alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60766 Summary Calendar

__________________ WENDELL DUNCAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus ESTELL PRYOR; J. BROWN, Defendants-Appellees.

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

USDC No. 95-CV-331-SA
- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Wendell Duncan appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The district district court determined that Duncan's complaint failed to satisfy Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994), i.e. because a judgment in his favor would imply the invalidity of his conviction and he failed to show that "his complaint has not been `reversed, expunged, invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ of habeas corpus.'" R. 28. The district court deniedNo. 95-60766 -2- Duncan's complaint as frivolous under § 1915(d). We have reviewed the record, the district court's order, and the appellant's brief. We affirm essentially on the reasoning of the district court. AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CURTIS W. REINHART , Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE , Appellee. § § § No. 448 , 20 2 3 § § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No s

. S1910000228 § S1906008682 § S1912019439 § S2009014697 § S2002016361

Submitted: January 23 , 20 2 4 Decided: January 30 , 20 2 4

ORDER (1) T he appellant filed this appeal from a Superior Court violation of probation sentence order dated November 2 , 202 3

. T he Senior Court Clerk sent the appellant a letter directing him to pay the filing fee or to file a motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis by December 20, 2023 . On December 21 , 202 3 , the Chief Deputy Clerk sent another letter directing the appellant to either file a motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee by January 4 , 202 4 , or a notice to show cause would issue. (2) On January 8 , 202 4 , the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice, by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause why the Court should not dismiss the appeal for the appellant’s failure to diligently prosecute the appeal by either paying2

the Supreme Co urt filing fee or filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

. The

notice to show cause directed the appellant to respond within ten days and advised

that if t he appellant did not respond, dismissal of the appeal would be deemed to be unopposed. On Janu ary 12 , 202 4 , the Court received the certified

- mail receipt indicating that the notice had been delivered

. (3) The appellant having failed to respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten

- day period, dismissal of this action is deemed to be

uno pposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ N. Christopher Griffiths Justice
# C_2004154EN.01000101.xml

| 11.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

10 June 2004

(2004/C 154/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2052 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 131,84 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4384 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,6614 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1475 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5126 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 87,12 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,28 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5828 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 31,33 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 253,10 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6536 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4249 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,5877 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 40 865 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,14 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,87 |
| TRL | Turkish lira | 1 806 800 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7374 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,6381 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,3975 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9120 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0637 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 396,96 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,0189 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2052

JPY

Japanese yen

131,84

DKK

Danish krone

7,4384

GBP

Pound sterling

0,6614

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1475

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5126

ISK

Iceland króna

87,12

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,28

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5828

CZK

Czech koruna

31,33

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

253,10

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6536

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4249

PLN

Polish zloty

4,5877

ROL

Romanian leu

40 865

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,14

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,87

TRL

Turkish lira

1 806 800

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7374

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,6381

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,3975

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9120

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0637

KRW

South Korean won

1 396,96

ZAR

South African rand

8,0189

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Marjorie M. Baker, Deceased. Frederick Pike, Jr., Appellant; Virginia Cummings, Respondent.

[632 NYS2d 1005]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Erie County Sur*863rogate’s Court, Mattina, S. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Surrogate’s Court, Mattina, S. — Will Construction.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Wesley, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
February 7 , 2014

MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0694

, Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plans

Required for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

S UBJECT: Status of A ttainment State Implementation Plans (SIPS) for the 2008 Lead National Ambient

Air Quality Standards Due on June 30, 2012

FROM : Mia South, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards , State and

Local Programs Group, Lead Ma nager

A total of 16 areas were designated nonattainment for the 2008 lead national ambient air quality

standard, effective December 31, 2010. Attainment SIPs for these areas were due June 30, 2012, and

EPA is taking final action finding a failure to submit attainment SIPs for three areas in Pennsylvania. This

memorandum explains the basis for EPA’s decision not to issue a finding of failure to submit for the

remaining 13 areas that were designated nonattainment in 2010

.

Two of the are as received clean data determinations (CDDs) which , as described in more detail in the

notices published in the Federal Register

, suspend certain planning requirements, including the

requirement to submit an attainment demonstration

. The two lead nonat tainment areas with CDDs are

Bristol in Sullivan County , TN (77 FR 52232, August 29, 2012 ) and Bellefontaine in Logan County

, OH (78

FR 66280, November 5, 201 3)

. 1

EPA determined that attainment SIP submissions for two lead nonattainment areas were complete. One

determination is for Granite City in Madison County, Illinois , by letter dated January 22, 2014. The other

determination is for Her c ulaneum in Jefferson County

, Missouri , by letter dated July 8, 2013.

The remaining nine areas d esignated nonattainment for lead in 2010 submitted attainment SIPs that

were deemed complete by operation of law ( six months after the SIP was submitted)

. See CAA section

110(k)(1)(B). The dates on which the SIPs were submitted, as well as the dates on which they were

deemed complete, are presented in the chart below.

