alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 

**- 6834** 

JOHN W. FISHBACK

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Asst. Warden; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES, FORMER EMPLOYEES,

CONTRACTORS AND FORMER CONTRACTORS OF THE NORTH BRANCH
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND ROXBURY CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION

,

Defendants

– Appellees,

and

JOHN A. ROWLEY,

Defendant.

**No. 12** 

**- 7137** 

JOHN W. FISHBACK

,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; RICHARD J. GRAHAM, JR., Asst. Warden; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES, FORMER EMPLOYEES,

CONTRACTORS AND FORME R CONTRACTORS OF THE NORTH BRANCH2 CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AND ROXBURY CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION

,

Defendants

– Appellees,

and

JOHN A. ROWLEY,

Defendant.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv

- 00612

- JFM )

Submitted : October 25, 2012 Decided: November 8, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

John W. Fishback

, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Judith Lane

Weber, Assistant Attorney General , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

John W. Fishback appeals the district court ’s orders

denying his motions and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See Fishback v. Shearin , No. 1:11

- c v

00612

- JFM (D. Md. June 15, 2012; Apr. 3, 2012). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Pathmark
Stores, Inc. Consolidated Statements of Operations for the 13 weeks ended May 3,
1997 and Consolidated Balance Sheet as of May 3, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1997
<CASH>                                          13,938
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,519
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,188)
<INVENTORY>                                    215,715
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               293,180
<PP&E>                                         993,768
<DEPRECIATION>                               (400,057)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 987,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          500,655
<BONDS>                                      1,171,452
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,050,508)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   987,300
<SALES>                                        922,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               922,319
<CGS>                                          663,057
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  663,057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    23
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (41,290)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,701
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,842)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,842)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Contents

Data 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngc3w.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration

infoctr@eia.doe.gov

# Data 1

Back to Contents
Startup-Shutdown Procedures

robert.j.morehouse to: Penny Lassiter, Nick Parsons 03/23/2011 11:53 AM

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

1 attachment

 P&R1 SS provisions 3-23-11.doc 

Penny and Nick: info on suggestions for procedures when emissions routed

to flare.

The other data I owe you will be sent in a separate email shortly .

(See attached file: P&R1 SS provisions 3-23-11.doc)

Bob Morehouse

ExxonMobil

Office: 281-870-6524; Cell: 281-384-5390

robert.j.morehouse@exxonmobil.com
(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 Trust.
 MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST VBy:
    /s/ MARLENE DEBELName:
    Marlene Debel*Title:
    Regular Trustee  
 *
    
    Marlene Debel functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer of the Trust for purposes of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### Ex parte CAMPBELL et al.

No. 25954.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 15, 1952.

W. P. Sexton, Orange, Baldwin & Vo-taw, Beaumont, for appellant.

Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., Calvin B. Gar-wood, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

This is an original application for habeas corpus, the writ having been issued and made returnable on October *7,*1952.

Relators, joined by the state, have filed their joint motion to dismiss showing that relator is no longer in detention and that the question raised has become moot.

The motion is granted, and the application is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

783 

CA 15-02057 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

BUFFALO BIODIESEL, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

TAJ MAHAL, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH G. MAKOWSKI, LLC, BUFFALO (APRIL J. ORLOWSKI OF

COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW J. STIMSON, BUFFALO (ANDREW J. STIMSON OF

COUNSEL), AND CHRISTOPHER D. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, BLASDELL, FOR

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme

Court, Erie County (Paula L. Feroleto, J.), entered August 19, 2015. 

The order and judgment, inter alia, granted that part of the motion of

defendant seeking dismissal of the complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order and judgment so appealed from

is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Entered: September 30, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-853

Lower Tribunal No. 18-CF-000186

_____________________________

KATRINA MARY DRAKES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.

Margaret O. Steinbeck, Judge.

March 5, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL, WHITE and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Steven L. Bolotin, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cynthia Richards, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J OSE M AN UEL R OD RI GU EZ SY M O N D S, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 72828 A ge nc yN o. A 090- 200- 064 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t23, 2010 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , H A W K IN S , an dT H O M A S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J os e M anue lR odr i gue z - S y m onds , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a lf r om an i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s r e mo v a lo r d e r . W e h av e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED AU G 31 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS06- 72828 2 § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o qu e s tio n s o f law an dc o n s titu tio n a l c la im s , Kha n v. H older , 5 8 4 F .3 d7 7 3 , 7 7 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) , an dw e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . R o d r ig u e z - S y m o n d s d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e a g e n c y ’s d e te rm in a tio n th a t h e is r e m ovabl e unde r8 U . S . C . § 1227( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ba s e d on hi s 1994 c onvi c t i on f or le w do rla s c iv io u s a c ts w ith ac h ildu n d e r1 4 y e ar s o f a g e in v io la tio n o f

C a lif o rn ia P e n a l C o d e § 2 8 8 ( a ) . T he agency det erm i ned thatR od ri gu ez -S ym on ds i s i nel i gi bl e f or re l i ef un der f orm e rs e c t i on 212( c ) , 8 U . S . C . § 1182( c ) ( r e pe a l e d 1996) , be c aus e hi s gr ound of r e m o v ab ilityla c k s as ta tu to ryc o u n te rp art in ag r o u n do f in a d m is s ib ility . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 21 2. 3(f) (5). R od ri gu ez -S ym on ds’ l egaland con st i tut i on alchal l enges to th is d e te rm in a tio n ar e u n av a ilin g . See A bebe v. Mukasey , 554 F . 3d 1203, 1207 & 1 2 0 8 n .7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e n b an c ) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3174 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3174

  To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to obligate funds for 
emergency relief projects arising from damage caused by severe weather 
                events in 2013, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 25, 2013

   Mr. Gardner (for himself, Mr. Polis, Mr. Tipton, Ms. DeGette, Mr. 
  Perlmutter, Mr. Lamborn, and Mr. Coffman) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to obligate funds for 
emergency relief projects arising from damage caused by severe weather 
                events in 2013, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EMERGENCY RELIEF PROJECTS.

