alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7551** 

CHARLES EDWARD THOMAS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Former Prison Director; MEDICAL DIVISION; FINANCIAL RECORDS, In their individual and official capacities , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 0:14

- cv - 00302

- DCN )

Submitted : July 20, 2015 Decided: September 21, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Charles Edward Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Charles Edward Thomas appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss , after a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (2012) review , Thomas’s claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012 ) , the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12 1 01

- 12300 (2012) , and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 , 42
U.S.C. §§ 1320d

– 1320d

- 9 (2012) , and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thomas’s state law claims
. T homas has also filed with t his C ourt several motions seeking additional relief. We deny the pending motions and affirm the district court’s judgment. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 76 6 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Moreover, we limit our review to the issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief
. S ee 4th Cir. R. 34(b)
. Thomas waived appellate review of the district court’s disposit ive holdings by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s dispositive recommendations after receiving proper notice , and by failing to challenge the district court’s dispositive holdings in his informal brief.3 Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and affirm the district court ’s judgment . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before this C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2035 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2035

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide for 
    greater disclosure in the process for waiving annual limitation 
                      requirements under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 26, 2011

   Mr. Griffin of Arkansas introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide for 
    greater disclosure in the process for waiving annual limitation 
                      requirements under that Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Healthcare Waiver Transparency Act 
of 2011''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVED TRANSPARENCY IN HEALTH CARE WAIVERS UNDER PPACA.

