alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1672 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

xjfyja) n-c-18 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 9/30/2008 11:01:00 AM Sheet 47 of 132 
A-98-13 

..H-C-18 

Date sent: Tue# 17 Mar 1998 09:00:57 -0500 

From: STEVE SHEDD <SHEDD.STEVE@epamail.epa.gov> 

Subject: Re: ICR MAILING LIST -Reply 

To: ZTCDCMOmai1.arco.com 

Copies to: bhaneke@rtp.pes.com, bnorton@rtp.pes.com, glaflam@rtp.pes 

JHELMS@rtp.pes.com 

Denise, 

Thanks for your continued help on this project. We hope to have the 

instructions out soon and we are trying to be as clear as possible. 

On refineries, we plan to survey the non-gasoline loading racks 

because they did not decide on a MACT floor level of control in the 

refinery MACT. Also we plan to survey only certain storage tanks that 

opted out of the refinery MACT rule. Do you have any thoughts on the 

later (storage tanks)? Do you know if any of the tanks at ARCO 

refineries opted out of the refinery MACT and could these tanks be 

considered "distribution" tanks for ether incoming or outgoing 

products? 

Steve 

>>> "Denise C. Michelson" <ZTCDCMOmai1.arco.com> 03/16/98 06:59pm >>> 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Organic Liquids 

Distribution mailing list. My comments are provided on behalf of the 

Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO). Mr. Dan Hisey, Vice President, 

Environment , Health and Safety, will be co-ordinating the internal 

distribution of the ICR Survey for affected ARCO operating companies. 

The ICR Survey should be addressed to : 

Mr. Daniel T. Hisey 

Vice President, Corporate Center Environment, Health and 

Safety Atlantic Richfield Company 444 South Flower Street 

Los Angeles, CA.90071 

Although I have not yet received a copy of the final draft ICR 

instructions, I would like to offer comments regarding it's "user 

friendliness" . At our last roundtable meeting, we discussed 

limiting survey distribution to major sources and area sources greater 

than 5/12.5 HAPs. Also, at that time, EPA was still trying to limit 

the questions to refineries by reviewing the HON and Refinery MACT 

Rules. It would be very helpful to include either in the cover letter 

or instructions, guidance regarding the types of facilities and the 

size of operation that will be required to respond to this survey. 

Thanks in advance for taking these comments into consideration. 

Regards, 

Denise Michelson 

(562)728-2236 

Iii 

Bernd Haneke -- 1 -- Tue, 17 Mar 1998 12:46:21
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 6, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131086 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

KAREN RENNY and CHARLES RENNY, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131086 

 COA: 257018 

Ct of Claims: 03-000042-MT 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 21, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall 

include among the issues to be addressed: (1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly 

characterized the alleged dangerous or defective condition in this case as a design defect; 

(2) whether the public building exception, which obligates a governmental agency “to 

repair and maintain public buildings,” permits a party to bring a design defect claim; and 

(3) whether the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the icy sidewalk was not a transitory 

condition is contrary to this Court’s decision in Wade v Dep’t of Corrections, 439 Mich 

158 (1992). 

The Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Townships Association, the 

Michigan Trial Lawyers Association, and the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., are 

invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to 

file briefs amicus curiae. 

s1129 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 6, 2006 

Clerk
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1279 

To prohibit the revocation or withholding of Federal funds to programs 

whose participants carry out voluntary religious activities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 11, 2013 

Ms. LANDRIEU introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the revocation or withholding of Federal funds 

to programs whose participants carry out voluntary religious activities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Freedom to Pray Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON WITHHOLDING FEDERAL FUNDS 

6 TO PROGRAMS WHOSE PARTICIPANTS CON7 DUCT VOLUNTARY RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for the Fed9 eral Government to revoke or withhold Federal financial 

10 assistance that would otherwise be provided to any recipiVerDate Mar 15 2010 22:16 Jul 11, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1279.IS S1279

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1279 IS

1 ent of such assistance on the basis of religious activities 

2 that are conducted voluntarily and initiated by partici3 pants in a program or activity carried out by such recipi4 ent. 

