alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Stormwater Runoff (Code 570) 

Stormwater runoff control provides control of quantity and

quality of runoff caused by construction operations at

development sites and by other land-disturbing activities. 

Practice Information 

The purpose of this practice is to regulate the rate and

amount of runoff and sediment from development sites

during and after construction operations, to minimize

flooding, erosion, and sedimentation. This practice is used

when there is a need to compensate for increased peak discharges and erosion resulting from

construction operations at development sites or other disturbed areas needing treatment or protection. 

Stormwater runoff control requires maintenance over the expected life of the practice. 

Common Associated Practices 

Stormwater Runoff Control (Code 570) is commonly associated with other NRCS Conservation

Practice Standards, such as Dam (Code 402), Pond (Code 378), Diversion (Code 362), Grade

Stabilization Structure (Code 410), Grassed Waterway (Code 412), Structure for Water Control (Code

587), Water and Sediment Control Basin (Code 638), Access Control (Code 472), and Critical Area

Planting (Code 342). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2012-1188

Docket Number

2012-SW-049-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin EC135-62A-029, Revision 2, dated 

May 17, 2012.

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
Massachusetts SIP Submittal Dated February 13, 2008; 

Docket#516; Massachusetts Register Number: 1094; Date: 12/28/07

MA Rule 

Number

MA Rule Name Code of 

Massachusetts 

Regulation 

Page Number

Disposition Reason

Table of Contents 4.1-4.2 Withdraw Not part of the SIP

Table of Contents 35-38 Withdraw Not part of the SIP

7.00 Statutory Authority; 

Legend; Preamble; 

Definitions

167-170 EPA will act on.

7.02 U Plan Approval 

and Emission 

Limitations List

205-206, Withdraw MassDEP will submit a complete and updated 

version of 310 CMR 7.02 for review and approval 

into SIP.

7.02 U Plan Approval 

and Emission 

Limitations List

213-216 Withdraw MassDEP will submit a complete and updated 

version of 310 CMR 7.02 for review and approval 

into SIP.

7.03 U Plan Approval 

Application 

Exemption 

Construction 

Requirements

223-228 Withdraw MassDEP will submit a complete and updated 

version of 310 CMR 7.02 for review and approval 

into SIP.

7.04 U Fossil Fuel 

Utilization Facilities

228-228.2 EPA will act on 310 

CMR 7.04(2) and (4).

7.11 U Transportation 

Media

245 Withdraw Not intended to be part of SIP submittal

7.12 U Source 

Registration

245-246 EPA will act on.

7.26(28)-

(29)

Industry 

Performance 

Standards

250.72.18.5-

250.72.18.6

Withdraw Not part of the SIP

7.26(30)-

(37)

Industry 

Performance 

Standards

250.72.18.6-

250.72.18.9

EPA will act on.
MA Rule 

Number

MA Rule Name Code of 

Massachusetts 

Regulation 

Page Number

Disposition Reason

7.26(40)-

(44)

Industry 

Performance 

Standards

250.72.18.9-

250.72.18.15

Withdraw Not part of the SIP

7.27 NOx Allowance 

Program

250.72.18.15-

250.72.16

Withdraw Not intended to be part of SIP submittal
J-S30020-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT

OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

JOHN HENRY MILLER

Appellant No. 1389 WDA 2017

Appeal from the PCRA Order entered August 24, 2017

In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County

Criminal Division at No: CP-26-CR-0001474-2008

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED AUGUST 21, 2018

Appellant, John Henry Miller, appeals pro se from the August 24, 2017

order dismissing his petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act

(“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. We affirm.

On January 30, 2009, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of unlawful

possession of a firearm, receiving stolen property, and possession with intent

to deliver a controlled substance.1 On February 9, 2009, the trial court

sentenced him to an aggregate five to ten years of incarceration. Appellant

did not file a direct appeal, and therefore his judgment of sentence was final

on March 11, 2009, the final day in the appeal period. Appellant filed a timely

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105, 6106, and 3925, and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-S30020-18

- 2 -

first PCRA petition on December 3, 2009, and the PCRA court denied relief on

March 3, 2010. Appellant filed the instant pro se petition on July 19, 2017,

well outside of the PCRA’s one-year time bar. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)

(“Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent

petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes

final[.]”). To obtain review of the merits, Appellant bears the burden of

pleading and proving the applicability of one of the PCRA’s timeliness

requirements set forth at § 9545(b)(1)(i-iii). Commonwealth v. Dickerson, 900 A.2d 407, 410 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 911 A.2d 933 (Pa.

