alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Re Docket ID: EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505 Charles Langelier to: Nick Parsons 08/04/2010 12:29 AM

Dear Mr. Parsons:

I am writing to urge you to enact stricter regulations on oil and gas development in the Colorado Plateau . As a member of the medical and scientific community, I am deeply concerned by both the health impacts of climate change (which fossil fuel consumption will worsen ) as well as the potential for regional air quality compromise from drilling activities . Drilling units produce air pollutants including NOx , carbon monoxide and VOCs, and the increased diesel truck activity will also add to pollution . Without question, a much wiser solution would be to encourage renewable energy development on these lands, which receive substantial solar input and have adequate wind patterns.

Sincerely,

Chaz Langelier, PhD 3000 E Kennedy Drive #12 Salt Lake City, UT 84108
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2131 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on pentaerythritol tetrakis[3- 

(dodecylthio)propionate]. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. CORKER (for himself and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

pentaerythritol tetrakis[3-(dodecylthio)propionate]. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PENTAERYTHRITOL TETRAKIS[3- 

4 (DODECYLTHIO)PROPIONATE]. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.06 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 pentaerythritol tetrakis[3-(dodecylthio)propionate]) is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

9 2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2131 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### Donald STEPHAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent. Malcolm Scott HARRIS, Petitioner and Cross-Respondent, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent and Cross-Petitioner.

Nos. S-387, S-406.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Feb. 4, 1985.

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and BURKE, MATTHEWS and MOORE, JJ.

ORDER

The Court of Appeals’ decisions in *Harris,*678 P.2d 397 (1984), and *Stephan*are REVERSED. The cases are REMANDED for further proceedings, with orders that Harris’ and Stephan’s statements made during their interrogations be suppressed.

An opinion will follow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

COMPTON, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT 21.1
**SUBSIDIARIES OF APAC CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC.**
**As of December 30, 2007**
APAC Customer Services, Inc.
APAC Customer Services, L.L.C. (99% owned)
APAC Customer Services of Texas, L.P. (99% owned)
APAC Customer Services of Illinois, Inc. (100% owned)
APAC Customer Services, L.L.C. (1% owned)
APAC Customer Services General Partner, Inc. (100% owned)
APAC Customer Services of Texas, L.P. (1% owned)
ITI Holdings, LLC (100% owned)
APAC Customer Services of Iowa, L.L.C. (100% owned)
APacific Customer Services Phils., Inc.
(40% ownership by APAC Customer Services, Inc. and 60% ownership by certain individual partners of Philippinecounsel from Angara Abello Concepion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW®)
----

----

| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November 6, 2009 | /s/ David J. Bryant                                  |
|------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|             | David J. Bryant                                      |
|             | Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer |
|             |                                                 |

----

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roy Clendinen, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered November 15, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was convicted of robbery committed on a subway *367platform. Immediately apprehended by bystanders, defendant admitted planning and committing the robbery with two accomplices. At a pretrial hearing to contest admissibility of his statement, defense counsel contended that he was not provided with adequate notice beyond a skeletal synopsis of his statement contained in the voluntary disclosure form. The prosecutor countered, relying on notes in his trial folder that full notice of the entire statement was provided at arraignment. Counsel never rebutted this representation with arraignment minutes at the hearing, and defendant has failed to provide such minutes on appeal. Since it was defendant’s obligation to provide this Court with a full record upon which it could evaluate his claim *(People v Olivo,*52 NY2d 309, 320), no reviewable issue has been presented for our consideration.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People and indulging all reasonable inferences in the People’s favor *(People v Alexander,*75 NY2d 979, 980), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish that defendant forcibly stole property, aided by another person actually present (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) who was ready, willing and able to participate in the robbery *(People v Hedgeman,*70 NY2d 533, 541), by aiding in the retention of the property *(People v Velez,*155 AD2d 365, *lv denied*75 NY2d 819). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of Harry & David Holdings, Inc.s (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers certifies 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 as of and for the periods
presented in the Report.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2006



By:

/s/ WILLIAM H. WILLIAMSWilliam H. Williams President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/S/ STEPHEN V. OCONNELLStephen V. OConnell Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer
# L_2006314EN.01001301.xml

| 15.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 314/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 314/13