1 A clean data determination does not suspend the requirement to submit an emissions inventory. EPA

has approved the emissions inventory submitted for Bristol, TN (79 FR 1593, Jan. 9, 2014), and has

determined the emissions inventory submitted for Bellefontaine, OH is complete, by letter dated Feb. 6,

2014.EPA

Region Area Name State Designation

Date SIP

Element

Deadline SIP

Submission

Date SIP Completeness

Date

4 Tampa FL 12/31/2010 6/30/2012 6/29/2012 12/29/2012

4 Troy AL 12/31/2010 6/30/2012 11/9/2012 5/9/2013

5 Cleveland OH 12/31/2010 6/30/2012 6/25/2012 12/25/2012

5 Delta OH 12/31/2010 6/30/2012 6/25/2012 12/25/2012

5 Eagan MN 12/31/2010 6/30/2012 6/11/2012 12/11/2012

5 Muncie IN 12/31/2010 6/30/2012 3/14/2013 9/14/2013

6 Frisco TX 12/31/2010 6/30/2012 10/17/2012 4/17/2013

7 Iron, Dent, and

Reynolds Counties MO 12/31/2010 6/30/2012 4/18/2013 1 0/18/ 13

9 Los Angeles County

South Coast Air Basin CA 12/31/2010 6/30/2012 6/20/2012 12/20/2012
#### Oshkosh Building, Loan & Savings Association, Respondent, vs. Sage, Appellant.

For the appellant: *O’Leary & Joyce*of Neenah.

For the respondent: *Barber, Keefe, Patri & Stillman,*attorneys, and *Dan M. Hildebrand*of counsel, alhof Oshkosh.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 27, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 06-40604 Summary Calendar

_______________________ HORTENCIA MATA; ROGELIO MATA, Plaintiffs–Appellants,
versus STATE FARM LLOYDS; STATE FARM LLOYDS INC., Defendants–Appellees.

__________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (USDC No. 7:05–CV–392–RHH)

__________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Matas appeal the district court’s order of dismissal as to Defendant State Farm Lloyds Inc. and the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Defendant State Farm2

Lloyds. This case is one of several related cases, all of which the district court dismissed on the same basis: that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the insurance company’s attorney-in-fact and that the statute of limitations had run by the time the plaintiffs served the insurance company with process. As to the order of dismissal of the attorney-in-fact, we affirm for the reasons stated in our disposition of Martinez v. State Farm Lloyds , No. 06- 40442, 2006 WL 3147505. As to the entry of summary judgment, we likewise affirm because the Matas’ original petition, filed in state court on January 31, 2003, estops them from denying that their claims had already accrued–and therefore the limitation period began to run–at the time they filed their lawsuit. The Matas did not serve State Farm Lloyds until August 2005, after the statute of limitations had run. See id.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
               --------------------------------------------------



We have issued our report dated February 28, 2000, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements included in the Annual Report of Channell Commercial
Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration
Statements of Channell Commercial Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-36097,
effective September 19, 1997).


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

Los Angeles, California
February 28, 2000
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Supplement to the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (NUREG-2184, Final Report)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG–2184 (PDF – 9.76 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2016**Date Published:** May 2016

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This "Supplement to the Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada" (supplement) evaluates the potential environmental impacts on groundwater and impacts associated with the discharge of any contaminated groundwater to the ground surface due to potential releases from a geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. This supplements the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) 2002 "Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada" and 2008 "Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada," in accordance with the findings and scope outlined in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff’s 2008 "Adoption Determination Report for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statements for the Proposed Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain."

This supplement describes the affected environment and assesses the potential environmental impacts with respect to potential contaminant releases from the repository that could be transported through the volcanic-alluvial aquifer in Fortymile Wash and the Amargosa Desert, and to the Furnace Creek/Middle Basin area of Death Valley. This supplement evaluates the potential radiological and nonradiological impacts—over a one million year period—on the aquifer environment, soils, ecology, and public health, as well as the potential for disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income populations. In addition, this supplement assesses the potential for cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. The NRC staff finds that each of the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on the resources evaluated in this supplement would be SMALL.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 May 7, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Arthur A. Koch, Jr.Arthur A. Koch, Jr.Senior Vice President, Finance, and Chief
Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10(d)

                   THE 1988 INCENTIVE EQUITY PERFORMANCE PLAN
                                       OF
                            THE LAMSON & SESSIONS CO.

                                    RECITALS

      WHEREAS, The Lamson & Sessions Co., an Ohio corporation (the "Company"),
with the approval of the Company's shareholders, has established the 1988
Incentive Equity Plan of the Company (the "Plan");

      WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Board") desires to
amend the Plan; and

      WHEREAS, the Board has approved this Amendment (this "Amendment") in
accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the Plan.

        NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby amends the Plan as follows:

        1. The second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 12(d) of the
Plan is amended to delete the words "Unless otherwise determined by the Company"
and to read in its entirety "Withholding obligations may be settled in Stock,
including Stock that is part of the award that gives rise to the withholding
requirement."

        2. This Amendment shall be effective as of October 19, 2000, upon
approval by the Board.

        3. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, the Plan remains
unchanged and continues in full force and effect.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffNUREG-0800

# Missiles Generated by Tornadoes and Extreme Winds (NUREG-0800, Section 3.5.1.4 Rev. 3) Draft Report for Comment

Issued with Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1143, "Design-Basis Tornado and Tornado Missiles for Nuclear Power Plants (Proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.76-ML053140225)"

This NUREG publication has been issued for public comment. Comment period is now closed.

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download Complete Document
        - NUREG-0800, Section 3.5.1.4 Draft Rev. 3 

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**January 2006

Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

## Abstract

The staff reviews and evaluates and evaluates the applicant's assessment of possible hazards attributable to missiles generated by high-speed winds, such as tornado, hurricane, and any other extreme winds identified in Section 3.5 of the safety analysis report (SAR), to ensure that the applicant has chosen and properly characterized appropriate design-basis missiles, and to ensure that the effects caused by those missiles are acceptable. Currently, only the missiles generated by design-basis tornadoes are consistently considered in the plant design bases. Missiles from hurricane and extreme winds are considered on a case-by-case basis when they are identified.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, April 08, 2024
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1967 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1967

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize pumped 
storage hydropower development utilizing multiple Bureau of Reclamation 
                              reservoirs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bureau of Reclamation Pumped Storage 
Hydropower Development Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR PUMPED STORAGE HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING 
              MULTIPLE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION RESERVOIRS.

    Section 9(c)(1) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 
485h(c)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and pumped storage hydropower 
development exclusively utilizing Bureau of Reclamation reservoirs'' 
after ``including small conduit hydropower development''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 27, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1967

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize pumped 
storage hydropower development utilizing multiple Bureau of Reclamation 
                              reservoirs.
```
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of TX Holdings, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, William (Buck) Shrewsbury, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ William (“Buck”) ShrewsburyWilliam (“Buck”) ShrewsburyChief Executive Officer


: January 20, 2011


[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TX Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by TX Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.16
                                                                   -------------

                            Supplemental Description
                                       of
                       Pegasus Communications Corporation
                            Short-Term Incentive Plan
                 (Corporate, Satellite and Business Development)
                                       for
                               Calendar Year 2003

Executive officers of Pegasus Communications Corporation participate in the
Pegasus Communications Corporation Short-Term Incentive Plan (Corporate,
Satellite and Business Development) for calendar year 2003 (the "Plan"), see
Exhibit 10.15 to this Form 10-K, along with corporate, satellite and business
development management. This description is intended to supplement Exhibit 10.15
to provide a more specific description of the criteria and types of payments
that can be made under the Plan. For 2003, the amount of short-term incentive
that can be earned is based upon "free cash flow", Subscriber Equivalent Units
(SEU), and Pre-Marketing Cash Flow. The term "free cash flow" used in the Plan
("Plan Free Cash Flow") is unique to the Plan and is not identical to the
amounts of free cash flow publicly reported by Pegasus. For purposes of the
Plan, "free cash flow" consists of various inclusions and exclusions specific to
particular operations or divisions of Pegasus or events affecting Pegasus. For
calendar year 2003, employees receive payments under the Plan based upon an
January to December Plan year. The Plan provides for three tiers of payments as
follows: (i) Tier 1 Payments: if Plan Free Cash Flow achieves an established
calendar month target(the "Monthly Target"), which is the same target for each
month of the calendar year), participants will receive 1/12 of their annual
targets for each month that Pegasus achieves this Plan Free Cash Flow; (ii) Tier
2 Payments: if Plan Free Cash Flow is greater than the Monthly Target in any
calendar month, 35% of the excess amount for a given month will be allocated to
a Tier 2 pool. Payment of this pool will be determined by whether or not Pegasus
achieves it's SEU target with 50% paid monthly and 50% paid quarterly. Payments
to the participants will be based upon their respective short-term incentive
targets as a percentage of total short-term incentive targets; and Tier 3
Payments: if Pegasus exceeds its Pre-Marketing Cash Flow budget for the period
from January to December 2003, an additional $1,000,000 will be allocated to
participants based upon their respective short-term incentive targets as a
percent of total short term incentive targets. Payments made under the Plan are
made in cash and are payable monthly and quarterly after the conclusion of a
calendar month once the amount of Plan Free Cash Flow is determined (with the
exception of Tier 3 payments, which, if applicable, will be paid in early 2004).