alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNCE R. LEflEUR 

D!Pf'L f()f~ 

11rmfngham dranch 

~ 1') 'JIJk an Pr,:~d 

ADEM 

\Jabama Department of Environmental Mana~ement 

1dem.alabama.gov 

l·l'JO r:oiiSeiHn l),•,rJ. \.il10-.2·1il0 • t'o·,t l}ill•:e t3ox 301.-lfil 

',1, 1ntr;omery, ;\laoama liS l.llJ 1 hS3 

'.)ct) 271 1700 • 1;\X I U4) 271 ('):)() 

:\Jovcrnher 'J. 20 12 

CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 91 7199 9991 7030 3272 5001 

\>1s. (}wcndolyn Kt!yes Fleming 

Regional ,\dministrator 

I·:P A Region ~ 

. \ tlanta Federal Cc:nter 

61 Forsyth Street, S. W. 

;\tlanta, CiA JOJ03-S960 

Dear Ms. Fleming: 

:10BERT J. BEN 

AIR PLA.NN1NG Bl'.'i..~t'\1 

LJ t/\\ r;:nr~ ................ 

BFA-REGION .t4 

ATLANTA. 04 

Pursuant to Section 172 of the Clean Air ;\ct, the Alabama Department of Environmental 

r'vlanagernent formally -;ubmits for your approval and inclusion into the Alabama State 

Implementation plan, proposed measures to address the Troy, Alabama, NonattainmenrArea 

( NAA) for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In accordance with 

the Clean Air Act, this attainment demonstration documents the State of Alabama's analysis of 

various control measures and their predicted impact on air quality in the NAA. The analysis results 

were used to .-;elect a practicable and reasonable control strategy, which should result in the 

attainment of the lead NAA()S. rhis plan was available t()r public comment from September 25 to 

< ktober 3 I, 2012. 

rhe Clean Air Act requires states to develop implementation plans that provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable and 

that provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards. The purpose of 

this SIP revision is to fultill these federal requirements. 

If you need additional information concerning this submittal, please call Chris Howard of my staff 

at(JJ4) 271-7878. 

Sincerely, 

./} I (f~\ , { 1

{ t ~ _ ,cz·,lc 

I 

Ronald W. Gore, Chief 

Air Division 

R WG/CH:mmm/bdc 

,.:'~catur Branch ',1ot.ll~o.astal 

I 1 : t- _':::. ~~ 1 ' l 
, 

Ms. Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming 2 November 9, 2012 

cc: Scott Davis 

CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 91 7199 9991 7030 3272 4998 

Beverly Banister 

CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 91 7199 9991 7030 3272 4981 

Lynorae Benjamin 

CERTIFIED MAIL NO.: 91 7199 9991 7030 3272 4974 

File: P-8-152
No. 90-444.

#### Alabama *v.*Carrell.

Sup. Ct. Ala. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *informa pauperis*granted. Cer-tiorari denied.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) PROMULGATED UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tri-Isthmus Group, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ David HirschhornDavid HirschhornCo-Chief Executive Officer(Co-Principal Executive Officer)
Co-Chief Financial Officer(Co-Principal Financial Officer)
#### Den on demise of John Thompson *v.*Philemon Hodges.

Cumberland.

In ejectment for lands purchased at a Sheriff’s sale under execution, the Plaintiff need shew as against the Defendant in execution only, 1st. a judgment; 2d. an execution, giving to the Sheriff authority to sell; and 3d. the Sheriff’s deed.

If, therefore, in the Sheriff’s deed, there he a mistake in reciting the judgment, or the execution, or the return indorsed on the execution, it is immaterial, if it appear that there was a judgment, and an execution issued thereon, giving to the Sheriff authority to sell.

The lessor of the Plaintiff claimed the land in question under a deed made to him by the Sheriff of Cumberland county. He gave in evidence a judgment obtained at December term, 1809, of Cumberland County Court, by Dew and Barnes against the Defendant, and an execution tested of March term, 1810, on which was indorsed the following return, viz. *“*Levied on 640 acres of land, the *“*upper side of Little Rives', the land where P. Hodges “ lives, about 2000 aci’cs, and not sold, by direction of the *“*Plaintiffs.” He then gave in evidence a writ of *vendi-tioni exponas,*issued in the same case, commanding the Sheriff to sell the lands levied on. This writ was tested of June Term, 1810, and the Sheriff had returned on it, that after advertising the lands, he had sold them at the court-house on the *Jirst day of September,*when J ames Atkins became the purchaser. The *Sheriff’s deed*was dated the *30th day of April,*1810, and was made to James Atkins and John Thames. It recited a judgment in favor of Dew and Barnes, against Philemon Hodges *and his secu-Hties,*and an execution issued in pursuance of said judgment, authorising said sale. It then recited that James Atkins and John Thames became the purchasers at the sale made by the Sheriff, at a price different from that set forth in the Sheriff’s return on the writ of *venditioni ex-ponas.*

*547The Court was of opinion, that the Plaintiff could not recover, because he had not produced in evidence the judgment and execution recited in the Sheriff’s deed, but had produced a judgment and execution against Philemon Hodges *only;*and because the Sheriff’s deed was dated on the 30th April, 1810, whereas it appeared by the Sheriff’s return, that the lands were not sold till the first day of September following; and lastly, because the return on the writ of *■venditioni exponas*shewed that James Atkins became the purchaser at the sale, and not he *and John*Thames, and that the price at which Atkins purchased was different from that which the deed recited was paid by him and Thames. The Plaintiff submitted to a non suit, declaring that he was ready to prove that the land described in the declaration was included in the levy, sale, and Sheriff’s deed, and had been conveyed by Atkins and Thames to his lessor. A rule for a new trial was obtained *•,*which being discharged, the Plaintiff appealed : And,

By the Court.

