant, being a freeholder, without any oath or stay.

*J. A Bayard.*

The law requires the modes of service to be stated. A return of “ served personally” is not sufficient. Non constat that it was *on the defendant*personally. 2d. The original process is a *summons.*The presumption then on the face of the record is, that the defendant is a freeholder, and execution could not issue without stay.

*Gilpin.*

The constable need not state in his return, all the requisites of a proper service. 1 *Harr. Rep.*453. The writ directed him to summon the *defendant,*and the law directs the mode to be either personally, or by a copy left at defendant’s place of abode. “ Served personally,” therefore, in return to such a writ is equivalent to, served on the defendant personally. 2d. The original writ being a summons instead of a capias, does not prove that the defendant was a freeholder; for a summons may issue against a person who is not a freeholder. To take advantage of his freehold, a defendant must plead it before the justice. *Kizer*vs. *Downey,*1 *Harr. Rep.*530.

*Bayard.*

In that case the exception was to the capias after appearance and defence to the action. The decision was, that it was too late to make such an objection, after waiving it before the justice. Here the defendant never had an opportunity to set up his freehold. The execution issued on a judgment by default.

The Court *affirmed*the judgment and *set aside*the execution.
EXHIBIT 15.1




                  ACCOUNTANTS' AWARENESS LETTER



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


Re: Global Marine Inc. Registration Statements

We are aware that our report dated May 7, 1997, on our review of the condensed
consolidated interim financial information of Global Marine Inc. and
subsidiaries for the three months ended March 31, 1997, and included in this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q is incorporated by reference in (i) the
prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-32088, 33-40961, and 33-63326), respectively, for the
Global Marine Inc. 1989 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, (ii) the prospectus
constituting part of the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8
(Registration No. 33-40266) for the Global Marine Savings Incentive Plan,
(iii) the prospectus constituting part of the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-40961) for the Global Marine Inc.
1990 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, (iv) the prospectus
constituting part of the Company's  Registration Statement on Form S-8
(Registration No. 33-57691) for the Global Marine Inc. 1994 Non-Employee
Stock Option and Incentive Plan and (v) the prospectus constituting part of
the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 33-58577)
for the proposed offering of up to $75,000,000 of debt securities, preferred
stock and/or common stock.  Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of
1933, this report should not be considered a part of any of said registration
statements prepared or certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and
11 of that Act.


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Houston, Texas
May 7, 1997
[No. 848-1.

Division One—Panel 2.

October 4, 1971.]

#### Charles N. Widstrand *et al., Respondents,*v. John F. Buchan *et al., Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 706342, Robert J. Bryan, J., entered January 20,1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Dan Anthony MEICHEL.

No. 53821.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1973.

In re: Dan Anthony Meichel applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for stay order

Writ granted. (See Order.)

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Enos C. McClendon, Jr., Judge of the 26th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Webster, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 3rd day of December, 1973, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the 21st day of January, 1974, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.