    The Secretary of Transportation may obligate any funds made 
available to implement section 125 of title 23, United States Code, for 
emergency relief projects arising from damage caused by severe weather 
events in 2013, without any limitation on obligations for such projects 
resulting from a single natural disaster or a single catastrophic 
failure in a State.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered April 1 9 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00680
- CV
KENNETH W. MORRISON AND STONECOAT OF TEX AS , L . L . C . , Appellant s V. PROCAL STONE DESIGN, L . L . C . , AND JOHN D. PROFANC HIK, SR., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 16
- 15721



### O RDER Before the Court is the parties’ April 16, 2018 joint motion to stay the proceedings. The parties state that they have reached a confidential oral mediation agreement and request that the matter be stayed until July 16, 2018 , in order to prepare the necessary documents . This case was submitted on February 20, 2018. The Court GRANTS the parties ’ April 16, 2018 joint motion to stay the proceedings. Counsel are DIRECTED to file status letters regarding the settlement every thirty (30) days from the date of this order until either a motion to dismiss is filed or the case is reinstated

. Failure to do so wi ll result in the reinstatement of the case and the issuing of an opinion in due

course.The Court ABATES th is appeal until July 16, 2018, unless the parties file a motion to

dismiss before that date or the parties fail to comply with this Court’s directive to file status reports

.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG PRESIDING JUSTICE
July 30, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GREG SALDINGER, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00402-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 31.2







CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER




I,
Rhowena Blank, certify that:




1.  I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Man-AHL Diversified I
L.P.  (“registrant”);




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




4. The
registrant's other certifying officer 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 registrant and we 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 registrant, 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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant'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 registrant'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 registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.




By:  /s/
Rhowena Blank




__________________________________


Rhowena
Blank


Vice
President, Accounting Officer


March 31,2009
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

# Time and Date:

 10 a.m., Wednesday, October 25, 2000. 

# Place:

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20551.

# Status:

 Closed. 

# Matters to be Considered: 

1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 

2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting. 

# Contact Person for More Information:

 Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204. 

# Supplementary Information:

 You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. 

Dated: October 18, 2000.

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 00-27116 Filed 10-18-00; 11:00 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 21.1

                          RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
                                 SUBSIDIARIES


United States Corporations.

1.  RAVISENT IP, Inc. - Nevada Corporation, EIN No.: 88-0433260.

2.  RAVISENT Operating Company Inc. - Delaware Corporation, EIN No.: 23-3022334.

3.  Liuco, Inc. - Delaware Corporation, EIN No.: 51-0391002.

4.  RAVISENT Technologies Internet Appliance Group, Inc. - Delaware Corporation,
    EIN No.: 52-2206140.

German Entities.

5.  Erste Cinco Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH - wholly owned subsidiary of RAVISENT
    IP, Inc.

6.  Viona Vervatungs GmbH - wholly owned subsidiary of Erste Cinco
    Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH.

7.  Viona Development Hard and Software Engineering GmbH & Co. KG - a limited
    partnership owned by Erste Cinco Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH (5 above) and
    Viona Vervatungs GmbH (6 above).
### Preliminary Permitting Action for Veolia in Sauget Preliminary Permitting Action for Veolia in Sauget , , Il . David Ogulei David Ogulei to: Reed, Michael 11/28/2012 03:20 PM Cc: "Bakowski, Ed" FYI - George Czerniak shared this information with Laurel earlier today . I'm forwarding this to you to ensure that you also get this timely. -David We will be sending the enclosed documents to Veolia tomorrow for a two week review prior to putting the permitting actions on notice. I wanted to give you a heads up as well as extend Illinois EPA the opportunity to provide input to us during this two week preliminary review period . EPA has made a preliminary determination to deny the feedrate limits requested by Veolia , and to incorporate into a revised Title V permit feedrate limits that EPA considers to be supported by the available performance test data and federal regulations. EPA will propose periodic monitoring requirements to ensure compliance with EPA's proposed feedrate limits. David Ogulei is the permit writer. Please share any comments on the preliminary draft permit and other materials directly with him by December December December

14 , 2012 .

Veolia SOB_November 2012.pdf Veolia Sig Mod_November 2012.pdf

Veolia Fact Sheet 11-27-12.pdf Veolia NOID_November 2012.pdf David Ogulei U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division | A -18J 77 West Jackson Blvd. | Chicago, Illinois 60604 Phone: (312) 353-0987 | Fax: (312) 692-2080 Ogulei.David@epa.gov
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7482
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND FULLER, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-92-178, CA-94-748) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Fuller , Nos. CR-92-178; CA-94-748 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 1995). We dispense withoral 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