alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 00-7252.

#### Joe *v.*Williams, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7720
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DENNY R. GULLETT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CR-94-17, CA-97-456-2) Submitted: January 21, 2003 Decided: March 7, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cheryl Johns Sturm, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Denny R. Gullett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Gullett has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Gullett , Nos. CR-94-17; CA-97-456-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 30, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.

DISMISSED
#### Lyndal B. DOUBERLY, Appellant, v. Mary K. O’ROURKE and International LaBoutique, Inc., Appellees.

No. 66-874.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 8, 1967.

Walton & Garrick, Podhurst & Orseck, Miami, for appellant.

Knight, Underwood, Peters, Hoeveler & Pickle, Miami, for O’Rourke; Sherouse & Corlett, Miami, for International LaBou-tique, appellees.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and DURDEN, WILLIAM L.,. Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff appeals a final judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $6,000. The sole question presented is whether the trial court committed reversible error when it denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was *246“manifestly inadequate.” The appellant does, not urge any procedural error, nor does he suggest any passion or prejudice inherent in the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed upon authority of Bulmer v. Strawn, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 315; City of Miami v. Smith, Fla.1964, 165 So.2d 748; Roberts v. Bushore, Fla.App. 1966, 183 So.2d 708.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF NET ASSETS STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000829114
<NAME> PRUCO LIFE OF NEW JERSEY VARIABLE CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY ACC

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,346,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         00
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,346,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,346,446
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               291,050
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                274,046
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            274,046
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   274,046
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
## p. 1 

# 3a 75 79

June 7, 2010 Document Control Office US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics EPAEast Room6428 1200Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 4 ~ . . ~



# Re: EPA- HQ- OPPT - 2003 - 0012 DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100 PFOA Data Submittal - Outfall DSN662Weekly Grab Samples March 2010 Sample Data Dear Document Control Office: As per Part IV, Section G .5.a ofthe NJPDES permit, we are submitting a summary of PFOA analytical results for the weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662Ato NJDEP on a monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and electronic-copy ofthe report for samples taken during March 2010. We will continue to send you the reports each month. Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (856) 540-3015. Sincerely, Joe Greenfield SHE Consultant - Environmental DuPont Chambers Works Enclosures A,qPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts
, "j Chambers Works



## Deepwater, NJ 08023



# CONTAINS NOCBI

# Copies to:

Director, Chemical Control Division US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics EPA East Room 4146 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only) Principal Environmental Engineer NJDEP Division ofWater Quality Bureau of Point Source Permitting - Region 2 401 E. State Street P.O . Box 029 Trenton, NJ 08625-0029U N
L 

## >, CN CC C I II ' II I~ II i I i
ii

I

I ~ I C I O ' O n I j C~~N I I I ' ,N i '~ I I

I I 7 I I cI C~ NI I N ICl) ~~~ ~

I I ~ I

i y I II I ~' ~ I , . I I IL ' I
~ ~ ~ ~ i ~, I U_
~ Lr] IC OIC ,r d- I ' > , Q ~ ILr]' I i 7 :3 I I ~ ~~ iC 'O 0~ ~C ' ~ ~O I - I ~ I '~ , QI` ,, I

, C°) ' i I

i U I I OI N

~ ~ '~ i p i
~ CI I I ' ~ O ' tDi '~ i
, i I I i UI I I , ~ I I ~ I I n 'o jc Ic ~r Jo', I a .~ ', ~ a~ I I - , I ii ' U IMI ~ I 

# ~, O I ,

# LLm'~

I i I ~ ~ ' I 7 li I~ I' I cn I G Q
. .V L9i-i~l10 ,I I~~ H ~

I ~~' ~ I

- ~ i

, - ti I I X > O J O `

c N CO 3

O 2



### E C C O U N N

I I 7
V
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States:  1965 to 2002



           First   Second    Third   Fourth
   Year   Quarter  Quarter  Quarter  Quarter

2002.....    67.8
2001.....    67.5     67.7     68.1     68.0
2000.....    67.1     67.2     67.7     67.5

1999.....    66.7     66.6     67.0     66.9
1998.....    65.9     66.0     66.8     66.4
1997.....    65.4     65.7     66.0     65.7
1996.....    65.1     65.4     65.6     65.4
1995.....    64.2     64.7     65.0     65.1
1994.....    63.8     63.8     64.1     64.2
1993\r...    63.7     63.9     64.2     64.2
1993.....    64.2     64.4     64.7     64.6
1992.....    64.0     63.9     64.3     64.4
1991.....    63.9     63.9     64.2     64.2
1990.....    64.0     63.7     64.0     64.1
1989\r...    63.9     63.8     64.1     63.8