This case comes within the principles which govern the case of Den on demise of Benjamin Smith against Hanson Kelly, decided at this term. The nonsuit must he set aside and a new trial granted.
# C_2004118EN.01001202.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-341/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg): Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH (1)

1

(Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and waste packaging - Plastic carrier bags - National legislation on the collection and recovery of used packaging and waste packaging - Collection and recovery of used packaging and waste packaging - Obligation to have recourse to an approved undertaking or to organise a collection system - Admissibility)

(2004/C 118/22)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-341/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Landesgericht (Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH and Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH — on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10) and other Community provisions — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

| 1. | Article 3(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste must be construed as meaning that plastic carrier bags given to customers in a shop, whether free of charge or not, are packaging within the meaning of that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste must be construed as meaning that plastic carrier bags given to customers in a shop, whether free of charge or not, are packaging within the meaning of that directive.

| 2. | The concept of ‘producer’ in the context of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62 refers to the producer of the goods, not the manufacturer of the packaging produced. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The concept of ‘producer’ in the context of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62 refers to the producer of the goods, not the manufacturer of the packaging produced.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 24.11.2001.

1

---
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Resulting from International Agreements

# Analysis of Pin-by-Pin Effects for LWR Rod Ejection Accident (NUREG/IA–0175, NSI RRC KI90–12/1–3-00, IPSN/00–13)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/IA-0175 (PDF 3.35 MB)

## Publication Information

**Date Published:** March 2000

**Prepared by:** A. Avvakumov, V. Malofeev, V. Sidorov

Nuclear Safety Institute Russian Research Centre "Kurchatov Institute" Kurchatov Square 1 Moscow 123182 Russia

**Prepared for:** U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Institute for Protection and Nuclear Safety (France), and Ministry of Science and Technologies of the Russian Federation

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

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This study was undertaken to demonstrate capabilities of the pin-by-pin model used by the BARS code and to understand various effects of intra-assembly pin-by-pin representation of fuel power, burnup and temperature in calculational analysis of light water reactor rod ejection accidents (LWR REAs). Effects of pin-by-pin fuel power and bumup representation were investigated on the basis of calculations for the peripheral control rod ejection in VVER-1000 of the South Ukrainian NPP Unit 1. Comparative analysis of the REA in pressurized water reactor (PWR) of Three Mile Island Unit 1 using the BARS code with the diffusion nodal codes PARCS and CRONOS2 was done. The important differences in obtained results and effects of pin-by-pin fuel temperature representation are discussed in the report.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
# L_2017125EN.01007501.xml

| 18.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 125/75 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 125/75

---

Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1011 of 24 April 2015 supplementing Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on drug precursors and Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Union and third countries in drug precursors, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 1277/2005

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 162 of 27 June 2015
  )

On page 15, point (i) of the second subparagraph of Article 3(9):

for:

‘the date of expiry of validity where a term of validity has been fixed in accordance with Article 3(6) of this Regulation or in accordance with Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004;’,

read:

‘the date of expiry of validity where a term of validity has been fixed in accordance with Article 3(7) of this Regulation or in accordance with Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 273/2004;’.

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 1, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-31176 Summary Calendar

HARRY L. SHOEMAKER III, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FIRST LEVEL CAPITAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CV-1465

-------------------- Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In October 2002, Harry L. Shoemaker, III (hereinafter, “Shoemaker”) filed an arbitration claim with the National Association of Security Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) against First Level Capital, Inc. (hereinafter, “First Level”) who had been serving as his broker-dealer. Shoemaker brought several allegations against First Level including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, respondeat superior, and gross negligence. A two-day arbitration hearing in January 2004, in which First Level contended that it had satisfied all of itsNo. 04-31176 -2- duties to Shoemaker. Two weeks later, on January 27, 2004, the arbitrators entered an award in Shoemaker’s favor in the amount of $15,500, but the award did not otherwise specify either the causes of action or the affirmative defenses involved in the arbitration. First Level promptly sent Shoemaker a check for the $15,500 award and the check was accepted and cashed by Shoemaker on February 5, 2004. However, on April 15, 2004, Shoemaker filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans. First Level removed this state court action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging diversity of citizenship in that Shoemaker was a citizen of Louisiana and First Level was a citizen of Florida. First Level also submitted its response in opposition to Shoemaker’s motion to vacate and after a period of four months in which no significant action was taken, the district court rendered its decision that Shoemaker’s pleadings were insufficient to state a ground upon which the arbitration award could be vacated. Shoemaker filed a motion for new trial and reconsideration which was denied. Shoemaker now appeals to this court. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply briefs, the record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum Order filed November 2, 2004, we affirm the decision of the district court to dismiss Shoemaker’s claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and we affirm the districtNo. 04-31176 -3- court’s denial of Shoemaker’s motion for a new trial and reconsideration. AFFIRMED.
NUMBER 13-08-00210-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

JIMMY WAYNE CUMPIAN, Appellant,

v.