5 (b) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act 

6 shall be construed to authorize the United States or any 

7 State or political subdivision thereof— 

8 (1) to sponsor a religious activity; 

9 (2) to prohibit a recipient of Federal financial 

10 assistance from ensuring that a religious activity 

11 does not materially and substantially interfere with 

12 the orderly conduct of the program or activities car13 ried out by such recipient; 

14 (3) to require any person to participate in pray15 er or other religious activity; or 

16 (4) to compel any employee or agent of a pro17 gram or activity that is carried out by a recipient of 

18 Federal financial assistance to participate in an ac19 tivity if the content of the speech at the activity is 

20 contrary to the beliefs of the employee or agent. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
(This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          32,008
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           8,671
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     82,237
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          63,579
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            61,649
<LOANS>                                      1,038,183
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,314,083
<DEPOSITS>                                     839,099
<SHORT-TERM>                                   192,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              9,603
<LONG-TERM>                                    184,605
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            66
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,314,083
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 19,760
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,916
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                22,682
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,773
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,705
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            8,977
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  9,128
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,805
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,805
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,487
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.01
<LOANS-NON>                                        654
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   233
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,654
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      302
<RECOVERIES>                                        32
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,884
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,884
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Mrs. Wilhelmina COLE, Individually and on Behalf of her two minor daughters, Marie Cole and Georgia Mae Cole v. LOGAN CAB COMPANY and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (Consolidated with: No. 5341—Mrs. Gladys Powell, Individually and on behalf of her minor daughter, Louise Powell v. Logan Cab Company and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company).

No. 5342.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

March 7, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 3, 1973.*

Writ Refused June 11, 1973.

John P. Cosentino, Steven R. Plotkin, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Robert J. Pitard, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Before REDMANN, LEMMON and GULOTTA, JJ.

*

 Gulotta, J., voted to grant.

LEMMON, Judge.

This suit was consolidated for trial with that of Mrs. Glodys Powell, Individually and on behalf of her minor daughter, Louise Powell v. Logan Cab Company and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, bearing docket No. 5341 in this court, 276 So.2d 324, decided this day.

For the reasons assigned in that case, the judgment of the trial court is reversed *326and it is now ordered that plaintiffs suit be dismissed at her costs.

Reversed and rendered.

GULOTTA, J., dissents with written reasons, 276 So.2d 326.
EXHIBIT 32.1



906 CERTIFICATION



The undersigned certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)   The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2004, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:   November 27, 2006
        /s/   David H. RochePresident andChief Executive Officer/s/   Steven M. CaspersExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer


---
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

J.S., MOTHER of M.S., E.D., J.D., 

CHILDREN,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-4267

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 7, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Volusia County,

Kathryn D. Weston, Judge.

Sherry Cote-Jarvis, of Cote-Jarvis & 

Associates, P.A., Edgewater, for Appellant.

Ward L. Metzger, Appellate Counsel, 

Department of Children and Families, 

Jacksonville, for Appellee.

David Paul Krupski, Appellate Counsel, 

Guardian ad Litem, Sanford, for Guardian 

ad Litem Program. 

COHEN, C.J.

J.S. appeals the order terminating her parental rights to three children, M.S., E.D.,

and J.D., who at the time of trial ranged from five to ten years old. The sole ground for 

termination of parental rights was J.S.’s failure to substantially comply with the case plan. 
2

The children were initially removed from the home because of ongoing domestic 

violence involving J.S. and her boyfriend. During the course of the original court-ordered 

case plan, the mother tested positive for a controlled substance. As a result, four months 

before the termination of parental rights trial, the case plan was modified to require 

random drug tests and substance abuse counseling. 

In its final order, the trial court terminated J.S.’s parental rights pursuant to section 

39.806(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2016), finding that J.S. failed to substantially comply with 

the modified case plan. We have reviewed the trial transcript and accept the Department’s 

concession that the evidence at the termination of parental rights trial was not legally 

sufficient to support the trial court’s finding. Accordingly, we reverse the order terminating 

J.S.’s parental rights and remand for further proceedings. 

