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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 133

To express the sense of the Congress that the President recognize the role

rural communities play in the economy of the United States and express

this recognition through appropriate emphasis on rural economic development when preparing the administration’s economic proposals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 4, 1993

Mr. CLEMENT introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Agriculture

JOINT RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Congress that the President

recognize the role rural communities play in the economy

of the United States and express this recognition through

appropriate emphasis on rural economic development

when preparing the administration’s economic proposals.

Whereas 3,449,000 square acres or 97.5 percent of the land

area in America is defined as ‘‘Rural’’ by the United

States Bureau of the Census;

Whereas 61,656,000 or 24 percent of the American population reside in rural communities;
2

•HJ 133 IH

Whereas rural areas provide a strong traditional heritage

which has continued to be vital to the American spirit;

Whereas rural communities play a vital role in the economic

health and well-being of the United States;

Whereas 21 percent of total United States employment is located in rural areas;

Whereas the 1980’s saw the gap between rural and urban relative income increase to the effect that rural per capita

income was only 72.2 percent of urban per capita income;

Whereas the rural poverty rate in 1990 was 16.3 percent

higher than in 1972;

Whereas employment rose 21 percent in metro areas between

1979 and 1989, while employment increased by only 12

percent in rural areas within the same time period;

Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that

75 percent of all waste water facility development needs

are located in rural communities with fewer than 10,000

residents;

Whereas more than one-half of the Nation’s 3,100,000 miles

of rural roads are unpaved and many of the paved roads

are in inadequate conditions;

Whereas the Federal Highway Administration estimates that

there are more than 180,000 deficient bridges in the

United States, most of which exist in rural areas;

Whereas the 1990 Census confirms that more than one-half

of all rural counties lost population due to the migration

of younger workers in search of higher paying jobs in

urban areas; and
3

•HJ 133 IH

Whereas a Federal role is critical to foster an environment

conducive to economic growth in rural areas of our Nation: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the 103d Congress urges the President to recognize

4 the important role of rural areas when planning and im5 plementing the economic agenda of the United States and

6 to place considerable emphasis on rural economic develop7 ment when considering infrastructure, small business as8 sistance, and education and development initiatives.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6612

VINCENT JOHN HALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LARRY TUSTALL; MAXTON POLICE DEPARTMENT; MAJOR

GOINGS; SCOTLAND COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CA-02-28-5-BO)

Submitted: September 12, 2002 Decided: October 1, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent John Hall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Vincent John Hall appeals the district court’s order

dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Hall v. Tustall, No. CA-02-28-5-BO (E.D.N.C.

Mar. 20, 2002). We deny Hall’s motion for default judgment. 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
SERVED APRIL 15,2010 

DFPTOFTR^HSPORWION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION iC 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. : 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CITY OF BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT 

Respondent. 

DOCKET NO. CP09NE0001 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA-2009-0977 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE'S ORDER CONVENING 

PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

A pre-hearing conference by telephone will be held before me on May 

27, 2010. It will begin at 10:00 a.m.. Eastern Time. 

The purpose of the conference will be to dispose of any remaining 

pre-hearing issues (including disputes concerning discovery), to determine 

the parties' readiness for the hearing, and to discuss the status of settlement 

negotiations. 

On or before the close of business on May 24, 2010, each of the 

parties will notify my Assistant, Ms. Diane Mays, of the telephone number 

at which its representative can be reached shortly before 10:00 a.m. on May 

27,2010. Her telephone number is (202) 366-2132. Arrangements will be 

available under which a limited number of other interested persons may 

listen-in to the conference. 

The failure of a party to be available for or to participate in, the prehearing conference will be deemed an indication that the party no longer 

wishes to prosecute the case or to enjoy the benefits of a trial-type hearing. 
Such failure may be grounds for the issuance of a dispositive order by 

default. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Isaac D. Benkin 

Administrative Law Judge 
FAA Docket No. CP09NE0001 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^30 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

Honorable Bill Finch, Mayor 

City of Bridgeport, Respondent 

City Hall Annex 

999 Broad Street 

Bridgeport, CT 06604 

Mark T. Anastasi, Respondent's Counsel 

City Attorney, City of Bridgeport 

999 Broad Street 2"'' Floor 

Bridgeport, CT 06604-4328 

TEL: 203-576-8082 

FAX: 203-576-8252 

John R. Donnelly, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, ANE-7 

New England Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01803-5299 

TEL: 781-238-7043 

FAX: 781-238-7055 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
Domtar Ashdown Mill- Power Boiler No. 2

Cost-Effectiveness of Increasing the Control Efficiency of Existing Scrubbers to 90% through Use of Additional Scrubbing Reag

Calculation of Current Control Efficiency of Existing Scrubbers

Monthly AVG % SO2 Removal for Permit Compliance

(As reported by Domtar in the Excel file titled “Domtar 2PB Monthly SO2 Data," which was included as an attachment to the 

Manager of Environmental Regulation, Domtar, to Dayana Medina, U.S. EPA Region 6.)

Jan-11 66.78%

Feb-11 57.01%

Mar-11 56.91%

Apr-11 60.91%

May-11 72.26%

Jun-11 82.74%

Jul-11 80.14%

Aug-11 67.99%

Sep-11 78.96%

Oct-11 65.73%

Nov-11 59.65%

Dec-11 69.66%

Jan-12 67.37%

Feb-12 65.09%

Mar-12 66.91%

Apr-12 63.17%

May-12 67.81%

Jun-12 68.02%

Jul-12 66.33%

Aug-12 64.65%

Sep-12 90.50%

Oct-12 67.69%

Nov-12 61.36%

Dec-12 56.52%

Jan-13 65.41%

Feb-13 67.94%

Mar-13 64.05%

Apr-13 65.05%

May-13 68.81%

Jun-13 68.77%

Jul-13 82.95%

Aug-13 73.87%

Sep-13 76.66%

Oct-13 74.48%

Nov-13 75.66%

Dec-13 86.56%
Average % SO2 Removal during 3-year period: 69.29%

2001-2003 Actual Baseline Emissions for Power Boiler No. 2: 2,078 SO2 tpy

Assuming scrubbers are curently achieving ~69.3 % SO2 removal, U= 100% uncontrolled SO2 emissions :

U x (1 - 0.693) = Actual Controlled Emission Rate (i.e., 69.3% control efficiency)

U x (1 -0.693) = 2,078 SO2 tpy

U= 6,769 SO2 tpy

Annual Emissions Reductions:

Total Emissions Reductions from operating scrubbers at 90% Control Efficiency= 6,769 x 0.90 = 6,092 SO2 tpy 

Controlled SO2 Emission Rate (90% Control Efficiency)= 6,769 - 6,092 = 677 SO2 tpy

Annual Emissions Reductions from Increasing Control Efficiency 69.3% to 90%= 2,078 - 677 = 1,401 SO2 tpy

Average Cost-Effectiveness Calculations:

Average cost-effectiveness= Total Annual Cost/ Annual Emissions Reductions

$1,976,554.01/ 1,401 SO2 tpy removed = $1,411/ SO2 tons removed
Use of Additional Scrubbing Reagent:

cluded as an attachment to the August 29, 2014 letter from Annabeth Reitter, Corporate 
2 emissions :

6,769 x 0.90 = 6,092 SO2 tpy 

6,769 - 6,092 = 677 SO2 tpy

2,078 - 677 = 1,401 SO2 tpy

2 tons removed
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                              
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                        
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|Minnesota Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|Minnesota Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | NA     | 2      | NA     | 2     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      | 2      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Exhibit 31.2 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, David W. Qualls, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Garden Fresh Restaurant Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers 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 andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its controlled subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within these entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’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 evaluations ; and

 

c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter 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 officers and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal 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’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 8, 2003
EXHIBIT
      32.2








STATEMENT
      OF EDWARD W. WILHELM,


SENIOR
      VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF BORDERS GROUP, INC.


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
      Edward
      W. Wilhelm, certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 29, 2006,
      of
      Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and
      that
      the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Borders
      Group, Inc.





Date:
      June 8, 2006





/s/
      EDWARD W. WILHELM


Edward
      W.
      Wilhelm


Senior
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Borders
      Group, Inc.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Borders Group, Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                            <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998       JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998       JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         19,655,000        19,655,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,119,000        32,119,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0                 0
<INVENTORY>                                    0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               65,266,000        65,266,000
<PP&E>                                         3,449,325,000     3,449,325,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,837,000       121,837,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,455,480,000     3,455,480,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          66,519,000        66,519,000
<BONDS>                                        1,408,700,000     1,408,700,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                 0
<PREFERRED>                                    384,997,000       384,997,000
<COMMON>                                       0                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,595,264,000     1,595,264,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,455,480,000     3,455,480,000
<SALES>                                        113,079,000       213,410,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,400,000       217,784,000
<CGS>                                          35,827,000        65,555,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  56,095,000        102,936,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,386,000         8,170,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             17,837,000        35,615,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                37,082,000        71,063,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            37,082,000        71,063,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                 46,000
<CHANGES>                                      0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                   29,426,000        57,216,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.47              0.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.47              0.94
        

</TABLE>
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE LJNITED STATES DISTzuCT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

EUGENE ABNER,

Petitioner,

WARDEN BRITT,

Respondenl. Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-920-C-BK

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that this civil action should be dismissed

without prejudice for improper venue.

The Court conducts a de noyo review ofthose portions of the Magistrate Judge's report or

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C.

$ 636(bXlXC). Portions ofthe report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the

subject ofa timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or

contraryto [aw. See United States v. lltilson,864 F.2d 1219,1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

After due consideration and having conducted a de novo review, the Court finds that

Petitioner's objections should be OVERRULED. The Court has further conducted an

independent review ofthe Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is

therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby

Case 3:22-cv-00920-C-BK Document 12 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 48
ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions ofthe Court. Forthe reasons stated therein, the

Court ORDERS that this civil action be DISMISSED without prejudice for improper venue.

SO ORDI]RED.

oarcav,ay )l ,zozz

GS

R ITED STA STRICT JUDGE

2

/

Case 3:22-cv-00920-C-BK Document 12 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 49
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1652** 

TORRIE JOHNSON , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; FREDERICK BEALEFELD, Police Commissioner Individually and as Police Commissioner of the Baltimore City Police Department; ADAM LONG, Police Officer, Sequence #F648 Individually and as a Police Officer of the Baltimore City Police Department; BERNARD TAYLOR, Police Officer, Sequence #1635 Individually and as a Police Office r of the Baltimore City Police Department; JOHN AND JANE DOES 1

- 10, Individually and as Currently Unknown Police Officers of the Baltimore C i ty Police Department; RICHARD AND JANE ROES 1

- 10, Individually and as Currently Unknown Supervisors of the Baltimor e City Police Department; LYNETTE MORTON, Parking Control Agent Baltimore City Department of Transportation; LINDA MCCLELAN, Parking Control Agent Baltimore City Department of Transportation; JAMES DOE, Director, Individually and as Currently Unknown Direc tor(on May 1, 2010) of Baltimore City Department of Transportation; MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE , Defendants

- Appellees
.

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

. William D. Quarles , Jr., District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00646

- WDQ )

Submitted : July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.2 Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Torrie Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Constantine Sakles, BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Towson, Maryland; Danielle Grilli Marcus, WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP, Thurman Wilbert Zollicoffer, Jr., City Solicitor, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel lees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Torrie Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Johnson’s motions to appoint counsel, to extend the time to file her amended complaint, to strike the an swer, to file a surreply to the answer, and to modify the scheduling
order. The Appellees McLean and Morton have moved to dismiss the appeal. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
Acc ordingly, we grant Appelees’ motion and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Johnson’s motion to appoint
counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED