alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 97-20336

Summary Calendar

_______________________

OTIS DANIEL EMERSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EWER, OFFICER,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-95-CV-5310

_________________________________________________________________ July 21, 1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Otis Daniel Emerson (TDCJ # 588524) appeals the district

cou rt’s dismissal, as frivolous, of his civil rights complaint

against TDCJ Officer Lawrence Ewer. In both his complaint and his

testimony at the Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985)

hearing, Emerson alleged that Ewer dou sed him with an unknown

substance and that such dousing caused a severe skin ailment.2 In determining that Ewer’s actions were not the cause of

Emerson’s skin condition, the district c ourt impermissibly used

Emerson’s medical records and testimony of Dr. Lipscomb to counter

his testimony at the Spears hearing; that is, she accepted as fact

Dr. Lipscomb’s medical opinion that even if Ewer was doused with a

mixture of urine and the cleaning solution Bippy, as he claims,

this mixture could not have caused his atopic dermatitis. S ee

Williams v. Luna

, 909 F.2d 121, 1 24 (5th Cir. 1990).

Unfortunately, while Dr. Lipscomb ’s opinion may later go

uncontested on summary judgment -- because Ewer will be unable to

generate medi cal proof to contest it -- the district court’s

acceptance of his opinion was premature. The issue is a fact issue

that should not have been resolved in a summary Spears hearing.

The court thus abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint as

fri volous. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The court’s

dismissal is VACATED and the case REMANDED for further proceedings.

Emerson’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED. S ee

Ulmer v. Chancellor , 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).

VACATED and REMANDED.
1

Hutson, Nick

From: Hutson, Nick

Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:16 PM

To: Frey, Nathan J.

Cc: 'Szabo, Aaron'; Culligan, Kevin; Fruh, Steve

Subject: RE: Revised versions of 111(b) preamble/rule 

Attachments: 111b preamble_DRAFT_0782815_RLSO_compare to 072415.docx

Nathan – 

Sorry ... I sent you the 07/24/15 clean version instead of the RLSO that I mentioned in my previous email. 

The correct file is attached. Sorry about that. 

Nick 

Nick Hutson, PhD 

Energy Strategies Group 

Office of Air & Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

tel: +1 919 541 2968 

email: hutson.nick@epa.gov 

From: Hutson, Nick 

Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:00 PM 

To: Frey, Nathan J. 

Cc: Szabo, Aaron; Culligan, Kevin; Fruh, Steve 

Subject: Revised versions of 111(b) preamble/rule 

Nathan, 

Please find three files attached: 

1. A clean version of the latest version of the 111(b) preamble and rule for GHG emissions from new, modified, and 

reconstructed EGUs – this version incorporates changes responsive to Interagency comments/suggestions and 

also changes that we have made as we continue to improve the document. The document also has EPA 

responses to OMB/Interagency comments in marginal comment balloons. 

2. A RLSO version showing changes that have been made – compared to the clean version that was submitted to 

OMB on 07/24/15. 

3. EPA’s response to summary of comments from review of the 07/24/15 submission. 

We are continuing to work on the document. However, we expect no more substantive changes to the document. 

Specifically we are still working on: 

1. We are reading through to ensure consistency in terminology, formatting, punctuation, grammar, etc. 
2

2. We are revising some sections (esp. turbine sections) for readability and clarity – however, again, no substantive 

or directional changes. 

3. We are working on the NTTA section and amendments to 60.17 – this involves making sure we are properly

incorporating the test methods (e.g., ASME test methods for determining efficiency and ANSI method for

assuring consistent accuracy of electricity monitoring) 

4. We are reviewing regulatory text to make sure it is as easy as possible for the public to understand & verifying 

that it is consistent with the preamble. 

If you have any questions or concerns, let me know.

Thanks, 

Nick 

Nick Hutson, PhD 

Energy Strategies Group 

Office of Air & Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

tel: +1 919 541 2968 

email: hutson.nick@epa.gov
---

Exhibit 13.2


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 CFO Certification In connection with the annual report of Getty Copper Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald Willoughby, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 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. /s/ Donald Willoughby Name: Donald Willoughby Title: Chief Financial Officer June 21, 2011 A signed original of this written statement 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. This certification accompanies the Form 20-F to which it relates, is not to be deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the Form 20-F), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.