JAY LACK, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law 

of Calhoun County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on September 24, 2008. On

October 2, 2008, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely

filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution under Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1), unless within ten days from the date of receipt of this
2

letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and the appellee was not significantly

injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. No response has been received from

appellant.

Appellant has failed to either reasonably explain his failure to file a brief, file a

motion for extension of time to file his brief, or file his brief. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 4th day of December, 2008.
# North Dakota Tribal Offices

816 3rd Ave. N.P.O. Box 27Ft. TottenND58335

701-766-4111

816 3rd Ave. N.P.O. Box 27Ft. TottenND58335

North Dakota

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Contact 
-  State Office Contacts 
-  North Dakota 
-  North Dakota Tribal Offices 

Tribal Offices

**Spirit Lake Nation**816 3rd Ave. N.P.O. Box 27Ft. Totten, ND 58335**Turtle Mountain Tribal Office**1106 Main Ave. W., Suite 3Rolla, ND 58367**Fort Berthold Tribal Office**307 5th AvenueNew Town, ND 58763

## Key Contacts

### Tim Cogger - Fort Berthold Tribal Liaison - Fargo FO

                -    701-219-7156 
                -    tim.cogger@usda.gov 

### Jeff Desjarlais - Turtle Mountain Tribal Liaison - Rolla FO

                -    701-477-3167, 111 
                -    jeffrey.desjarlais@usda.gov 

### Vacant-Spirit Lake Nation Tribal Liaison

----
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActClosed Requests

# Closed Appeal & FOIA/PA Cases by Subject - FY 2011

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 18, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-2877

Lower Tribunal No. 14-891-A-K

________________



### The State of Florida

, Appellant,

vs.



### Derek Lang Shine Jr.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones

, Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Robert Martinez Biswas, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellant.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler and Jeffrey Paul

DeSousa

, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, EMAS, and LOGUE, JJ.

SUAREZ, J.

The State of Florida appeals from the downward departure sentence imposed

on Derek Lang Shine on December 22, 2015. We reverse and remand for thereasons set forth in the opinion rendered in State v. Shine

, 42 Fla. L. Weekly

D1832 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 23, 2017) (consolidating 3D15-2876 and 3D15-2877

under case no. 3D15-2876).

2
# L_2015058EN.01007901.xml

| 3.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 58/79 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 58/79

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2015/336

of 2 March 2015

implementing Decision 2013/798/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2013/798/CFSP of 23 December 2013 concerning restrictive measures against the Central African Republic (1), and in particular Article 2c thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 23 December 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/798/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 23 December 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/798/CFSP.

| (2) | On 31 December 2014, the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2127 (2013) concerning Central African Republic, deleted one person from the list of persons subject to the measures imposed by paragraphs 30 and 32 of UNSC Resolution 2134 (2014). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 31 December 2014, the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2127 (2013) concerning Central African Republic, deleted one person from the list of persons subject to the measures imposed by paragraphs 30 and 32 of UNSC Resolution 2134 (2014).

| (3) | The list of persons subject to restrictive measures as set out in the Annex to Decision 2013/798/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The list of persons subject to restrictive measures as set out in the Annex to Decision 2013/798/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Decision 2013/798/CFSP is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 2 March 2015.

For the Council

The President

D. REIZNIECE-OZOLA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 352, 24.12.2013, p. 51.

1

---

ANNEX

The entry in the Annex to Decision 2013/798/CFSP for the following person is deleted:

Levy YAKETE

---
**EXHIBIT 11.2**

 

**DUKEREALTY LIMITED PARTNERSHIPEARNINGS TO DEBT SERVICE CALCULATIONS(in thousands, except ratios)**

 
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **Nine Months**                   | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                           | ** ** | **Ended September 30, 2005** | ** ** |
|                                                                 |       |                              |       |
| Net income  from continuing operations, less preferred distributions |       | $                                 | 73,123     |   |
| Interest expense  (excludes amortization of deferred financing fees) |       | 84,773                            |       |
| Earnings before debt service                                         |       | $                                 | 157,896    |   |
|                                                                 |       |                              |       |
| Interest  expense (excludes amortization of deferred financing fees) |       | $                                 | 84,773     |   |
| Recurring  principal amortization                                    |       | 5,604                             |       |
| Total debt service                                                   |       | $                                 | 90,377     |   |
|                                                                 |       |                              |       |
| **Ratio of  earnings to debt service**                               | ** ** | **1.75**                          | ** ** |

 

----