REVERSED and REMANDED.

EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
ENCLOSURE 4: 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 40 CFR § 51.102 

AND APPENDIX V OF 40 CFR PART 51 
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 40 CFR § 51 .102 & APP. V OF 40 CFR PART 51 

REGARDING REVISIONS TO VERMONT'S STATE IMPLEMENTATION (SIP) 

As required by 40 CFR § 51.102(f), I hereby certify that the requirements of 40 CFR 

§ 51.102(a)-(d) were met and that the public notice and hearing procedure followed 

was consistent with the information provided in the public notice and the State's 

laws and constitution, as applicable . Public notice of the proposed amendments to 

Vermont's Air Pollution Control Regulations and revisions to Vermont's SIP was 

posted online on November 3, 2010 at 

https ://secure.vermont.gov/SOS/rules/index.php and published on November 11, 

2010 in the Secretary of State's newspapers of record. The public was initially 

provided with the opportunity to comment until December 13, 2010. This deadline 

was subsequently extended until December 17, 2010. In addition, a public hearing 

was held on December 6, 2010 at 6 :OOpm in the Auditorium in the Pavilion Office 

Building located at 109 State Street in Montpelier, Vermont. 

Richard A. Valentinetti 

Certifying Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129939 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129939 

 COA: 254028 

Wayne CC: 03-012620

PETER MICHAEL-LAWRENCE KURTZ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 27, 2005 

judgment 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. 

p0424 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 28, 2006 

Clerk
#### Paul Lawrence HUNTER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 74-213.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 7, 1974.

Rehearing Denied April 18, 1974.

Habeas Corpus denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 132333 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 132333 COA: 260488 Wayne CC: 04-007175-01 CHRISTOPHER DESEAN VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e October 12, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0122 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.

January 29, 2007

Clerk
Order entered May 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00430-CV

IN RE MICHAEL DWAYNE WILLIAMS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Criminal Court No. 10

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MA8359627

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus as moot.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Global Preferred Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.



Date: November 14, 2002                 /s/  Bradley E. Barks
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Bradley E. Barks
                                       Chief Financial Officer
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-31281

USDC No. 97-CV-2123

 

TERRY MICHAEL JOHNSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden,

Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

- - - - - - - - - -

May 31, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Terry Michael Johnson, Louisiana prisoner No. 292732, seeks

a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district

court’s dismissal of certain of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims

without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies and of

other claims as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). COA is

GRANTED and the case is VACATED AND REMANDED to the district

court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
No. 98-31281

-2-

The partial state records filed in this case are inadequate

to support the district court’s assumption that Johnson has not

exhausted his state remedies with regard to his claims of an

illegal arrest and insufficient evidence. See Magouirk v.

Phillips, 144 F.3d 348, 362-63 (5th Cir. 1998). Additionally,

the district court did not address Johnson’s assertion, supported

by documentary evidence in the record, that the limitations

period was tolled by a state habeas application which was pending

from April 1996 until March 14, 1997. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2).

On remand, after obtaining all of Johnson’s relevant statecourt records, the district court should first address whether

the limitations period was tolled by the pendency of Johnson’s

state habeas application or whether Johnson’s federal habeas

claims are time-barred. If the court determines that Johnson’s

federal habeas application was timely, it should then address

whether Johnson’s application contains both exhausted and

unexhausted claims. If the district court determines that

Johnson’s application is not time-barred, but that some of his

claims are unexhausted, it should address whether the unexhausted

claims are “technically exhausted” because they are procedurally

barred under state law and, thus, subject to federal review under

the standards applicable to procedurally defaulted claims. See

Jones v. Jones, 163 F.3d 285, 296 (5th Cir. 1998). If the court

determines that Johnson’s application contains both exhausted and

unexhausted claims, Johnson should be afforded an opportunity to

amend his application to present only his claims which are
No. 98-31281

-3-

exhausted before his application is dismissed for failure to

exhaust state remedies. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 5518-33

(1982). 

COA GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.