---
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

   WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
          SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND TREASURER
                        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Extendicare Health Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I,
Mel Rhinelander, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify solely for purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Sections 1350
that based on my knowledge:

      (1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.

/s/ Mel Rhinelander
-------------------
Mel Rhinelander
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2006

In connection with the Annual Report of Extendicare Health Services, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report"), I,
Richard L. Bertrand, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer of the Company, certify solely for purposes of complying with 18
U.S.C. Sectioins 1350 that based on my knowledge:

      (1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.

/s/ Richard L. Bertrand
-----------------------
Richard L. Bertrand
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
March 30, 2006

                                       3
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc.


Santa Ana, California







We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 pertaining to Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc.'s 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, of our report dated June 29, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.




/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP


Costa Mesa, California


June 29, 2010
Compensatory Arrangement for David F. Lamere



 Exhibit 10.21 
 COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS FOR 
 David F. Lamere 
 David F. Lamere, Vice Chairman of the registrant, is an employee at will of the registrant whose compensatory arrangements are as described below. 
 His base salary is $500,000 per year. He is eligible to participate in the annual Profit Bonus Plan and Mellon’s Long-Term Profit Incentive Plan
(2004) applicable to similarly situated Vice Chairs. The bonus payment will be subject to, and in accordance with, Mellon’s general eligibility requirements for incentive payments, including but not limited to, a requirement that to
receive any payment, he must be an active employee of Mellon or another related entity or affiliate at the time of the payment. The LTIP and individualized agreements cover all aspects of the long-term incentive awards. 
 Mr. Lamere is also eligible to participate in all compensation or employee benefit plans or programs, and to receive all benefits, perquisites and emoluments, which
are generally available to Vice Chairs of Mellon under any plan or program to the extent permissible under the law and in accordance with the terms and provisions of such plans or programs. 
 Mr. Lamere is a party to a Change in Control Severance Agreement dated September 17, 2001 (which is substantially in the form of Exhibit 10.23 to this Annual
Report on Form 10-K). 
 Management will recommend to the Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors at its March 2006 meeting that Mr. Lamere
receive a one-time award of $2,000,000 comprised of stock options and restricted stock, each of which will vest three years from date of grant. Mr. Lamere will execute a non-solicitation agreement.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The
Bombay Company, Inc. quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the six months
ended July 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000096287
<NAME> THE BOMBAY COMPANY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           26884
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      94812
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                131315
<PP&E>                                          105749
<DEPRECIATION>                                   59250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  191503
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            33673
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         38150
<OTHER-SE>                                      112641
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    191503
<SALES>                                         166048
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                166048
<CGS>                                           120722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   170065
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (703)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1296)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2018)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2018)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [OR-104-1430-DE: GPO-0013] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 

# ACTION:

Extension of public review. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Roseburg District, has extended the period for public review of the North Bank Habitat Management Area FEIS. The FEIS describes and analyzes the environmental impacts of management on the 6,580 acre North Bank Habitat Management Area. This notice was originally published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on September 26, 2000 (page 57825).                     

# DATES:

A thirty day (30) day public review period for this document was provided commencing on September 22, 2000. The public review period will be extended an additional fifteen (15) days until November 6, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

Request for copies should be addressed to the Field Manager, Swiftwater Field Office, Roseburg District, Bureau of Land Management, 777 NW Garden Valley Blvd., Roseburg, Oregon 97470; Attention NBHMA Project. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ralph Klein (Team Lead) 541-440-4930. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(1) The EIS was written in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2) The EIS is available on the Roseburg District web site (www.or.blm.gov/​roseburg). 

Dated: October 19, 2000. 

Jay K. Carlson, 

Field Manager. 

[FR Doc. 00-27375 Filed 10-24-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
#### MORRISON v. STATE.

No. 26316.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1953.

Stone & Stone, Jacksonville, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, five years.

The scene of the homicide was a rural section of Anderson County. The participants were farmers, who lived near each other and who had been having difficulties arising out of the fact that appellant’s stock had been depredating upon the property of deceased.

The wife of deceased testified that on the fatal morning the appellant and members of his family came to her home in his automobile, inquired of deceased if he had seen their mule, drove down the road approximately *75*yards, 'brought the automobile to a stop, and the appellant got out. She testified that appellant called out, “Come here Andrew, we are going to talk this over man for man”; that her husband replied, “Okey Reuben, I will be there just in a minute”; that he went in their house; that she heard him open the trunk where he kept his pistol; that he came out of the house, and went up the road toward the appellant. She stated that when her husband got within SO feet of appellant, the appellant reached in his automobile, got a shotgun and 'fired at her husband; and shortly thereafter appellant and his family left.

Appellant and his witnesses testified that he shot deceased in his own self-defense, because deceased was in the act of drawing his pistol at the time he shot. Under appropriate instructions, the jury resolved this issue against the appellant. The principal question presented for review is the propriety of giving a charge on provoking the difficulty under the facts of this case.

As stated, there had been some difficulty between the accused and deceased growing out of the -fact that appellant’s mules had been breaking his fences and eating deceased’s growing crops. In rural communities, serious animosities over such matters often ripen; however, the existence of animosity plus an invitation to discuss, the same does not, in itself alone, constitute the provocation of a difficulty so as to deprive the person who makes the invitation of his full right of self-defense.

*411While it is true that words alone may provoke a difficulty, they must clearly be designed to do so. The State would have, us take judicial knowledge of the colloquial meaning of the expression “man for man.” This we cannot do. Without any testimony in the record as to the meaning commonly given such expression in the community involved in the prosecution, we are powerless to read into such expression something not apparent on its face.

The record before us would not support a finding by the jury that appellant’s statement, “Come here Andrew, we are going to talk this over man for man,” caused or was calculated to cause the deceased to make an attack upon appellant with a pistol, nor would the evidence support a finding by the jury that appellant made the remark with the intent to provoke an attack by the deceased which would afford appellant an apparent excuse to kill him.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
----

----

| 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. |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   | TELTRONICS,      INC.                                                             |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   |   /s/      Ewen R. Cameron                                              |
|        November 12, 2008 |   | Ewen      R. Cameron                                                              |
|                          |   | Director,      President, Chief Executive OfficerAnd      Chief Financial Officer |
|                |   |                                                                              |

----
#### Ex Parte BROWN.

No. 26364.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1953.

McLemore & Lindsay, by Harvey Lindsay, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., James .K. Allen, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant stands charged by indictment with the offense of murder with malice. He appeals from the order entered in a habeas corpus proceeding denying his application for bail.

The deceased Edwin Joe Campbell, employee of,a finance company, who in the afternoon was seeking to ascertain the whereabouts of appellant in connection with a delinquent account against him in favor of his employer, was killed by being shot in the head three times with a 25-caliber pistol; his body left in- the company car he was driving and the car set afire. The partially burned body was found in the rear of the car when members of the Dallas Fire Department put out the fire about 9 :50 P.M. -

A careful consideration of the statement of facts, in the light of the briefs and oral argument presented, leads us to the conclusion that the trial court should be sustained in denying bail to appellant. .

There are many circumstances pointing to appellant as the perpetrator of the murder and no testimony • of a defensive nature and no mitigating circumstances are to be found in the record.

■Because of the nature of the proceeding we refrain from further discussion or comment upon the evidence, but express- the conclusion that an abuse of discretion on ■ the part of the trial judge is not shown.

The judgment remanding appellant to custody without bail is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                            6679
<SECURITIES>                                      4748
<RECEIVABLES>                                    27990
<ALLOWANCES>                                       827
<INVENTORY>                                      12404<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 53637
<PP&E>                                           57106
<DEPRECIATION>                                   36685
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   82403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            23160
<BONDS>                                          10047
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         47293
<OTHER-SE>                                       (468)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     82403
<SALES>                                          74957
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 81016
<CGS>                                            42516
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    47578
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 29054
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   256
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4053
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1763
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2290
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2290
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
<FN>
<F1>Inventory detail at November 30, 1997 was finished goods $7830; work in
process $892; raw materials $3682.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>