alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
"richardastrust.com" <richard@astrust.com>

08/19/2007 10:20 PM•To •Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave Godwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeff Cohen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, george <georgew2@comcast.net>, gary <riskscicom@aol.com>, andy Tujios <tujios@aol.com> •cc • •bcc • •Subject •hcr188c guidelines • •• •For Follow Up:• •• •• ••Urgent Priority ••••• •History:• ••This message has been forwarded.••• Margaret: George finished the draft on the guidelines of HCR188C. Please review and feel free to comment on the draft. The EPA's comments are very much welcomed. Richard
Richard Maruya phone 808 2351890 fax 808 235 0116 cell 808 5614688 e mail richard@maruya.net or richard@astrust.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, then please notify us by return e-mail immediately. Should you have received this e-mail in error then you should not copy this for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.
#### Hawke, Appellant, *v.*The American Security & Trust Co. et al., Appellees.

(No. 31570

Decided December 8, 1948.)

*Mr. George S. Hawke, in propria persona.*

No appearance for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of .right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, ¡Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Turner, J., not participating.
PCA : 12-3J14-24-B-0121 

PURCHASE AWARD DESCRIPTION 

December 20, 2023 19:05:00 

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) purchased pollock products as indicated below for distribution to 

the child nutrition and other related domestic food assistance programs for Fiscal Year 2023. The 

purchase is the result of offers received in response to Solicitation No. 2000009753 dated December 5, 

2023. 

The material was purchased on an f.o.b. destination basis. Deliveries are to be made from March 1, 2024 

through June 31, 2024. 

Further information can be obtained from the Commodity Procurement Program, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, USDA, Room 3522 South Building, Washington, DC 20250, telephone (202) 720- 4517 or the website 

at http://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food 

Number of Offers/Quotes(Vendor Responses) received: 3 

PURCHASE SUMMARY 

Material Total Qty UOM Price Range Total Dollars 

ATLANTIC POLLOCK FILLET FRZ 2,700.000 CS $251.6000 - $261.6000 $ 

PKG-20/2 LB 686,070.00 

FISH AK PLCK FILLETS FRZ PKG-20/2 38,000.000 LB $2.5270 - $2.5270 $ 

LB 96,026.00 

FISH AK POLLOCK STICKS FRZ 190,000.000 LB $2.2650 - $2.3900 $ 

PKG-20/2 LB 435,100.00 

TOTAL 230,700.000 LB $ 1,217,196.00 

PURCHASE DETAILS 

Contractor/ Material Plant Bid Inv. Destination Quantity UOM Price 

Contract Number Location Item 

CHANNEL FISH 

PROCESSING CO., INC. 

200 Commerce Dr 

Braintree, MA 02184-7145 

12-3J14-24-C-0574 Braintree, 

4100028931 

FISH AK POLLOCK STICKS FRZ PKG-20/2 LB 

240 VINELAND, 38,000.000LB $ 

NJ 2.3900 

Subtotal 38,000.000LB 

ATLANTIC POLLOCK FILLET FRZ PKG-20/2 LB 

40 BATESVILLE, 225.000CS $ 

MS 251.6000 

50 JACKSON, 675.000CS $ 

MS 251.6000 

70 BATESVILLE, 225.000CS $ 

MS 251.6000 

80 JACKSON, 675.000CS $ 

MS 261.6000 

100 BATESVILLE, 225.000CS $ 

MS 251.6000 
 Page 2 / 2 

Contractor/ Material Plant Bid Inv. Destination Quantity UOM Price 

Contract Number Location Item 

110 JACKSON, 675.000CS $ 

MS 251.6000 

Subtotal 2,700.000CS 

Contract Total 40,700.000CS $ 776,890.00 

Contractor Total 40,700.000 CS $ 776,890.00 

TRIDENT SEAFOODS 

CORPORATION 

5303 Shilshole Ave NW 

Seattle, WA 98107-4000 

12-3J14-24-C-0573 Anacortes, WA 

4100028930 

FISH AK PLCK FILLETS FRZ PKG-20/2 LB 

140 DURHAM, CA 38,000.000LB $ 

2.5270 

Subtotal 38,000.000LB 

FISH AK POLLOCK STICKS FRZ PKG-20/2 LB 

170 DURHAM, CA 38,000.000LB $ 

2.2650 

180 DURHAM, CA 38,000.000LB $ 

2.2650 

200 INDIO, CA 38,000.000LB $ 

2.2650 

220 MODESTO, 38,000.000LB $ 

CA 2.2650 

Subtotal 152,000.000LB 

Contract Total 190,000.000LB $ 440,306.00 

Contractor Total 190,000.000 LB $ 440,306.00
From: Dave Eccleston [ma ilto:delmarvarecyclinginc@comcast.net]

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:21 PM

To: Bahner, Mark A. Subject: RE: Aluminum sweat furnaces in MD?

