alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Face of Defense: Reserve Hospital Corpsman Serves to Help Others

By Air Force Senior Airman Justyn M. Freeman194th Wing

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tommie Dotson, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 1019]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, McCarthy, J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.
1 | P a g e

MACT Task Force

M E M O R A N D U M

Date: December 5, 2013

To: Jeff Telander, EPA/SSPD

From: Susan Miller, Brick Industry Association

Subject: Preliminary HEM-3 Mercury Results

At the June 26, 2013 Small Entity Representative Outreach meeting, the possibility of pursuing a healthbased regulatory alternative for regulating mercury (Hg) in the upcoming Brick and Structural Clay Products 

MACT was raised by BIA. Given that mercury has a reference concentration, there is a level deemed safe by 

EPA with regard to human health. Using the data collected by the Brick Industry Association’s (BIA’s) MACT 

Task Force for 83 facilities still in operation as of this writing, the maximum individual non cancer health 

risks posted by existing major source kilns was modeled using the EPA Human Exposure Model (HEM) 

version 3. Our results were very encouraging with all facilities having a hazard index (HI) for mercury 

impacts below 0.003. 

In order to provide a complete assessment for the source category, the kilns with no data were modeled

with “worst case” default values. Please note that the assumptions are so conservative, it is unlikely that a 

kiln with such stack parameters could actually produce brick due to insufficient airflow. Emissions data 

used for each facility was based on site-specific information, where available. If no data were available, 

industry average values were used. 

Summary of Results

Total mercury emissions were modeled as elemental mercury emissions, modeled from each source and 

combined to determine overall facility impacts. The potential noncancer health effects due to chronic 

exposures of this pollutant were quantified by the HEM-3 model by using hazard quotients and hazard 

indices for various target systems. In this instance, the HEM-3 model computed the hazard indices for the 

neurological system. As shown in Figure 1 below, no facility modeled above a chronic neurological HI of 

0.003. Further, 88% of the facilities modeled below 0.001. Individual facility HI results can be provided 

upon request. It should be noted that mercury compounds have the same reference concentration 

threshold, therefore, should mercury emissions from brick kilns be characterized as compounds and not 

elemental mercury, the results would be the same.
2 | P a g e

We are greatly encouraged by these results and believe it is evidence that an alternative health-based 

approach is a worthy option to pursue as a basis for the mercury standard in the Brick and Structural Clay 

Products MACT. A methodology similar to that performed for the acid gases using acute health indices 

could be used to provide an allowable emission rate, below which, exposures would be considered safe. 

Further documentation on the modeling details can be provided if necessary. 
3 | P a g e

Figure 1. Maximum Individual Chronic Risk Index for Hg

0

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.01

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Heath Index

Maximum Individual Chronic Risk Index for Hg 

HI Breakdown for

83 Facilities Modeled:

<.01 100%

<.001 88%

<.0003 46%
#### People v Sharon Thibodeau, Defendant.

[632 NYS2d 991]

Motion for change of venue denied. Memorandum: On this application seeking a change of venue, we conclude that defendant has not met her burden of demonstrating that there is “reasonable cause to believe that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had” in Oswego County (CPL 230.20 [2]). If it develops during voir dire that a fair and impartial jury cannot be drawn, an appropriate application may be made at that time. The relief requested in the application seeking a change of venue presently before us is premature *(see, People v Scott,*197 AD2d 936; *see also, People v DiPiazza,*24 NY2d 342). Present — Green, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Davis, JJ. (Filed Aug. 31, 1995.)
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60422 Conference Calendar

__________________ WENDELL A. DUNCAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus VICTOR SMITH, PERCY MILES, SILVESTER HOWARD, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 95-CV-96-S-O