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1680/2006

of 14 November 2006

repealing Regulation (EC) No 976/2006 adopting exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat in Germany

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2759/75 of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in pigmeat (1), and in particular Article 20(1) and the second paragraph of Article 22 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The German authorities have adopted animal health measures under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Council Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (2) on account of outbreaks of classical swine fever in certain production regions in Germany. Exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat were adopted for Germany by Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2006 (3). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The German authorities have adopted animal health measures under Articles 9, 10 and 11 of Council Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001 on Community measures for the control of classical swine fever (2) on account of outbreaks of classical swine fever in certain production regions in Germany. Exceptional support measures for the market in pigmeat were adopted for Germany by Commission Regulation (EC) No 976/2006 (3).

| (2) | In the light of the progress made on animal health, the exceptional market support measures should be discontinued. Regulation (EC) No 976/2006 should be therefore be repealed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the progress made on animal health, the exceptional market support measures should be discontinued. Regulation (EC) No 976/2006 should be therefore be repealed.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Pigmeat,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 976/2006 is hereby repealed.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 November 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 316, 1.12.2001, p. 5. Directive amended by the 2003 Act of Accession.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 176, 30.6.2006, p. 71.

3

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>        1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-2000
<CASH>                                         159,531
<SECURITIES>                                     1,023
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,121
<INVENTORY>                                      9,552
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               201,501
<PP&E>                                          37,751
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 228,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,937
<BONDS>                                          1,572
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           220
<OTHER-SE>                                     200,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   228,926
<SALES>                                        101,232
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,232
<CGS>                                           39,671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,207
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 288
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,705
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,727
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,978
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,978
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.85







</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Yogurt Culture, Inc. and Michelle Anderssen v. Shannon A. Lang,
PLLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00414

- CV

Trial court case number: 1103656

Trial court: Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 1 of Harris County

Michelle Anders s en has filed in this Court a document entitled “Statement of Inability to
Afford Court Costs

. ” Although this document appears to contain much of the information required to be included in the appr oved form, it is not in compliance with Rules 145 and 20.1. See T EX

. R.
C IV

. P. 145(a); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(a).

Fees charged for preparation of the appellate record are governed by Rule 145. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 145(a). This rule requires the filing of a S tatement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs (form attached to this order). See id. (party who files Statement of Inability cannot be required to pay costs except by order of the trial court). The filing of this same form is required if appellant is unable to afford the appellate filing fees. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(a),(b) (party who filed statement of inability in trial court is not required to pay appellate court costs unless trial court overruled that party’s claim of indigence in an order under Rule 145).

Accordingly, Anderssen shall file in the trial court

, within 30 days of the date of this
order , the Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs in the attached form prescribed by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 145. Anderssen shall advise this Court when

s he has complied with this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____ Justice Peter Kelly

______________________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ July 2, 2019

___
#### WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA and Nichols Sanitation, Inc., Petitioners, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 89-0506.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 14, 1989.

*1134Edward D. Schuster of Pyszka, Kessler, Massey, Weldon, Catri, Holton & Douber-ley, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

G. Bart Billbrough of Walton Lantaff Schroeder & Carson, Miami, for respondent.

STONE, Judge.

The defendants in a negligence action seek a writ of certiorari for the review of an order compelling the production of photographs taken by the defendants’ investigator, statements of witnesses taken by defendants’ agents, and the defendants’ correspondence concerning the damage to its property. The defendants contend that the request encompasses work product.

The trial court made no findings, but, rather, ended its inquiry and overruled petitioners’ objections because counsel for the petitioners, after objecting to the respondent’s discovery request, on the same date served a request for discovery on the respondent for the exact same production. The only other reason given for the court’s order was the failure of the defense to cite caselaw demonstrating the validity of the objection to production.