    Section 2711(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-
11(a)), as inserted by section 1001(5) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), is amended by adding at the 
end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Notice.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Under the waiver process 
                established by the Secretary to carry out paragraph 
                (2), within 5 business days after the date of making a 
                decision to approve or deny an application for a waiver 
                under such process the Secretary shall publicly post 
                notice of such approval or denial on the Internet 
                website of the Department of Health and Human Services 
                and shall include in the notice the name, city, and 
                State of the applicant and the date the application was 
                filed.
                    ``(B) Protection of proprietary information.--In 
                carrying out subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
                ensure the confidentiality of proprietary information 
                contained in such an application.''.
                                 <all>
```
# l I ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- CDM/CAPE, JV Under Contract No. FA6643-08-D-0004 APPEARANCES FORTHE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 61412

Kevin P. Mullen, Esq. James A. Tucker, Esq.

Morrison Foerster LLP Washington, DC Jeffrey P. Hildebrant, Esq.

Air Force Deputy ChiefTrial Attorney Isabelle P. Cutting, Esq.

Trial Attorney OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enterjudgment in favor ofappellant. 

### It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the parties'jointmotion for a consentjudgment, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a consentjudgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of $42,636.46. This amount is inclusive ofinterest. No further interest shall be paid. Dated: September 6, 2018

(Signatures continued) oministrattve Judge hairman Armed Services Board ofContract AppealsI concur

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals I concur

OWEN C. WILSON Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Opinion and Decision ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61412, Appeal of CDM/CAPE, JV, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals 

# I
NUMBER 13-12-00693-CV

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE, Appellant, 

v.

KRYSTAL DAVIS, ET AL., Appellees.

On appeal from the 130th District Court 

of Matagorda County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Barry Wayne Minnfee, attempted to perfect an appeal from an order 

issued by the trial court. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared

that the order he was attempting to appeal was not appealable and the appeal was late. 

The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of these defects so that steps could be

taken to correct the defects, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3. 
2

Appellant was advised that, if the defects were not corrected within ten days from the

date of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Appellant has failed to respond to this Court’s directive and has not shown that the order 

at issue is subject to appeal or that the appeal is timely. 

Moreover, appellant is on the list of vexatious litigants compiled by the Office of 

the Court Administration of the Texas Judicial System, and he has been prohibited 

from filing any more litigation in Texas courts without permission of a local 

administrative judge. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.104 (West Supp. 

2011); see generally http://www.txcourts.gov/oca/vexatiouslitigants.asp. The record 

before the Court fails to show that appellant obtained the permission of the local 

administrative judge to file this appeal. With limited exceptions not applicable to this 

case, "a clerk of a court may not file a litigation, original proceeding, appeal, or other 

claim presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 11.101 

unless the litigant obtains an order from the local administrative judge permitting the 

filing." Id. § 11.103(a) (West Supp. 2011). 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to 

correct the defects in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

14th day of February, 2013.
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO N IN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-19-0000733

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

ERIC W. KIM, Claimant-Appellant-Appellee, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC., Employer-Appellee-Appellant, and

HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., I nsurance Adjuster-Appellee-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS APPEALS BOARD

(CASE NOS. AB 2019-077; 2-09-06934; 2-12-07793)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Fujise, JJ.) Upon consideration of the "Stipulation to Dismiss Appeal Filed on October 24, 2019, by Employer-Appellee-Appellant,United Parcel Services, Inc., and Insurance Adjuster-AppelleeAppellant, Helmsman Management Services, Inc.," filed September 10, 2021, by Employer-Appellee-Appellant United Parcel Services, Inc., and Insurance Adjuster-Appellee-Appellant Helmsman Management Services, Inc. (Appellants), the papers in support, and the record, it appears that (1) the appeal has been docketed; (2) the parties stipulate to dismiss the appeal, under Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 42(b); (3) the stipulation is dated and signed by all self-represented parties and counsel for all other parties appearing in the appeal, but it does not specify the terms as to payment of costs required by HRAP Rule 42(b); and (4) nonetheless, the court will construe the Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-19-0000733 22-SEP-2021 10:01 AM Dkt. 105 OGMDN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO N IN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### stipulation as Appellants' motion to dismiss the appeal under HRAP Rule 42(b), and grant the requested relief.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, September 22, 2021. /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge /s/ Alexa D.M. Fujise Associate Judge

2
Sandia National Laboratories is a multi

- program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE

- AC04

- 94AL8500 0. Photos placed in horizontal position with even amount of white space between photos and header



# Value of Water in Energy Production

Vincent C. Tidwell Sandia National Laboratories 

## Importance of Water to the U.S. Economy Washington, DC, September 19, 2012

# Technical Support Team

 Sandia National Laboratories

 Vincent Tidwell

 Barbie Moreland

 Howard Passell

 Katie Zemlick

 Barry Roberts



###  Argonne National Laboratory

 John Gasper

 Eugene Yan

 Chris Harto



###  Electric Power Research Institute

 Robert Goldstein



###  National Renewable Energy Laboratory

 Jordan Macknick

 Kathleen Hallett



###  Idaho National Laboratory

 Gerald Sehlke

 Dan Jensen

 Chris Forsgren



###  Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

 Mark Wigmosta

 Ruby Leung



###  University of Texas

 Michael Webber

 Carey King

# Water for Thermoelectric Power Generation

Water Withdrawal (BGD) 2005



# Water Consumption (BGD) 1995 

# Water Withdrawal (BGD)

2005



# Water Consumption (BGD) 1995

# Integrated Planning

Transmission 

# Planning

Energy

Security W ater Management(insert really cool image/supergraphic from your work)



# Caption or heading (if you have one) Operational water consumption factors for electricity generating technologies

CSP and PV Biopower Nuclear Natural Gas Coal Recirculating Cooling Once

- through Cooling Pond Cooling Dry Cooling Hybrid Cooling No Cooling

Required

Source: Macknick et al. 2011 Operational water consumption (Gal/MWh)

# Water Consumption by State and Sector

# Water Availability

# Water for Development

Unappropriated Water Sources Only All Water Sources

# Relative Cost of Water

# Levelized Cost of Electricity to Retrofit

# Potential Water Available from Retrofit

# Water for Fuel Extraction

# Vincent Tidwell

vctidwe@sandia.gov 

# (505)844

- 6025 http ://energy.sandia.gov/
# > 3

U.S . Departmen t 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . o f Transportatio n Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Januar y 15,201 0 Michael C Lehane , Esq . Brandon H . Moss , Esq . Murphy , Hesse , Toome

y & Lehane , LL

P 30 0 Crow n Colon y Drive , Suit

e 41 0 ^ J Quincy , M A 0216 9 o an d b y facsimil e t o (617 ) 479-646 9 

# i P Re : Heliops , LL

C v . Norwoo d Memoria

l Airport , et . al. ; Docke

t No . \6-Q9-pl

^ Dea r Messrs . Lehane an

d Moss : _S ^ Th e Complainant , Heliops , LLC , throug h Coimsel , ha s moved fo r a n extensio n of

time unti l Decembe r 4,2009 , t o file it s Repl

y tha t wa s du e o n Octobe

r 29,2009 . N o oppositio n t o th e motio n wa s receive d fromth e Respondent . The FA A ha s considere d th e goo d caus e shown by th e Complainant , th e lack

o f prejudic e t

o th e Respondent , an

d th e interes t

to develop aful

l an d complet e record , an

d conclude s tha

t th e requeste d extensio n i s warrante d and , it i s therefore , granted . Th

e Complainant' s Repl

y Brief filed o n Decembe

r 4,2009 , i s accepte d int

o th e docket . The Rule s of

Practic e fo

r Federally-Assiste d Airpor

t Enforcemen

t Proceeding s a

t § 16.23(f ) allo w you te n (10 ) day s t

o file aRebutta

l to th e Reply . Becaus e the abov e rulin g i s bein g issue d today , you wil l b e afforde

d th e opportunit

y to hav e te n day s fromtoda y in which t

o file aRebuttal . Th

e Rebuttal , then , i s du e by Januar y 25 , 2010 . [ Veatch 'Attorney , Airport s La

w Branch (AGC-610 ) Office of the Chief Counsel Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , SW , Roo m900- E Washington , D.C . 2059 1 (202 ) 267-967 6 (202 ) 267-576 9 (fax) cc : Kevi

n C . Cain , Esq . Timoth y M . Pomarole , Esq . , . Peabod y & Arnol d LL

P ^ . [ \\' - '^., Federa l Reserv e Plaz a 60 0 Atlanti c Ave . Boston , M A 0211 0 an d b y facsimil e t o 617-951-212 5
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

JAMES R. WELCOME, 

Petitioner, 

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

2013-3093, -3094

__________________________ 

Petitions for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in Nos. AT0752120317-I-1 and AT0752120469-I-1.

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

O R D E R

James R. Welcome moves without opposition to consolidate the above-captioned cases.

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. The revised official caption is 

reflected above. 

Case: 13-3093 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 05/07/2013
JAMES WELCOME v. NAVY 2

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly

 Clerk

s24 

Case: 13-3093 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 05/07/2013
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PVH Corp. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended May 1, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Shaffer, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating & Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





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

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







Dated:June 6, 2016By:/s/ MICHAEL SHAFFERName:Michael ShafferExecutive Vice President andChief Operating & Financial 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.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549
SAMMY VIDALES

V.

STATE OF TEXAS

NO. 2012436579

COA. 07-13-00286-CR

IN THE COURT

OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Motion for Suspension of Rules

Comes now SAMMY VIDALES, APPELLANT Pro Se, under the pro

tection of HAINES V. KERNER, 404 U.S. 520(1972), per liberal

construction/application to pro se litigants and respectfully

moves this Honorable Court to aknowledge Rule 2 of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure and use its authority under this

provision to suspend in this matter operation of Tex.R.App.Proc.

9.3(B) and 9.5 in support of this motion. Sammy Vidales would

show the following:

I.

Appellant, as a Texas prisoner, does not have access hroCa) ||\j

computer or a copier to make copies to send to all pa-r^HJeQF £n]n\/J|j\IAL APPEAl 9

volved.

Prayer

10 23^5

Appellant prays the Honorable Judge grant this mo'u':D@nA<&$Ma, Clerk

order the clerk to make proper copies and distribute said

copies to all parties involved.

Resp^ptfully Submitted,

Fre-pfch \A. Robertson Unit

12071 FM 3522

Abilene TX, 79601
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the AnnualReport of Illini Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the periodended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe hereof (the “Report”), I Burnard K. McHone, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best ofmy knowledge:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 

 
| /s/ Burnard K. McHone            |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Burnard K. McHone                     |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| March 26, 2004                        |

 

1

----
#### E. B. BOWEN and Norman Greer, Appellants, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27813.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 16, 1955.

*943No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is unlawfully placing in a public stream a substance deleterious to fish life for the purpose of attempting to catch fish; the punishment, a fine of $50 and 60 days in jail.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
### STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

FILED 

### SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

April 19, 2013
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

### DIANA L. CURTIS,

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

### Claimant Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 11-1013 (BOR Appeal No. 2045319 

### ) (Claim No. 201017605 

### )

WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE OF

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER Commissioner Below, Respondent

and

HOMER LAUGHLIN CHINA CO., Employer Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Diana L. Curtis, by Patrick K. Maroney, her attorney, appeals the decision of the West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Board of Review. Homer Laughlin China Co., by Lucinda Fluharty, its attorney, filed a timely response.

This appeal arises from the Board of Review’s Final Order dated June 9, 2011, in which the Board affirmed a November 3, 2011, Order of the Workers’ Compensation Office of Judges. In its Order, the Office of Judges affirmed the claims administrator’s January 25, 2010, order. The Court has carefully reviewed the records, written arguments, and appendices contained in the briefs, and the case is mature for consideration.

This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate

Procedure.

1Ms. Curtis was working at The Homer Laughlin China Company as a brusher/feeder on September 21, 2009, when she experienced pain and pressure in her lower abdominal area while pulling boards, turning the table, and lifting bungs of ware. Ms. Curtis had previously complained of a dropped bladder to a plant R.N. In his October 15, 2009, report, Dr. Parulkar reported that Ms. Curtis told him that she had been ongoing symptoms for a year with it getting

worse the last three months.

In reaching the decision to affirm the claims administrator’s order, the Office of Judges found that Ms. Curtis’s work activities were not so unique as to have caused her condition and that Ms. Curtis had a disease of the general population that did not result from her employment. The Board of Review reached the same reasoned conclusion as the Office of Judges in its decision of June 9, 2011. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Board of Review.

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the decision of the Board of Review is not in clear violation of any constitutional or statutory provision, nor is it clearly the result of erroneous conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a material misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary record. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review is affirmed.

Affirmed.



### ISSUED: April 19, 2013

CONCURRED IN BY: Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin

Justice Robin J. Davis Justice Margaret L. Workman Justice Allen H. Loughry II

DISSENTING:

Justice Menis E. Ketchum

2