- - - - - - - - - - (October 18, 1995) Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Wendell A. Duncan appeals the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his civil rights action for failure to prosecute. A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. McCullough v. Lynaugh , 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Such aNo. 95-60422 -2- dismissal is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id . However, the scope of the district court's discretion is narrow when the Rule 41(b) dismissal is with prejudice or when a statute of limitations would bar reprosecution of a suit dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). Berry v. CIGNA/RSI-CIGNA , 975 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1992). Here, the district court specified that the dismissal was without prejudice. Because the dismissal by the district court was without prejudice and no statute of limitations bars the refiling of his claim, Duncan has not suffered prejudicial harm resulting from the dismissal. See McCullough , 835 F.2d at 1127. "In such circumstances trial courts must be allowed leeway in the difficult task of keeping their dockets moving." Id . The dismissal without prejudice of Duncan's complaint does not constitute an abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED. Duncan's "Motion to Show the Court How the Lower Courts are Aiding the Defendants" is DENIED.
No. 90-420.

#### Alvarez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 1

(Electronic Format)

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

District: Imperial County Air Pollution Control District

Rule No(s): 202 Date adopted/Amended/Rescinded: Amended February 9, 2016

Rule Title(s): Exemption

Date Submitted to ARB: March 29, 2016

If an Amended Rule, Date Last Amended (or Adopted): 10/10/2006

Is the Rule Intended to be Sent to the U.S. EPA as a SIP Revision? Yes No (If No, do not complete remainder of form)

District Contact: Reyes Romero Phone Number: 442-265-1800 E-mail Address: reyesromero@co.imperial.ca.us

Narrative Summary of New Rule or Rule Changes: New Rule Amended Rule

Rule 202 was amended to update the sections where Large Confined Animal Facilities thresholds are referenced.

Pollutant(s) Regulated by the Rule (Check): ROG (NOx) SO2

(CO) PM TAC (name):

II. EFFECT ON EMISSIONS

Complete this section ONLY for rules that, when implemented, will result in quantifiable changes in emissions. Attach reference(s) for emission 

factor(s) and other information. Attach calculation sheet showing how the emission information provided below was determined.

Net Effect on Emissions: Increase Decrease N/A

Emission Reduction Commitment in SIP for this Source Category: NONE

Inventory Year Used to Calculate Changes in Emissions: N/A Area Affected: N/A

Future Year Control Profile Estimate (Provide information on as many years as possible):

N/A
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 2

(Electronic Format)

Baseline Inventory in the SIP for the Control Measure: N/A

Emissions Reduction Commitment in the SIP for the Control Measure: N/A

Revised Baseline Inventory (if any): N/A

Revised Emission Reduction Estimate (if developed): N/A

Note that the district’s input to the Rule Evaluation Form will not be used as input to the ARB’s emission forecasting and 

planning.

III. SOURCES/ATTAINMENT STATUS

District is: Attainment Nonattainment Split

Approximate Total Number of Small (<100 TPY) Sources Affected by this Amendment: N/A

Percent in Nonattainment Area: N/A%

Number of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled: N/A Percent in Nonattainment Area: N/A%

Name(s) and Location(s) (city and county) of Large (> 100 TPY) Sources Controlled by Rule (Attach additional sheets as 

necessary): NA

IV. EMISSION REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY

Does the Rule Include Emission Limits that are Continuous? Yes No

If Yes, Those Limits are in Section(s) N/A of the Rule.

Other Methods in the Rule for Achieving Emission Reductions are: N/A

V. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

The Rule Contains:

Emission Limits in Section(s): N/A Work Practice Standards in Section(s): N/A

Recordkeeping Requirements in Section(s): N/A Reporting Requirements in Section(s): N/A
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

APCD/AQMD RULE EVALUATION FORM -- Page 3

(Electronic Format)

5/1/2002

3

VI. IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY PLAN

 No Impact Impacts RFP Impacts attainment

Discussion: N/A
# Official Journal L 109/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.109.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 109 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5428 April 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.109.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 109

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5428 April 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Regulation No 14 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to safety-belt anchorages, Isofix anchorages systems and Isofix top-tether anchorages | 1 |
| | * | Regulation No 34 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the prevention of fire risks | 55 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Regulation No 14 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to safety-belt anchorages, Isofix anchorages systems and Isofix top-tether anchorages

1

*

Regulation No 34 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the prevention of fire risks

55

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
# C_2015302EN.01004001.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — HIT Groep v Commission

(Case T-436/10) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Rules on imputing a subsidiary’s anti-competitive practices to its parent company - Presumption of the actual exercise of a decisive influence - Reasonable time))

(2015/C 302/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: HIT Groep BV (Haarlem, Netherlands) (represented initially by G. van der Wal, G. Oosterhuis and H. Albers, and subsequently by G. van der Wal and G. Oosterhuis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Van Nuffel, S. Noë and V. Bottka, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders HIT Groep BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders HIT Groep BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

1

---
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	USINDOPACOM Statement on DPRK Missile Launch
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">USINDOPACOM Statement on DPRK Missile Launch</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div> <span class="date">/ Published Dec. 23, 2022</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>We are aware of the ballistic missile launch and are consulting closely with our allies and partners. While we have assessed that this event does not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel or territory, or to our allies, the missile launch highlights the <wbr />destabilizing impact of the DPRK’s unlawful WMD and ballistic missile programs. The U.S. commitments to the defense of the Republic of Korea and Japan remain ironclad.</p>
<br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2434

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

$2,280.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,

Defendant,

and

JOHN HARVEY GODDARD, SR.,

Claimant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey,

Chief District Judge. (5:13-cv-00017-JPB)

Submitted: April 17, 2014 Decided: April 21, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Harvey Goddard, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Harvey Goddard, Sr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reconsideration of a forfeiture 

judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. $2,280.00 in U.S. Currency, 

No. 5:13-cv-00017-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 5, 2013). We grant 

Goddard’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   7-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          78,544                  54,629
<SECURITIES>                                   450,000                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,015                   1,322
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,534)                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               683,266                 401,673
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,920,651               2,424,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          341,521                 283,263
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        24,921                  21,133
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,429,209               2,119,674
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,920,651               2,424,090
<SALES>                                        222,697                  53,520
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               222,697                  53,520
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,751,634                 664,522
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,534                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                   1,212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,525,787)               (612,214)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,525,787)               (612,214)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)                  (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: In the Interest of S.A.W

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00320

- CV

Trial court case number: 2020

- 46728

Trial court: 507th District Court of Harris County

Appellant ’s brief was due on June 21, 2022. On June 28, 2022, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant’s counsel that the time to file appellant’s brief had expired and requested a

response . On July 5, 2022, appellant’s counsel filed a mot ion requesting an extension of 30 days to file appellant’s brief. Our Court granted appellant’s motion and extended the time to file appellant’s brief to July 21, 2022 . To date, however, appellant’s counsel has not filed a brief.

Because this is a terminat ion appeal, this Court is required to dispose of this appeal within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed, so far as reasonably possible. See T EX

. S T

. J UD

. A DMIN

. R. 6.2(a). Here, the 180

- day compliance deadline is set for September 30, 2022

. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte abates this appeal for the trial court to hold a hearing and appellant ’s appointed counsel

, Julie A. Ketterman , is required to show cause why she should not be relieved of her duties after a finding of good cause is rende red by the court on the record and, if so, to enter orders withdrawing counsel and appointing new counsel. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE § 107.016(2); In re M.V.G ., 285 S.W.3d 573, 575

– 76 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2009, order). Any hearing shall be conducted within 10 days of the date of this Order. The trial court clerk shall file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s orders within 15 days of the date of this Order. If a hearing is held, the court reporter shall file a supplemental reporter’s record within 15 days of the date of this Order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records, if any, that comply with this Order are filed with this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Sarah B. Landau

___________ Acting individually

Date: ____ August 5, 2022

____