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


Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor 

12110/2009 

Mr. Michelle Pirzadeh 

EPA Region 10 

1200 6th STE 900 

Parks and Recreation Department 

State Historic Preservation Office 

725 Summer St NE, Ste C 

Salem, OR 97301-1266 

(503) 986-0671 

Fax (503) 986-0793 

www.oregonheritage.org 

Seattle, WA 98101-3140 

RE: 	 SHPO Case No. 09-2624 


Siuslaw River Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Proj 


18S 12W 8,17, Florence vicinity, Lincoln County 


Dear Michelle: 

Our office recently received your report about the project referenced above. Thank you for 

informing me who the author ofthe report actually was. This is information that is needed by our 

office before we can enter the report into our database. I have reviewed your report and agree 

that the project will have no affect on any known cultural resources. No further archaeological 

research is needed with this project. In looking through your report I did note that a Siuslaw 

Shipwreck Database is mentioned several times. Our office is trying to maintain a shipwreck 

database and the Corps report included much infonnation that was unknown to us. Our office 

would like to receive a copy of this database, if possible. A spatial copy would serve us best, if 

available, but if not a map showing the location of the known wreck sites along with whatever 

wreck infonnation is known would be great. We will be sure and update our GIS system so that 

it accurately portrays the known data for such wreck sites. 

Please be aware, however, that if during development activities you or your staff encounters any 

cultural material (i.e., historic or prehistoric), all activities should cease immediately and an 

archaeologist should be contacted to evaluate the discovery. Under state law (ORS 358.905-955) 

it is a Class B misdemeanor to impact an archaeological site on public or private land in Oregon. 

Impacts to Native American graves and cultural items are considered a Class C felony (ORS 

97.740-760). If you have any questions regarding any future discovery or my letter, feel free to 

contact our office at your convenience . 

~// 

• .....d"·· ..-.-~ 

../
 ~ 

· .... 	 /"---<~~ :.zuer;;;is Griffin, Ph.D., RPD 

State Archaeologist 

(503) 986-0674 


dennis.griffin@state.or.us
N / E / W / S     R / E / L / E / A / S / E











July 25, 2013





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


For more information, contact:


David L. Ortega,


First Vice President/Director of Investor Relations


765-378-8937


http://www.firstmerchants.com





SOURCE: First Merchants Corporation, Muncie, Indiana





FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION TO PRESENT IN UPCOMING INVESTOR CONFERENCE





First Merchants Corporation (NASDAQ - FRME) today announced that its management will participate in the upcoming Keefe, Bruyette & Woods 2013 Community Bank Investor Conference.





On July 30, 2013, Michael C. Rechin, Chief Executive Officer, and Mark K. Hardwick, Chief Financial Officer, will present at the KBW Community Bank Investor Conference held in New York City on July 30-31, and will participate in meetings with institutional investors during the conference.  The investor presentation by First Merchants Corporation is scheduled to begin at 3:30 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, July 30.  In order to view the web cast of the presentation, please go to http://wsw.com/webcast/kbw12/frme .  A replay of the presentation will be available until October 30, 2013.











About First Merchants Corporation





First Merchants Corporation is a financial holding company headquartered in Muncie, Indiana. The Corporation is comprised of First Merchants Bank, N.A., which also operates as Lafayette Bank & Trust, Commerce National Bank, and First Merchants Trust Company as divisions of First Merchants Bank, N.A. First Merchants Corporation also operates First Merchants Insurance Group, a full-service property casualty, personal lines, and healthcare insurance agency.





First Merchants Corporation's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market System under the symbol FRME. Quotations are carried in daily newspapers and can be found on the company's Internet web page ( http://www.firstmerchants.com ).





* * * *
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21
                    SUBSIDIARIES OF MERCER INTERNATIONAL INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                    SHAREHOLDING
                                                                   AT END OF YEAR
                                                 JURISDICTION     -----------------
          NAME OF SUBSIDIARY(1)                OF INCORPORATION   DIRECT   INDIRECT
--------------------------------------------   ----------------   ------   --------
<S>                                            <C>                <C>      <C>
Dresden Papier AG...........................       Germany          --       100%
Spezialpapierfabrik Blankenstein GmbH.......       Germany          --       100%
</TABLE>

----------
(1) All the subsidiaries are conducting business under their own names.
EXHIBIT 32

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

Pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section  906  of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this
periodic  report fully complies with the requirements of Section  13(a)  or
15(d),  as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that  the
information  contained in this annual report on Form 10-K fairly  presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Spartech Corporation.


                                        Date: January 16, 2004


                                        /s/ Bradley B. Buechler
                                        Bradley B. Buechler
                                        Chairman,   President   and   Chief
                                        Executive Officer


                                        /s/ Randy C. Martin
                                        Randy C. Martin
                                        Executive Vice President and  Chief
                                        Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-3670

_____________

In re: Wallace R. McCollar, *

*

Debtor, *

---------------------------------- *

*

Wallace R. McCollar, *

* Appeal from the United States

Appellant, * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Norman (Jack) Morton, *

*

Appellee. *

_____________

Submitted: May 7, 1997

Filed: May 8, 1997

_____________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

The Honorable Gregory F. Kishel, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the

2

District of Minnesota.

-2-

Wallace McCollar appeals the District Court's affirmance of the Bankruptcy

1

Court's order lifting the automatic stay in his bankruptcy proceeding. After reviewing 2

the record and the parties' submissions, we conclude that the judgment was correct and

that no further discussion is warranted. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                  Washington, D. C.  20549

                         FORM 10-K

        Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)
            of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

         For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1996

                 Commission File No. 1-3660

                        Owens Corning
                  One Owens Corning Parkway
                     Toledo, Ohio  43659
                  Area Code (419) 248-8000

                   A Delaware Corporation

        I.R.S. Employer Identification No. 34-4323452

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

  Title of Each Class                Name of Each Exchange on
                                     Which Registered

  Common Stock - $.10 Par Value      New York Stock Exchange
  Rights to Purchase Series A        New York Stock Exchange
   Participating Preferred
   Stock, no par value, of the
   Registrant

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the  Act: 
None

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has  filed
all  reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d)  of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding  12
months  (or for such shorter period that the Registrant  was
required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject  to
such  filing requirements for the past 90 days.  
Yes /  X  / No /   /

Indicate  by  check mark if disclosure of delinquent  filers
pursuant  to  Item  405 of Regulation S-K is  not  contained
herein,   and  will  not  be  contained,  to  the  best   of
Registrant's  knowledge, in definitive proxy or  information
statements  incorporated by reference in Part  III  of  this
Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [ X ]

At   February  19,  1997,  the  aggregate  market  value  of
Registrant's  $.10  par  value  common  stock  (Registrant's
voting  stock)  held  by non-affiliates was  $2,297,658,153,
assuming  for  purposes of this computation  only  that  all
directors and executive officers are considered affiliates.

At  February  19,  1997,  there were outstanding  52,769,579
shares of Registrant's $.10 par value common stock.

Parts  of Registrant's definitive 1997 proxy statement filed
or  to  be filed pursuant to Regulation 14A (the "1997 Proxy
Statement") are incorporated by reference into Part  III  of
this Form 10-K.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77510-77511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21633]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2024-0350; FRL 12138-02-OAR]


Use of Advanced and Emerging Technologies for Quantification of 
Annual Facility Methane Emissions Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Notice; extension of public comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On August 29, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published a request for information (RFI) on the ``Use of Advanced and 
Emerging Technologies for Quantification of Annual Facility Methane 
Emissions Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program''. The EPA is 
extending the comment period.

DATES: The comment period for the document published on August 29, 
2024, at 89 FR 70177, is extended. Comments must be received on or 
before November 27, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2024-0350, to the Federal Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. Do not submit electronically 
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information 
(CBI). EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket, 
submitted, or sent via email. For additional submission methods, the 
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vasco Roma, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Atmospheric Protection, 
Climate Change Division; telephone number: 202-564-1662; email address: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f4d70727e31497e6c7c705f7a6f7e31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="31635e5c501f675042525e715441501f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 29, 20204, the EPA published an 
RFI on the ``Use of Advanced and Emerging Technologies for 
Quantification of Annual Facility Methane Emissions Under the 
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program''. The public comment for this RFI was 
scheduled to end on October 28, 2024. In response to multiple extension 
requests received to date, the EPA is extending that deadline to

[[Page 77511]]

November 27, 2024. This extension will provide the general public with 
additional time for comment.

Sharyn Lie,
Director, Climate Change Division.
[FR Doc. 2024-21633 Filed 9-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

DEAN L a FROMBOISE,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 20

- 30151

D.C. No. 1:94

- cr

- 00082

- DWM

- 5

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18 , 202 1 * *

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges

.

Dean LaFromboise appeals pro se from the district court’s order s denying

his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C § 358 2 (c)(1)(A)(i) and

subsequent motion for reconsideration . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, and we vacate the distr ict court’s orders and remand for the district court to

* 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

JUN 1 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 30151

dismiss LaFromboise’s motion without prejudice

.

Before filing a motion for compassionate release in the district court, a

prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies by requesting relief from the

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Though the district

court did not deny LaFromboise’s motion for lack of exhaustion, it correctly

observed that “LaFromboise does not indicate he attempted to pursue, much less

exhausted, administrative remedies.” The only evidence in the record of a request

for compassionate release from LaFromboise to the BOP is dated well after

LaFromboise filed the instant motion. Accordingly, we agree with the government

that LaFromboise failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

. 1 In light of the

mandatory language of the statute, 2 the district court lacked authority to address

LaFromboise’s motion. See Ross v. Bl ake , 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856

- 57 (2016).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s orders and remand with

instructions that it dismiss LaFromboise ’s motion without prejudice. LaFromboise

is free to file another motion for compassionate release in the dist rict court, and we

1 Assuming w ithout deciding that the exhaustion requirement can be waived, we disagree with LaFromboise’s assertion that he could not have requested compassionate release from the BOP prior to filing his motion.

2 Because it does not affect our decision, we do not de cide whether the exhaustion requirement under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is jurisdictional or “a mandatory claim

processing rule subject to forfeiture

. ” Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis , 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1851 (2019).3 20

- 30151

express no opinion as to the merits of such a motion.

LaFromboise’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking immediate

release is denied

.

VACATED and REMANDED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,461
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,958
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (46)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   656
<PP&E>                                           1,822
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (1,306)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,957
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           112
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,522
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,591
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,116
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,029
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    885
<INCOME-TAX>                                        35
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                850
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 31, 2018 .

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14- 18 -00395- CR NO. 14- 18 -00396- CR MARQUS SIRLS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1541904 and 1542051 M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N These companion appeals are from judgment s of conviction signed April 23, 2018 in cause number 1541904 (aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon) and cause number 1542051 (aggravated sexual assault). On April 23, 2018, appellant tendered a notice of appeal from each judgment (which was filed by the district clerk on April 24, 2018). E ach notice was signed by Thomas Lewis, appellant’s trial counsel, and contained a request by Lewis to withdraw as counsel. Also on April 23,2

2018, the trial court signed an order in each case granting Lewis’ request to withdraw and appointing Scott Pope of the Harris County Public Defender’s Office to represent appellant on appeal. The Harris County District Clerk assigned the appeals to this court, where they were docketed as appeal number s 14
- 18
- 00347
- CR and 14
- 18
- 00348
- CR, respectively. On May 2, 2018, Pope filed a notice of appeal from the judgment in each of the underlying causes. The district clerk again assigned the appeals to this court, where they were docketed as appeal number s 14
- 18
- 00395
- CR and 14
- 18
- 00396
- CR, respectively. Appeal number 14- 18
- 00 395-CR appears to be duplicative of appeal number 14
- 18 -00347-CR, and appeal number 14- 18 -00396-CR appears to be duplicative of appeal number 14- 18 -00348- CR. On July 16, 2018, we notified the parties that we would dismiss appeal number s 14
- 18
- 00395
- CR and 14
- 18
- 00396
- CR unless an y party showed meritorious grounds for retaining those appeals. On July 17, 2018, appellant’s counsel filed a letter agreeing the appeals are duplicative and should be dismissed. Appeal numbers 14- 18 -00395-CR and 14- 18 -00396-CR are DISMISSED
. Appeal numbers 14- 18 -00347-CR and 14- 18 -00348-CR remain pending.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell. Do Not Publish

— T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2( b).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Petitioner

v. MARQUISE P. WALIYYUDDIN, Respondent : : : : : : : : : : : No. 625 EAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 14th day of April, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DEAN LaFROMBOISE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-30151 

D.C. No. 1:94-cr-00082-DWM-5

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021

**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. 

Dean LaFromboise appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying 

his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and 

subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and we vacate the district court’s orders and remand for the district court to 

* 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

JUN 1 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-30151 

dismiss LaFromboise’s motion without prejudice.

Before filing a motion for compassionate release in the district court, a 

prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies by requesting relief from the 

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Though the district 

court did not deny LaFromboise’s motion for lack of exhaustion, it correctly 

observed that “LaFromboise does not indicate he attempted to pursue, much less 

exhausted, administrative remedies.” The only evidence in the record of a request 

for compassionate release from LaFromboise to the BOP is dated well after 

LaFromboise filed the instant motion. Accordingly, we agree with the government 

that LaFromboise failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

1

 In light of the 

mandatory language of the statute,2the district court lacked authority to address 

LaFromboise’s motion. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1856-57 (2016). 

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s orders and remand with 

instructions that it dismiss LaFromboise’s motion without prejudice. LaFromboise 

is free to file another motion for compassionate release in the district court, and we 

1 Assuming without deciding that the exhaustion requirement can be waived, we 

disagree with LaFromboise’s assertion that he could not have requested 

compassionate release from the BOP prior to filing his motion.

2 Because it does not affect our decision, we do not decide whether the exhaustion 

requirement under § 3582(c)(1)(A) is jurisdictional or “a mandatory claimprocessing rule subject to forfeiture.” Fort Bend Cnty. v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, 

1851 (2019). 
3 20-30151 

express no opinion as to the merits of such a motion.

LaFromboise’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking immediate 

release is denied. 

VACATED and REMANDED.