alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2277

DAVID HENRY ROGERS,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

R. S. BURKE, JR. as Agent for the U.S. Veterans 

Administration, personally and individually; U.S. VETERANS 

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:09-cv-00068-FL)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 24, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Henry Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Henry Rogers appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his claims of “malfeasance” and intentional 

infliction of emotional distress against the Veterans’ 

Administration and one of its officials. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. Rogers v. Burke, No. 

5:09-cv-00068-FL (E.D.N.C. Nov. 3, 2009). 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
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
Just i ces

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 5, 2012

y0227 

# Order

March 5, 2012

144005-6

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144005-6 COA: 298709; 298710 FORTINO GONZALEZ, Allegan CC: 09-016480-FC Defendant-Appellant. 09-016481-FC

___________________ _________________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 20, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary finanical information extracted from Tandycrafts,
Inc. December 31, 1998 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,013
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,300
<INVENTORY>                                     43,274
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,008
<PP&E>                                          49,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,142
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,688
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,528
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,201
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   139,739
<SALES>                                        103,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,918
<CGS>                                           74,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  109,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 8,145
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,083
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,960)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,215)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,215)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.91)
        

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2943 

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit Federal education 

funding for elementary or secondary schools that provide access to emergency postcoital contraception. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mr. LAMBORN (for himself, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. COLE, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JONES, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. BACHMANN, and Mr. ROE of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the General Education Provisions Act to prohibit 

Federal education funding for elementary or secondary 

schools that provide access to emergency postcoital contraception. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Schoolchildren’s 

5 Health Protection Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2943 IH

1 SEC. 2. SCHOOLCHILDREN’S HEALTH PROTECTION. 

2 The General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 

3 1221 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing new part: 

5 ‘‘PART E—SCHOOLCHILDREN’S HEALTH 

6 PROTECTION 

7 ‘‘SEC. 461. LIMITATIONS ON FUNDING. 

8 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, 

9 no funds may be made available from any applicable pro10 gram to a State educational agency or local educational 

11 agency that— 

12 ‘‘(1) distributes or provides, or permits the dis13 tribution or provision of, postcoital emergency con14 traception (such as the so-called ‘morning-after 

15 pill’), or a prescription for such contraception, on 

16 the premises, or in the facilities, of an elementary 

17 school or secondary school; or 

18 ‘‘(2) enters into a contract or other agreement 

19 relating to the provision of health services to stu20 dents under the jurisdiction of the agency with a 

21 school-based health center unless such center agrees 

22 that it will not provide postcoital emergency contra23 ception, or a prescription for such contraception, to 

24 any such student pursuant to the contract or agree25 ment. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2943 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 462. DEFINITIONS. 

2 ‘‘In this part: 

3 ‘‘(1) The term ‘postcoital emergency contracep4 tion’ means— 

5 ‘‘(A) any of the regimens described in the 

6 notice entitled ‘Prescription Drug Products; 

7 Certain Combined Oral Contraceptives for Use 

8 as Postcoital Emergency Contraception’, pub9 lished in the Federal Register on February 25, 

10 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 8610), or any subsequent 

11 corresponding notice; or 

12 ‘‘(B) any other drug or device to be used 

13 after fertilization may have occurred and for 

14 the same purposes as the regimes in subpara15 graph (A). 

16 ‘‘(2) The term ‘school-based health center’ has 

17 the meaning given such term in section 2110(c)(9) 

18 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

19 1397jj(c)(9)).’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 12.2



I, Don J.A. Smith, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of

Nevada Geothermal Power, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of

a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the

statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements

were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this

Annual Report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial

information included in this report, fairly present in all material

respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of

the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for

establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures

(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company

and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such

disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,

to ensure that material information relating to the company, including

its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within

those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is

being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and

procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the

effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end

of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control

over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the

annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to

materially affect, the companys internal control over financial

reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on

our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to

the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of

directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or

operation of internal control over financial reporting which are

reasonably likely to adversely affect the companys ability to record,

process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other

employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control

over financial reporting.





Date: January 12, 2006



/s/ Don J. A. Smith_________

Don J. A. Smith

Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES
AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

Date/Time: January 21 , 2016 / 1 1 :00 a .m.

– 1 2 :00 p .m.

Subject: Paraquat Dichloride Meeting Minutes . OPP Meets with Technical Registrants of Paraquat Dichloride to Discuss Mitigation Measures to

A ddress I ncidents A ssociated with P araquat Dichloride

.

From: Marianne A. Mannix, Chemical Review Manager

Re

- evaluation M anagement and Implementation Branch III

Pesticide Re

- evaluation Division (7508P)

Participants: Kelly Sherman (EPA), Tracy Perry (EPA), Marianne Mannix (EPA), Nancy Fitz (EPA), Jonathan Becker (EPA), Monty Dixon (Syngenta),

John Abbott (Syngenta), K.C. Li n (Sinon), Todd Denofreo (ADAMA) , Jan Stechmann (Helm Agro), Sebastian Lueth (Helm Agro), Rebecca Hargadine (Source Dynamics), Cheryl Wagner (Sharda and Willowood), Larry Miller (Sinon and US Raymat )

Meeting Minutes:

EPA met with the technical registrant s of paraquat dichloride on January 21 , 201 6

. The technical registrants participated in the meeting through a conference line. During the meeting, the technical registrants asked the EPA clarifying questions and raised potential

concerns regarding the suit e of mitigation measures EPA proposed in the January 6, 2016 meeting . The Agency agreed to begin reviewing specific label amendments and language intended for the supplemental warning materials as well as any proposed training/stewardship materials. The Ag ency also agreed to evaluate the initial set of mitigation measures to determine whether all of them were relevant given the new proposed mitigation measures. EPA and the registrants will meet once more in two to

three weeks’ time to discuss the final miti gation proposals.
Order entered August 27, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00310-CV

MOLLY FREYER, ET AL., Appellants

V.

LYFT, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-14517

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s August 25, 2020 unopposed second motion 

for an extension of time to file its brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and 

extend the time to October 14, 2020. We caution appellee that further extension 

requests will be disfavored.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection with the annual report of Rosedale Decorative Products, Ltd.
(the  "Company")  on  Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed
with  the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,  Norman Maxwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (3)  The  Report  fully  complies  with  the  requirements of section 13(a)
          or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date: January 25, 2006                              By: /s/ NORMAN MAXWELL
                                                    ---------------------
                                                    Norman Maxwell
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

EDAN GARCIA,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2551

LT Case No. 2019-CF-016179

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/ 

Decision filed June 14, 2022 

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County, 

Leticia Marques, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and 

Nancy Ryan, Assistant Public Defender, 

Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, 

for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

LAMBERT, C.J., EISNAUGLE and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
From: Alexander Dainoff

To: Jim Staudt

Cc: Dale T. Pfaff; William Cummings; Terry Brown

Subject: Re: PPL colstrip SNCR

Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 4:01:18 PM

Jim,

As per our discussion, we have the following comments on the Colstrip Unit

1 BART Cost analysis you provided:

 1. Based on our previous proposal on this unit as well as similar SNCR

Turnkey installations by Fuel Tech, the total turnkey installed cost

should be in the $15 to $20/kw range.

 2. From the recently submitted proposal for this unit, 25% NOx reduction

from a baseline of 0.20lbs/MMBtu required an NSR of 1.75. This was based

 on a calculated FEGT of over 2500oF at the bullnose elevation. The Gas

Temperature has a significant impact on the Process Design, system

 configuration and reagent consumption.

 As an example, on a recent SNCR Process demonstration on a 750MW T-fired

boiler burning PRB, The FEGT 2 feet above the bullnose elevation was

 2334oF and were able to achieve 25% NOx reduction with combined HERT and

NOxOUT wall injectors at an NSR of 1.1

 Therefore based on actual measured gas temperature on these units, the

reagent consumption could be reduced significantly.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need additional details,

please contact me.