Superficially, on our limited record, much of the requested material does appear to include work product. *Compare Shell v. State Road Dept.,*135 So.2d 857 (Fla.1961); *Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Allen,*40 So.2d 115 (Fla.1949); *Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Scott,*481 So.2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); *Karch v. MacKay,*453 So.2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); *Florida Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner,*390 So.2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); *Albertsons, Inc. v. Howells,*518 So.2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); *Florida Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy,*471 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); *New Life Acres, Inc. v. Strickland,*436 So.2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) *with Airocar, Inc. v. Goldman,*474 So.2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); *Nationwide Insurance Company, Pinellas County v. Monroe,*276 So.2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA), *cert. denied,*283 So.2d 366 (Fla.1973).

Here there were no findings by the trial court as to whether the material and statements sought were prepared, as petitioners contend, in anticipation of litigation, in which case the privilege may be raised, or merely in the ordinary course of business, in which event there is no privilege. *See Selected Risks Insurance Co. v. White,*447 So.2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); *Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates,*444 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Nor is there any authority supporting the respondent’s argument that the petitioners are precluded from object*1135ing to the discovery request because it responded by requesting the same items.

Therefore we grant certiorari, quash the order of the trial court compelling production, and remand for further proceedings.

DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. W ILLIAM W OODR OW SPR INGFIELD, Sr., De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30229

D.C . No. 1:15-c r-00121-SPW -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 2, 2017 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : WARDLAW , C LIFTON, a n d OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . De fe nda nt W illia m Springfie ld a

ppe a ls from the distric t

c o urt’ s de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss. W e a ffirm . 

# FIL ED OCT 20 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Eve n if Springfie ld ha s sta nding to c ha lle nge the se a rc h of the ve hic l e , the m otion to suppre ss the e vide nc e obta ine d through tha t se a rc h wa s prope rly de nie d. The distric t c ourt found tha t the se arc h of the c ar would ha v e oc c urre d a

nyway , e ve n if Springfie ld ha d not be e n a rre ste d a nd se a rc he d. Tha

t finding wa s not c le arly e rrone ous. The offic e rs te stifie d tha t a n inve ntory

se arc h of a

stole n ve hic le wa s sta nda rd proc e dure . Se e Unite d State s v . Mota , 982 F.2d 1384, 1387 (9th C ir. 1993). It is not dispute d tha t the ve h ic le ha d be e n

re p orte d stole n. B e c a

use the m e tha m phe tam ine “ ultim ate ly

or ine vita

bly would ha ve be e n disc o ve re d by

la wful m e ans,” the ine vita

ble disc ove ry

doc trine a

pplie s. N ix v . W illiams , 467 U.S. 431, 444 (1984). AFFIRM E D.

2
| 1.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  and |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Registrant. |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                      |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ PATRICK      G. SHERIDAN                                                                         |   |   |   |
| Patrick      G. Sheridan                                                                                  |   |   |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial Officer and PrincipalAccounting      Officer)  |   |   |   |
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6143]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Montana Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a planning meeting of the 
Montana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will 
convene via teleconference on Wednesday, April 4, 2012 [MDT]. The 
meeting will begin at 2 p.m. and adjourn on or about 4 p.m. The meeting 
will be held by teleconference. The purpose of the meeting is for the 
Advisory Committee to select a project topic to study.
    The public dial-in number is 1-800-516-9896; Conference ID 
<greek-i> 8334. Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting 
should dial 711 for relay services and enter 1-800-516-9896, followed 
by Conference ID <greek-i> 8334. Members of the public are entitled to 
submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional 
office by May 4, 2012. Comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain 
Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 999-18th Street, 
Suite 1380 South, Denver, CO 80202, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c292e2324233e0c393f2f2f3e622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afcacdc0c7c0ddefdadcccccdd81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>. In addition, persons who desire additional 
information may contact Malee Craft, Regional Director, Rocky Mountain 
Regional Office, by phone at (303) 866-1040.
    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced 
at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both 
before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this 
advisory committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the 
above email, address, or telephone number.
    To ensure that the Commission secures an appropriate number of 
telephone lines for the public, persons are asked to contact the Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office 10 days before the meeting date either by 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcd9ded3d4d3cefcc9cfdfdfce92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d282f2225223f0d383e2e2e3f632a223b">[email protected]</span></a> or by phone.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the rules and regulations 
of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, March 9, 2012.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2012-6143 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>