Mark,

Thank you for your inquiry. I will have to check our website. We have not operate d sweat furnaces in years and they in general are going the way of the dinosaur in our industry. With the advent of shredders and the eddy recovery systems the need for the large sweat furnaces are lessened. I’m not sure if Maryland has any and if so maybe only one or two left. I would start with our national organization as a source of information. It would have most of the large players as members. www.isri.org I do know that there could be many small sweat furnaces in operation in the smaller yard, we even had one up until around 2000. These are small units that can melt items around the size of a car rim, one at a time, and in many cases fall under any reporting or regulatory requirements.

Good luck,

Dave

David N. Eccleston, VP Delmarva Recycling, Inc 909 Boundary Street Salisbury, MD 21801

From: Bahner, Mark A. [mailto:bahner@rti.org]

Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:40 PM

To: Decclest@delmarvarecycling.com Subject: Aluminum sweat furnaces in MD?

Dear Mr. Eccleston:

I work for RTI, International. My company does contract re search for the U.S. EPA. We are interested in getting

an idea of the number and locations of sweat furnaces in the U.S. My understanding from your website is that your company currently operates two swea t furnaces at your Boundary Street lo cation (and only at that location).

Or is this incorrect?

http://delmarvarecycling. com/contact/contact.htm

Do you have any estimate of the number of sweat furnaces operating in your state or in the U.S., or could you suggest someone to contact who might be able to estimate those numbers?

Thank you,

Mark Bahner

Research Pa g e 1 of 2

1/10/2012 mhtml:file://\\ rtifile02.rcc

_ nt.rti.or g \ehe\Pro j ects\0210426-EPA

_ SPPD _( O p t4 ) \0210426.00

...Mark A. Bahner

RTI, International

P.O. Box 12194, 3 040 Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194

Phone: (919) 541-6016 Fax: (919) 541-7155

Email: bahner@rti.org

Internet: http://www.rti.org Pa g e 2 of 2

1/10/2012 mhtml:file://\\ rtifile02.rcc

_ nt.rti.or g \ehe\Pro j ects\0210426-EPA

_ SPPD _( O p t4 ) \0210426.00

...
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7440
GREGORY SNOW, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD MOATS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97- 3226-MJG) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 12, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Snow, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Snow v. Moats , No. CA-97-3226-MJG (D. Md. Oct. 1, 1997). We deny Appellant's motion to compel the district court to transfer his petition to the Supreme Court and 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
CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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
FalconTarget, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

(a) the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

and

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

FalconTarget, Inc.

Date: November 15, 2007

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner

Thomas Kirchner

Chief Executive Officer

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

* A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2412** 
In re: ANDREW CHARLES JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 3:00

- cr - 00006

- GMG

- JES

- 1 ; 3:00

- cr - 00046

- JPB

- RWT

- 1 )

Submitted : April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
.
Andrew Charles Jackson , Petitioner Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Andrew Charles Jackson petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order declaring void the district court’s order denying Jackson’s motion for production of jury voir dir e transcripts. We conclude that Jackson is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U .S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F. 3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for ap peal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Jackson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROLAND BROWN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 256 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DANA MAURICE JACKSON, a/k/a Moonie,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CR-97-132-JFM)

Submitted: May 6, 1999 Decided: July 13, 1999

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark B. Martin, M. Cristina Gutierrez, REDMOND, BURGIN & GUTIERREZ,

P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia,

United States Attorney, Joseph L. Evans, Assistant United States

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dana Maurice Jackson appeals his convictions, arising out of

an armored car robbery, for conspiracy to obstruct, delay or affect

commerce, interference with commerce by threats or violence, and

aiding and abetting the same, and use of a firearm in the commission of crime of violence, and aiding and abetting the same. On

appeal he alleges that the district court erred by: (1) precluding

from evidence the fact that his co-defendant may have been involved

in a subsequent armored car robbery; (2) denying his motion to

suppress a calendar seized in the search of his home; and (3) by

enhancing his sentence by four levels rather than two levels under

the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, §

2B3.1(b)(4) (1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s actions

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Jackson’s

convictions and sentence. 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
* 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. 07-30455

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTHUR WILLIAMS, also known as Pop

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:93-CR-10012-6

Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arthur Williams, federal prisoner # 08395-035, was convicted by a jury in

1993 of one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and cocaine

base (crack) and two counts of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to

distribute cocaine hydrochloride and crack. He was sentenced in 1994 to 250

months of imprisonment. 

After filing several meritless postconviction motions in the court of

conviction and the district court for the district in which he was incarcerated,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 15, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30455

2

Williams filed in the court of conviction a purported Rule 35 motion seeking a

reduction in his sentence. The version of Rule 35 that was in effect when

Williams was convicted and sentenced provided that a district court could (a)

correct a sentence on remand, (b) reduce a sentence on the motion of the

Government, or (c) “correct a sentence that was imposed as a result of

arithmetical, technical, or other clear error” if it acted within seven days after

imposing the sentence. FED. R. CRIM. P. 35(a)-(c) (West 1994). Williams’s

motion met none of these conditions. 

A defendant’s motion cannot be considered a Rule 35 motion to correct or

reduce his sentence when his motion and situation do not fit any provision of

that Rule. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1994). As Williams

has already been denied relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the district court would

have lacked jurisdiction to reduce Williams sentence under either Rule 35 or

§ 2255. See § 2255;United States v. Lopez, 26 F.3d 512, 518-19 (5th Cir. 1994).

The district court denied and dismissed Williams’s motion with prejudice

without mentioning jurisdiction; however, its dismissal was presumably on that

ground. See e.g., Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 355-63 (1993) (where the

basis for jurisdiction is statutory, failure to meet the statutory criteria means

that the court lacks jurisdiction). We affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court has already warned Williams that he may no longer file

successive § 2255 motions that do not comport with 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

Williams is now cautioned that any future frivolous or repetitive filings in this

court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will invite additional

sanctions, including monetary penalties and limits on his access to federal court,

as will the failure to withdraw any pending matters that are frivolous.

AFFIRMED: SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
## In t he

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00051

- CV

SMART WAGON CORPORATION AND

MONTGOMERY PIKE BURKHART, SR. , Appellant s

V.

SS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP , Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lam a r County, Texas

Trial Court No. 91087

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

The appellant s filed a motion with this Court seeking to voluntarily dismiss t h is appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the motion is granted.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal

.

Charles van Cleef

Justice

Date Submitted: August 7, 2023

Date Decided: August 8, 2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6104
JOSEPH GOLD HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus J. BUGG, Correctional Officer; L. HAWKINS,Lieutenant; B. ALEXANDER, Correctional Officer; E. MONEY, Licensed Practical Nurse; A. A. BOYD, Sergeant; R. WALKER, Correctional Officer; L. NEWCOMBES, Correctional Officer; MISTER POTILLO, Correctional Officer, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-95-362) Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 3, 1996 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Gold Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with E.D. Va. Loc. R. 28(C)(4) and Evans v. Croom , 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellantfailed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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
391 A.2d 708

#### Escobar v. Tenenbaum et al. (et al., Appellant), et al.

Argued March 29, 1978.

Louis W. Fryman, with him Becker, Fry-man & Ervais, for appellant; Stephen N. Huntington, with him Warner & Huntington, for appellees.

Order affirmed.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Legal Services Corporation

# CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

                        Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to                         *FR_NOTICE_QUESTIONS@lsc.gov.*

# NON-CONFIDENTIAL MEETING MATERIALS:

                        Non-confidential meeting materials will be made available in electronic format at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the LSC Web site, at                         *http://www.lsc.gov/​board-directors/​meetings/​board-meeting-notices/​non-confidential-materials-be-considered-open-session*.                    

# ACCESSIBILITY:

                        LSC complies with the American's with Disabilities Act and                               ( print page 21111)                            Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals who need other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or                         *FR_NOTICE_QUESTIONS@lsc.gov*, at least 2 business days in advance of the meeting. If a request is made without advance notice, LSC will make every effort to accommodate the request but cannot guarantee that all requests can be fulfilled.                    

Dated: April 4, 2012.

Victor M. Fortuno,

Vice President & General Counsel.

# Footnotes

                        ** Any portion of the closed session consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term “meeting” and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session. 5 U.S.C. 552b(a)(2) and (b).                         *See also*45 CFR 1622.2 & 1622.3.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2012-8541 Filed 4-5-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
#### Norman Lee HEWES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-79-391.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 9, 1981.

D. C. Thomas, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Oklahoma, C. Elaine Alexander, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

Norman Lee Hewes has appealed from his conviction of Manslaughter in the Second Degree in the District Court of Oklahoma County, in Case No. CRF-78-3180. He was originally charged with First Degree Manslaughter, but the trial court sustained his demurrer to the State’s evidence and did not instruct the jury on that charge. The sole assignment of error on appeal is that the judge, upon sustaining the demurrer, should have recommended a verdict of not guilty, instead of giving the case to the jury on the lesser included offenses.

Title 22 O.S. 1971, § 850, is not mandatory. It provides that the trial court *may*advise the jury to acquit a defendant, not, as the appellant claims, that the court must do so. And this Court has repeatedly held that the trial judge should instruct the jury in all the degrees of a crime which the evidence tends to prove. See, for instance, *Watkins v. State,*25 Okl.Cr. 10, 218 P. 895 (1923); and *Bailey v. State,*536 P.2d 985 (Okl.Cr.1975).

When the trial court found that the State had failed to present a prima facie case on the crime charged, but had presented one on the lesser included offenses, he acted properly in advising the jury that they were to consider only those lesser offenses.

The judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P. J., and CORNISH, J., concur.