alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15602]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9980-59--Region 8]


Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on 
Consent, Black Swan Restoration Reach Good Samaritan Superfund Site, 
Boulder County, Colorado

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed agreement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of section 122 of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act of 
1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given of the proposed 
administrative settlement under sections 104, 106, 107, and 122 of 
CERCLA, between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') and 
the Fourmile Watershed Coalition and Four Mile Fire Protection District 
(``Settling Party''). Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, 
the Settling Party will conduct a Removal Action to abate an actual or 
threat of release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants 
at the Black Swan Restoration Reach Good Samaritan Superfund Site 
located in Boulder County, Colorado. In exchange, the EPA will resolve 
any potential liability the Settling Party may have under CERCLA. The 
State of Colorado was consulted on this settlement regarding applicable 
state laws and regulations.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 20, 2018. For 
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the 
Agency will receive written comments relating to the agreement. The 
Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw 
its consent to the agreement if comments received disclose facts or 
considerations that indicate that the agreement is inappropriate, 
improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: The Agency's response to any comments, the proposed 
agreement and additional background information relating to the 
agreement is available for public inspection at the EPA Superfund 
Record Center, 1595 Wynkoop Denver, Colorado.
    Comments and requests for a copy of the proposed agreement should 
be addressed to Maureen O'Reilly, Enforcement Specialist, Environmental 
Protection Agency--Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF-RC, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, and should reference the Black Swan 
Restoration Reach Good Samaritan Superfund Site, Central City, Gilpin 
County, Colorado.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Chalfant, Enforcement Attorney, 
Legal Enforcement Program, Environmental Protection Agency--Region 8, 
Mail Code 8ENF-L, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-2466, 
(303) 312-6177.

    Dated: June 29, 2018.
Deb Thomas,
Deputy Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region VIII.
[FR Doc. 2018-15602 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Carrie Tillman, Appellant, v J. DeBenedictis & Sons Building Corp., Respondent.

[655 NYS2d 1022]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, (1) as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), dated November 9, 1995, as, upon reargument, adhered to the determination in a decision dated July 19, 1995, which determined the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) from an order of the same court entered October 23, 1996, upon the decision, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the decision is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the order entered October 23, 1996 *(see,*CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 9, 1995, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order made upon reargument of a decision *(see, Stockfield v Stockfield,*131 AD2d 834); and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered October 23, 1996, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

It is well settled that " 'a party in possession or control of real property may be held liable for a hazardous condition ere*594ated on its premises as a result of the accumulation of snow or ice during a storm only after the lapse of a reasonable time for taking protective measures subsequent to the cessation of the storm’ ” *(Kay v Flying Goose,*203 AD2d 332, quoting *Newsome v Cservak,*130 AD2d 637). The affidavit prepared by licensed meteorologist Barry Grossman indicated that the accident in question occurred while the storm was still in progress. Accordingly, the defendant could not be held liable for the alleged hazardous condition caused by the ice on the defendant’s premises.

The plaintiff’s contention that a question of fact exists as to whether the snow/ice removal technique employed by the defendant exacerbated the natural hazard created by the storm is without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,643
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,643
<PP&E>                                          10,626
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,039,229
<BONDS>                                        280,491
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       148,926
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,023,974)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,255
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               589,567
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (502,761)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (502,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (502,761)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 956 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 956

To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to clarify 
    the classification of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates and linear 
                      alkylbenzene sulfonic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 17, 1993

  Mr. Archer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to clarify 
    the classification of linear alkylbenzene sulfonates and linear 
                      alkylbenzene sulfonic acid.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. LINEAR ALKYLBENZENE SULFONATES AND LINEAR ALKYLBENZENE 
              SULFONIC ACIDS

    (A) In General.--Chapter 34 is amended by striking subheading 
3402.11.10 and inserting in numerical sequence the following new 
superior text and subheadings, with such new superior text having the 
same degree of indentation as the article description in subheading 
3402.11.50:

      

       ``                        Aromatic or modified                                                           
                                  aromatic:                                                                     
               3402.11.15          Linear alkylbenzene     3.7 cents/kg+15  Free (CA,E,IL)   15.4 cents/kg+5  ..
                                    sulfonates and Linear   .9%                               1%                
                                    alkylbenzene sulfonic                                                       
                                    acids.                                                                      
               3402.11.30          Other.................  7.2%             Free             15.4 cents/kg+5  ''
                                                                             (A,CA,E,IL)      3.5%             .

    (b) Staged Rate Reductions.--Any staged rate reduction of a special 
rate of duty set forth in subheading 3402.11.10 that was proclaimed by 
the President before the date of enactment of this Act and that takes 
effect after the date of enactment of this Act shall apply to the 
corresponding special rates of duty in subheadings 3402.11.15 and 
3402.11.30 (as added by paragraph (1)).

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE

    The amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to 
articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0672

IN THE MATTER OF 

P.S.,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 27, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 18 2024

04/18/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0672
#### Janvier C. KNIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1061.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 15, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7261

TODD NEIL HOLTZMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; FRANK B. BISHOP; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary; TICHNELL, Classification D epartment; CROWE, Classification Department; ATTORNEY GENERAL; JEFFREY NINES; THOMAS K. WOLFE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (07-1473-WDQ) Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 24, 2008 Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd Neil Holtzman, Appellant Pro Se. Rex Schultz Gordon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Todd Neil Holtzman appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Holtzman v. Shearin , No. 07-1473-WDQ (D. Md. Aug. 8, 2007). 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.

AFFIRMED
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1071 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make improvements to support 

facilities for National Historic Sites operated by the National Park Service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. BENNET) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make improvements to support facilities for National Historic Sites 

operated by the National Park Service, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. IMPROVEMENT, OPERATION, AND USE OF SUP4 PORT FACILITIES. 

5 (a) IMPROVEMENT.—The Secretary of the Interior, 

6 acting through the Director of the National Park Service 

7 (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Secretary’’), may make 

8 improvements to a support facility, including a visitor cenVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:31 May 29, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1071.IS S1071

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1071 IS

1 ter, for a National Historic Site operated by the National 

2 Park Service if the project— 

3 (1) is conducted using amounts included in the 

4 budget of the National Park Service in effect on the 

5 date on which the project is authorized; 

6 (2) is subject to a 50 percent non-Federal cost7 sharing requirement; and 

8 (3) is conducted in an area in which the Na9 tional Park Service was authorized by law in effect 

10 before the date of enactment of this Act to establish 

11 a support facility. 

12 (b) OPERATION AND USE.—The Secretary may oper13 ate and use all or part of a support facility, including a 

14 visitor center, for a National Historic Site operated by the 

15 National Park Service— 

16 (1) to carry out duties associated with oper17 ating and supporting the National Historic Site; and 

18 (2) only in accordance with an agreement be19 tween the Secretary and the unit of local govern20 ment in which the support facility is located. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
259 La. 886

#### FRIENDLY FINANCE SERVICE MID CITY, INC. v. J. Matt SANDERS et ux.

No. 51774.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 18, 1971.

In re: Friendly Finance Service Mid City, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of West Carroll. 251 So.2d 644.

Writ denied. Under the facts found by the court of appeal, we cannot say the result is incorrect.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. The Court of Appeal has misconstrued R.S. 6:951 et seq. and failed to apply Civil Code Articles 1939, 2924, and 2185 to 2189.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                    -------





We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  registration  statement of
Microframe,  Inc. on Form S-3 (File No.  333-09507)  of our report dated May 27,
1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Microframe, Inc.
as of March 31, 1997 and 1996,  and for the years ended March 31, 1997 and 1996,
which report included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.



                                             /s/ Coopers & Lybrand LLP


New York, New York
June 18, 1997
#### McClellan *v.*Gully, State Tax Collector.

(In Banc.

April 1, 1935.)

[160 So. 567.

No. 31646.]

*432See, also, Gully v. McClellan, 170 Miss. 405, 153 So. 524.

Means Johnston- and Pollard & Hamner, all of Greenwood, for appellant.

*433Barbour & Henry,, of Yazoo City,, for appellee.

*434Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant borrowed two thousand dollars from the sixteenth section funds of township 21, range 2 west, Leflore county, Miss., executed her note therefor secured by a trust deed to the county, and failed to pay it when due. This suit is by the state tax collector to collect the debt and to foreclose the deed of trust.

A demurrer filed to the bill of complaint was overruled. In support of her demurrer, the appellant says that the state tax collector is without authority to bring the suit.

Section 6986, Code 1930, provides that the state tax collector “shall have the power and it shall be his duty to *435proceed by suit in the proper court against all persons . for all past due . . . obligations and indebtedness of any character due and owing” to the state, county, municipality, drainage, levee, or other taxing district, or any subdivision thereof.

The appellant says, first, this suit is not within the provisions of that statute, and, second, if it is, it has been withdrawn therefrom by section 6770, Code 1930. On the first proposition the appellant contends that sixteenth section funds do not belong to the state or any of its subdivisions, but constitute a trust fund belonging to the inhabitants of the township. Sixteenth sections and the money derived therefrom are held in trust by the state for school purposes for the benefit of the inhabitants of the township in which the particular section lies. The county in which a sixteenth section lies has been appointed as the state’s agent to act for it in dealing therewith, with authority to institute and defend suits relative thereto. This suit, therefore, is within section 6986, Code 1930.

Section 6770, Code 1930, appears in the chapter of the Code dealing with schools, and it authorizes the county superintendent of education to sue for all past-due loans of sixteenth section funds. This, and the former section, must be construed together, and harmonized, if possible. This can be easily done, for the effect of the two sections, in this connection, is only to confer power on each of two public officers to institute suits of this character. Such a purpose appears in other statutes involving the duties of the state tax collector, and is within the power of the Legislature. That a suit under the second statute may involve no expense to the county, or a reduction of the amount collected, while the former does, is not sufficient to indicate that the Legislature intended to withdraw from the state tax collector the power conferred on him by the first section. - ,

Affirmed and remanded.
#### CITY OF PALM BAY, Appellant, v. INTERSTATE ENGINEERING COMPANY, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-159.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 13, 1972.

Rehearing Denied May 8, 1972.

Edward M. Stein, of Stein & Stein, Melbourne, for appellant.

Eli H. Subin, of Roth, Segal & Levine, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs and extensive record in this case. We have also heard oral argument. On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that the appellant has not demonstrated reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment on appeal is affirmed.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., OWEN, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 21, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 130583 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130583 COA: 262770 Oakland CC: 98-158180-FC SAMUEL LEE DENARD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 6, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

d0614 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 21, 2006

Clerk
256 La. 625

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. William W. EARL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary et al.

No. 50733.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 21, 1970.

In re: William W. Earl applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Application denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Perry Law, certify that:



1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Smart-tek Solutions, Inc.;



2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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;



3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this

report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash

flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining

disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the

registrant and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and

procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the

registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those

entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure control and procedures and presented in

this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as

of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that

occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth quarter in the case

of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the

registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control

over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to

record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(a)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a

significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.







/s/ Perry Law

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

Perry Law

Chief Executive Officer



February 14, 2008