2006).

Instantly, Appellant claims his petition is timely because he asserts that

he is serving an illegal sentence. Appellant’s Pro Se Brief at 8 (“[A]n ILLEGAL

sentence is always subject to collateral attack.”) (capitalization in original).

Appellant is incorrect. Although our courts treat legality of a sentence as non- waivable, a PCRA court does not have jurisdiction over the issue unless the

petition is timely or meets a timeliness exception. Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223 (Pa. 1999). That is, illegality of a sentence does not excuse

compliance with the PCRA’s jurisdictional time bar. The PCRA court did not

err in dismissing Appellant’s petition as untimely.

Order affirmed.
J-S30020-18

- 3 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/21/2018
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50255

Summary Calendar

FERNANDO SPENCER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JEFFREY SHOUP, Warden; FNU BARINTES, Mrs.; 

FNU MORENO, Mrs.; FNU BOTKINS, Mrs.; 

FNU ALVAREZ, Mr.; FNU DURAN, Mr.; GRW CORP.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(MO-01-CV-133)

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Spencer, federal prisoner # 10714-180, appeals, pro

se, the summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim.

(Spencer’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.)

Spencer has shown no error in the district court’s

determination that Spencer failed to exhaust available

administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Porter v.
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002); Wright v. Hollingsworth, 260 F.3d

357, 358 (5th Cir. 2001).

Although required to do so under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), Spencer

failed to identify a specific physical injury. Nor did he present

the issue in his brief; therefore, he has abandoned it for purposes

of appeal. See, e.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th

Cir. 1993). 

MOTION DENIED; AFFIRMED
# C_2004300EN.01004101.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/41

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 19 July 2004

in Case T-439/03 R II, Ulrike Eppe v European Parliament

(Interlocutory proceedings - Competition - New claim - Admissibility - Urgency - None)

(2004/C 300/81)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-439/03 R II, Ulrike Eppe, residing at Hanover (Germany), represented by D. Rogalla, lawyer, against European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and N. Lorenz) — application for, primarily, annulment of Competition EUR/A/167/02, and the resumption of the procedure for that competition including the applicant and, alternatively, an order restraining the European Parliament from proceeding with recruitments on the basis of the results of that competition, the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 19 July 2004 in which he:

| 1. | Rejects the interlocutory application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Rejects the interlocutory application;

| 2. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Reserves the costs.

---
# C_2005061EN.01000401.xml

| 11.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3576 — ECT/PONL/Euromax)

(2005/C 61/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 December 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3576. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3576. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2005006EN.01004402.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/44

---

Action brought on 29 October 2004 by Elke Huober against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-438/04)

(2005/C 6/87)

Language of the Case: French

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 October 2004 by Elke Huober, resident in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Council refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation allowance and resulting rights, from her entry into service on 1 September 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Council refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation allowance and resulting rights, from her entry into service on 1 September 2003;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Before entering into the Council's service, the applicant worked in the information office of the Land Baden-Würtemberg in Brussels. In the present action she challenges the decision refusing to grant her the expatriation allowance.

Land

In support of her action, the applicant pleads breach of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in that the Council did not consider that she was in circumstances arising from work done for another State. The applicant also pleads breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination.