1989.....    63.9     63.9     64.0     63.8
1988.....    63.7     63.7     64.0     63.8
1987.....    63.8     63.8     64.2     64.1
1986.....    63.6     63.8     63.8     63.9
1985.....    64.1     64.1     63.9     63.5
1984.....    64.6     64.6     64.6     64.1
1983.....    64.7     64.7     64.8     64.4
1982.....    64.8     64.9     64.9     64.5
1981.....    65.6     65.3     65.6     65.2
1980.....    65.5     65.5     65.8     65.5
1979\r...    64.8     64.9     65.8     65.4

1979.....    65.3     65.1     66.0     65.8
1978.....    64.8     64.4     65.2     65.4
1977.....    64.8     64.5     65.0     64.9
1976.....    64.6     64.6     64.9     64.8
1975.....    64.4     64.9     64.6     64.5
1974.....    64.8     64.8     64.6     64.4
1973.....    64.9     64.4     64.4     64.4
1972.....    64.3     64.5     64.3     64.4
1971.....    64.0     64.1     64.4     64.5
1970.....    64.3     64.0     64.4     64.0
1969.....    64.1     64.4     64.4     64.4
1968.....    63.6     64.1     64.1     63.6
1967.....    63.3     63.9     63.8     63.5
1966.....    63.5     63.2     63.3     63.8
1965.....    62.9     62.9     62.9     63.4
\r Revised.
258 La. 247

#### W. H. SHARP, Jr., et al. v. William ALEXIS et al.

No. 51227.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 29, 1971.

In re: William Alexis et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Livingston. 242 So.2d 894.

Writ denied. The result is correct.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion a writ should be granted.
An official website of the United States government                

----

end of header

Census.govNewsroomReleases2010 Census

# Newsroom Archive

Skip left menu navigation                          - About the Newsroom
                          - Facts for Features
                          - **News Releases**
                          - Press Kits
                          - Tip Sheets

### Release Information

**CB10-CR.10**
**Contact:**Jennifer SmitsPublic Information Office202-450-9557Andrea LoyolaRegional Census Office504-214-2107

## FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FRIDAY, JAN. 22, 2010

## Media Advisory — 2010 Census Road Tour Comes to New Orleans

For more information about the 2010 Census and the Road Tour, please visit www.census.gov/2010census and follow us on Twitter (@2010Portrait), Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).

CONNECT WITH US**********

                            - Information Quality
                            - Data Linkage Infrastructure
                            - Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                            - Accessibility
                            - FOIA
                            - Inspector General
                            - No FEAR Act
                            - U.S. Department of Commerce
                            - USA.gov

----

Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy

Is this page helpful?
YesNo

NO THANKS

255 characters maximum255 characters maximum reached

Thank you for your feedback.Comments or suggestions? 

PIO@census.gov
# C_2012208EN.01000102.xml

| 14.7.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6522 — Groupe Lactalis/Skanemejerier)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 208/02

On 11 May 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6522. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6522. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
<PAGE> 105

                                                          Exhibit 23.2








                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-3 Number 33-47865) of American General Finance, Inc.
and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 31, 2002,
with respect to the consolidated statements of income, shareholder's
equity, cash flows, and comprehensive income and related schedule of
American General Finance, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended
December 31, 2001 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 2003.


                                            /s/  Ernst & Young LLP


Indianapolis, Indiana
March 9, 2004
# C_2012134EN.01000401.xml

| 8.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6508 — GIP/Fluxys G/Fluxys Switzerland)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2012/C 134/07

On 27 April 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6508. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6508. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### Leo BAILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-950.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Richard W. MACHARA and Gary J. Meister, Respondents.

No. 43432.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 30, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 272 So.2d 870.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### FLINTKOTE CO. v. BREWER CO. OF FLORIDA, INC.

No. 38650.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 784.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CRESTED CORP.
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED MAY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000025657
<NAME> CRESTED CORP.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,509,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,949,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,600)
<INVENTORY>                                     34,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,605,700
<PP&E>                                       5,951,800
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,437,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,415,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,451,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,300
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,832,800)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,415,000
<SALES>                                        768,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,416,600
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,083,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,267,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,951,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,951,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,951,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.94

AMENDMENT ONE  To  Countrywide Financial Corporation  ERISA Nonqualified Pension Plan

Countrywide Financial Corporation (the "Company") wishes to amend the Countrywide Financial Corporation ERISA Nonqualified Pension Plan (the "Plan") to change the
name of the Plan; provide for continued vesting of benefits upon retirement or other termination of employment and to provide that the Countrywide Financial Corporation Administrative Committee shall
be the administrator of the Plan.



---





The
Company has caused this Amendment One to be signed by its duly authorized officer this 23rd day of July, 2004.

|                                                       |  | Countrywide Financial Corporation
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------
|                                                       |  | By:                              
|Attest:                                                |  |                                  
|/s/ Gerard A. HealyGerard A. Healy
Assistant Secretary |  |                                  

---



QuickLinks
#### U. S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Jacob M. LISS et al.

No. 8940.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 11, 1978.

*1357George O’Dowd, New Orleans, for Jacob Liss, defendant-appellant.

Montgomery, Barnett, Brown & Read, Kenneth V. Faherty, New Orleans, for third party defendant, Cas. Reciprocal Exchange.

Before GULOTTA, STOULIG and BOU-TALL, JJ.

BOUTALL, Judge.

This is an appeal by Jacob M. Liss from the granting of motion for summary judgment by his insurer, Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, dismissing his third party demand for lack of coverage over the hazard which is the subject of the main demand.

Jacob M. Liss operated “Mr. Jack’s Pizza” on the premises located at # 58 West Bank Expressway, Gretna, owned by Gattuso and Saragusa and insured by U. S. Fire Insurance Company. That insurer, under subro-gation, sued Liss, his employee, and others, alleging that a fire occurred on the premises in a pizza oven which spread through negligent acts of the employee and others. Liss in turn brought third party action against his general insurer, Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, alleging coverage under its policy. That insurer filed a motion for summary judgment based on lack of coverage under the policy for the hazard sued upon. Liss appeals.

The issue is purely of law involving interpretation of the policy. Liss contends that the policy is an “owners’, landlords’ and tenants’ liability insurance.” covering property damage liability arising out of the negligent acts of himself and his employees in the operation of the premises, and that it covers the damages to the landlord’s building sued for herein. He further contends that the exclusion relied upon by the insurance company is not applicable to these circumstances, and that at best the policy is confusing and ambiguous, and that it should be interpreted liberally in his favor, relying upon *Albritton v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company,*224 La. 522, 70 So.2d 111 (La.1953) and *Cooling v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company,*269 So.2d 294 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1972).

We find no ambiguity or conflicts in the policy in relation to this hazard. The policy of insurance issued by Casualty Reciprocal Exchange to the insured contains the following exclusion upon which third party defendant relies:

> “I. COVERAGE A — BODILY INJURY LIABILITY

> COVERAGE B — PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY

> 

> Exclusions

> This insurance does not apply:

> 

> (k) to property damage to

> (l) property owned or occupied by or rented to the insured, . .

We conclude the policy means exactly what it says, and this exclusion (k) is applicable to the case at bar. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

*AFFIRMED.*
Use of Defoamer Formulation

Part II, Section B-Industrial Sites controlled by others

In its use as a defoamer, it is expected that the PMN Substance will be contained in the whitewater system in paper mills. Most of the white water is re-circulated for reuse. Any water not recirculated is evaporated in the dryer section of the paper mill. After drying, it is estimated that ~6 

ppm of the notifiable substance will remain in the finished paper. Effluent is expected to be 

treated through primary and secondary wastewater treatment plant technology. The notifiable 

substance is expected to biodegrade during waste water treatment, and is not expected to be 

present in any effluent. Release to the environment is not expected during normal use and

handling. The notifiable substance is not expected to be present in any fugitive emissions.

Schematic diagram

Bulk tank car 

to paper mill Storage Tank

Use of product 

to make paper

Paper 

shipment to 

customers

A- Cleaning tank car

1- Controlled release cleaning tank car

B- Unloading into Storage Tank

C- Sampling & analyzing

D – Cleaning Storage Tank

2- Controlled release from cleaning storage tank

3- Controlled release of effluent to primary and 

secondary wastewater treatment plant technology
Worker activities (lettered on schematic)

Letter or activity

from above

Max # 

workers 

exposed per 

site

Duration of 

exposure (Hr)

Protective 

equipment 

engineering 

controls/% 

PMN

% PMN as 

used in 

operation

A- Cleaning tank 

car

1 1 hr/day, 

every 30 days

Safety 

glasses, 

chemical 

resistant 

gloves

2%

B- unloading 

truck into storage 

tank

2 0.5 hr/day, 

every 30 days

Safety 

glasses, 

chemical 

resistant 

gloves

2%

C- Sampling & 

analyzing

2 0.5 hr/day, 

every 30 days

Safety 

glasses, 

chemical 

resistant 

gloves

2%

D- cleaning 

storage tank

3 4 hrs each, 

every three 

years

Safety 

glasses, 

chemical 

resistant 

gloves

2%
Environmental release (number on schematic)

Release number Amt. of PMN released Media of release and 

control technology

1- Cleaning tank truck 4 kg (heel) Waste water containing 

residual PMN sent to onsite waste water treatment 

plant

2 - Cleaning storage tank 4 kg Waste water containing 

residual PMN sent to onsite waste water treatment 

plant

3 - Effluent unknown Waste water containing 

residual PMN sent to onsite waste water treatment 

plant
#### Tommy JENKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 25, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.