Thanks,

Alexander S. Dainoff

Regional Sales Manager

Fuel Tech Inc.

120 Long Ridge Road

Stamford, CT 06902

Phone: 203-323-8401

FAX: 203-967-2366

Mobile: 201-970-4044

ADainoff@ftek.com

On 6/27/12 10:29 AM, "Jim Staudt" <staudt@andovertechnology.com> wrote:

>Alex,

>

>I've attached EPA's estimate of the cost of SNCR and SOFA at Colstrip

>unit 1

>(the unit 2 analysis is identical). They show an assumed NSR of 1.38 (see

>page 5). This is public and in the docket. If you could comment on

>whether
>or not this is a reasonable (if not conservative) assumption for NSR with

>25% reduction, that would be helpful.

>

>Thanks in advance for your help.

>

>

>Best Regards,

>

>Jim Staudt

>Andover Technology Partners

>office: 978-683-9599

>mobile: 978- 884-5510

>

>

>

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Alexander Dainoff [mailto:ADainoff@ftek.com]

>Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:44 AM

>To: Jim Staudt

>Cc: Dale T. Pfaff; William Cummings; Terry Brown

>Subject: PP&L colstrip SNCR

>

>Jim,

>

>It was good talking to you today about an SNCR budget estimate for the

>PP&L

>Colstrip Units.

>

>As we discussed, I have enclosed a basic Combustion Unit Survey.

>

>This should be filled out as completely as possible and sent back to me

>along with any drawings, cut sheets, and boiler data. We can then prepare

>an initial budget estimate for SNCr Nox control for these units.

>

>Thanks and we look forward to working with you on this project.

>

>Alexander S. Dainoff

>Regional Sales Manager

>Fuel Tech Inc.

>120 Long Ridge Road

>Stamford, CT 06902

>Phone: 203-323-8401

>FAX: 203-967-2366

>Mobile: 201-970-4044

>ADainoff@ftek.com

>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998, AND 
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,906
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,628
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     69,027
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               174,561
<PP&E>                                          72,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 249,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,274
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,748
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   249,533
<SALES>                                         31,399
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,399
<CGS>                                           22,942
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (810)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (13)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (823)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,131)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONALD LEWIS DAVIS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BARBARA BLANCKENSEE; HUGH J.
HURWITZ,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 15626

D.C. No. 4:19

- cv

- 00385

- JGZ

- PSOT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 17, 2021 * *

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Donald Lewis Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgement dismissing for failure to state a claim his action regarding his prison

orientation and loss of good time credits . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

FEB 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Davis’s action because Davis failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338,

341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a

plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim) ; see also Wolff v.

McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 563

- 68 (1974) (due process requirements for prison

disciplinary proceedings); Cousins v. Lockyer , 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2009)

(failure to follow internal prison policy does not amount to a constitu tional

violation).

To the extent that Davis challenged the loss of good time credits, the district

court properly dismissed Davis’s claim beca use he failed to allege facts sufficient

to show that the disciplinary proceeding resulting in the loss of good time credits

had been invalidated

. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486

- 87 (1994) (if “a

judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his

conviction or sentence

. . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can

demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”); see

also Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641, 648, (1997) (extending Heck to prison

disciplinary proceedings resulting in the loss of good

- time credits).

AFFIRMED.
clean and compare RTR package

Ken Hustvedt to: Cortney_Higgins, nbeck 09/14/2010 06:48 PM

Cc:

Ann Johnson, Dave Guinnup, Dave Salman, Elaine Manning, Fred Talcott, 

George Woodall, Jan Tierney, Mark Morris, Mary Kissell, Paula Hirtz, Phil Mulrine, 

Randy Mcdonald, Rick Vetter, Sarah Mazur, Stan Durkee, Steve Shedd, Ted 

Palma, Tim Benner, Wendy Blake, Peter Tsirigotis, Joseph-J Dougherty

 RTR Bins12 OMB

ProPkg14Sep10Ver1.doc

compare

of OMB

9 10 and

9 14

645.docx

compare

of OMB

9 10 and

9 14

645.docx