---
# C_2004284EN.01001401.xml

| 20.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 284/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 284/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 September 2004

in Case T-156/94: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements and concerted practices - European producers of beams - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Fine - Appeal - Case referred back to the Court of First Instance)

(2004/C 284/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case T-156/94: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by A. Creus Carreras and N. Lacalle Mangas, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by J. Rivas Andrés and J.J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (OJ 1994 L 146, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 4 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams is fixed at EUR 2 540 000; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 4 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams is fixed at EUR 2 540 000;

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay 35 % of the costs incurred by it and by the defendant in connection with the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, including the interlocutory proceedings, and also with the proceedings on appeal before the Court of Justice. The defendant is ordered to pay 65 % of the costs incurred by it and by the applicant in connection with the same proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay 35 % of the costs incurred by it and by the defendant in connection with the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, including the interlocutory proceedings, and also with the proceedings on appeal before the Court of Justice. The defendant is ordered to pay 65 % of the costs incurred by it and by the applicant in connection with the same proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 28.5.2004.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

SECTION 1350

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

In connection with the Annual Report of Union Drilling, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Christopher D. Strong, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Christopher D. StrongName:

Christopher D. StrongTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

March 5, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary Financial Information extracted from October
     31, 1997 Financial Statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
     to such.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>        0001014491                 
<NAME>       General American Royalty, Inc.                 
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         14,967
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               47,760
<PP&E>                                         569,187
<DEPRECIATION>                                 100,628
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 572,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          329,694
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,032
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   572,934
<SALES>                                        194,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,916
<CGS>                                          38,281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  38,281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             28,769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (871,329)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (871,329)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (871,329)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.94)
        


</TABLE>
#### S. M. NOBLE, Admr. v. F. D. KOONCE and others.

*Praetiee*— *Taxation of Costs.*

In a proceeding to make real estate assets, where the defendants set up> title to the land in controversy which issue is found against them ; *Seldv*that the costs of the proceeding (except those of filing the petición) are: properly taxable against the defendants.

MotioN to retax Costs, heard at Fall Term, 1876, of Ons-low Superior Court, before McKoy, *J.*

In a Special Proceeding before the Clerk of said Court to-make the lands of the plaintiff’s intestate, John Mills, assets-for the payments of his debts, the defendants set up title to-said land and were made parties. On the trial of the question of title the jury found that the deed under which defendants claimed was fraudulent. Thereupon at Springs Term, 1876, there wras judgment for the plaintiff and also a, decree for the sale of the land for assets. The costs for fil*406ing the petition to sell the land were taxed against the plaintiff, and the costs of the proceeding from the time that defendants resisted the petition to the termination of the suit were taxed against the defendants. His Honor refused to disturb the judgment heretofore rendered and over-ruled the motion to retax the costs. Appeal by defendants.

*Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller ¿Ashe*and *II. F.*Kornegay, for plaintiff.

*Messrs. A. G. Hubbard*and *Battle*Mordecai, for defendants.

Eaircloth, J.

It is a rule that the party’s costs in an action is taxed with the costs unless otherwise ordered by the Court. The costs in special proceedings shall be as herein allowed in civil actions,- unless when. otherwise specially provided. C. C. P. ch. 17, § 294. Costs shall be allowed of course to the plaintiff in an ■ action for the recovery of real property, or when a claim of title to real property arises on the pleadings, or is certified by the Court to come in question at the trial. C. C. P. ch. 17, § 276, (1.)

These provision^ applied to the present case show that the defendants are liable for the costs of which they ■complain, and we think His Honor properly taxed them with that portion of the cost which would not have been incurred but for their attempt to set up title in themselves by a fraudulent deed to the premises in controversy.

The attempt by the defendants to show title was an experiment, and even if made *bona fide,*in the event of failure ■they would be liable for the *whole*costs of the effort without any regard to the value of property acquired by them *by*inheritance, devise, bequest or distribution from their decedent, as that rule applies against the debts of the decedent and not against their own liabilities.

*407There is no allegation before us that the Clerk failed to apportion the costs according to the order of the Court.

No error. Let this be certified.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6157

JIAME J. HARGROVE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DENNIS HARRISON, JR., Warden; MICHAEL GAINES,

United States Parole Commissioner,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-00-1400-AM)

Submitted: May 24, 2001 Decided: June 1, 2001

Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jiame J. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Erwin Peabody, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jiame J. Hargrove appeals the district court order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000) petition.

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

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

of the district court. Hargrove v. Harrison, No. CA-00-1400-AM

(E.D. Va. filed: December 14, 2000; entered: Dec. 18, 2000). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED