alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# • G EPower & 

### Water 

### Water 

## &Process Technologies

James Horwood Industrial Sales Manager

- ABMet North Americq

. 3239 Dundos Street West Ookville ON L6M 4B2 Deborah Bartram Canodo VP. Water Programs T905465 3030 14555 Avion Parkway. Suite 200 jomes.horwood@ge.com Chantilly. VA 20151 6 May. 2011 Dear Ms. Bartram: Note that any information contained within this letter that is marked with a

# .. § is considered to

# -~ be Confidential Business Information. Furtherto our call of 19 April 2011. GE has estimated sludge and solids yields for the ABMet systems proposed in our 11 March 2011 letter to you. The information below is amodeled estimate and may not reflect actual volumes in operating conditions. The modeling is based on the feed watercriteria utilized for the estimates provided on 19 April. Forthis estimate. it is assumed thatthe entire system will be backwashed once per month with a recommended operating protocol thatdictatesthatthe backwashing ofthe system is spread out over that month to ease handling and minimize instantaneousvolumes. For example. a system with 4 reactor trains (8 reactors totall would backwash 2 reactors per week. Estimated backwash watervolumes: Volumeper Volumeper FlowRate Number

### of Number

### of 

### backwashper backwash total Trains Reactors reactor tgpmJ tusgalJ

50 2 4 

### 100 2 4 

### 150 3 6 

### 200 4 8 

### 300 3 6 

### 400 4 8 

### 600 6 

### 12 800 8 

### 16 1.000 10 20ABMet solids are generally co-Iandfilled with upstream clarifier solids. Given thatthey would amount to a minute fraction ofthe clarifier solids. the ABMet solids do not change the classification ofthe overall product. The ABMet solids can also be dewatered and handled separate and pass the TCLP test. Best Regards.

James Harwood Industrial Sales Manager ABMet
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

v.

RIVES MILLER GROGAN

,

Defendant. Case No. 24

- cr

- 353 (CRC)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the Report and Rec ommendation of Magis trate Judge Robin M.

Merriweather, docketed on August 5, 2024. See ECF No. 35. Under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 72(b)(2), a party may serve and file specific written objections to such a Report and

Recommendation within 14 days of being served. The Court has received no written objections

to the Report and R e commendation within the 14

- day deadline.

Having carefully reviewed the findings and conclusions contained in Magistrate Judge

Merriweather’s Report and Recommendation, the Court will adopt in full the Report and

Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the absence of objections, and

the entire record, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Re port and Recommendation is adopted by the C o urt; and it is

O RDERED that the parties ’ request to cap Defendant ’ s sent ence and maximum fine at a

pett y offense level is r andomly referred to a Magis trate

.2 SO O RDERED

.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER

United States District Judge

Date: August 23 , 2024
#### Graf and wife, Respondents, vs. Soelle and wife, Appellants.

For the appellants': *V. H. Cady*of Baraboo.

For the respondents: *Grotophorst, Quale & Longer*of Baraboo.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4**
**- 1103** 

DEREK N. JARVIS ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

THE CHRISTMAS ATTIC ,
Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton , Senior District Judge. ( 1:1 2

- cv
- 0 1010

- CMH

- TRJ )

Submitted : April 24, 2014 Decided: April 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD , and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Derek N. Jarvis , Appellant Pro Se. Victor M. Glasberg, VICTOR M. GLASBERG & ASSOCIATES, Alexandria, Virginia , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Derek N. Jarvis appeals the district co urt ’ s January

17, 2014, order denying his motion to file a second amended
complaint. Because we affirmed the dismissal of his previous
complaint, the time period for filing an amended complaint had
expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). Accordingly, we aff irm.
We deny Jarvis’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny
Appellee’s motion to designate Jarvis as a “vexatious litigant,”

and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
AFS-11-122-E 

February 24, 2011 

 Exemption No. 8840B 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26744 

Mr. David L. Jones 

Corporate Aviation Education Director 

Aviation Institute of Maintenance 

4455 South Boulevard 

Virginia Beach, VA 23452 

Dear Mr. Jones: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8840, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated December 26, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Technical Educational Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of 

Maintenance (Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate U5ET092K) for an 

extension of Exemption No. 8840, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic 

general written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the 

general curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

regarding public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register. The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, 

and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute. 
2 

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8840, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8840, as amended, to 

February 28, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8840 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8840. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service
October 2020

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

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

Conservation Practice Overview

Irrigation Canal or Lateral (Code 320) 

A permanent channel constructed to convey irrigation water

from the source of supply to one or more irrigated areas. 

Practice Information 

The purpose of this practice is to deliver water to the farm

irrigation system(s). The objectives of the practice is to

improve efficient use of water by minimizing conveyance

losses from seepage or structural failure. 

All canals, laterals, and related structures are planned as an integral part of a total system designed to

facilitate natural resource conservation on a farm or group of farms. 

Plans for irrigation canal or lateral installations include related structures such as turnouts,checks,

crossings, and other facilities needed for successful operation as an efficient system. All related

structures are designed and installed to meet NRCS quality standards. 

An irrigation canal or lateral will require maintenance over the expected life of the practice. 

Common Associated Practices 

Irrigation Canal or Lateral (320) is commonly applied with practices such as Irrigation Water

Management (449), Pumping Plant (533), Irrigation Systems, Micro-irrigation (441), Sprinkler (442),

Surface & Subsurface (443), Irrigation Storage Reservoir (436), Water Well (642), Structure for Water

Control (587), and Irrigation Ditch Lining (428). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
immovimpuin •on

FOR: )7L.i. -1

•

Z:8., ...Zoe

..0. * OP

- n

it • n ;

•••.

An excerpt from the Minutes of the 303 Committee meeting held 7 August 1967

is set forth below for your information.

"Monthly Reconosiesauce Forecasts

The JRC forecast for August 1967

v.ras telephonically approved by committee

principals on 1 August.

The Si.F33 forecast for August 1967

was telephonically approved by committee

principals on 1 4uzust."

CS/MO

INFORMATION:

Gen Berg

Dr. Flax

4r. Reber file
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection  with  the  accompanying Annual Report of Consortium Service
Management  Group,  Inc.,  (the  "Company")  on  Form  10-KSB for the year ended
December  31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Donald S. Robbins, Chief Executive Officer
of  the  Company,  hereby  certify  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 (15 U.S.C.  78m or  78o(d)); 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/  Donald  S.  Robbins
Dated:  April  14,  2004      --------------------------------------------------
                              Donald  S.  Robbins
                              President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-K  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.
















                                                                      Exhibit 32
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED), THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED BY ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      10,655,565
<SECURITIES>                                43,831,616
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,357,616
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            56,040,038
<PP&E>                                       2,416,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,537,733
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,289,660
<BONDS>                                        314,159
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,542
<OTHER-SE>                                  55,922,372
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,537,733
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,217,194
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,259,163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,259,163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,259,163)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 10.3


                             AMENDMENT NO. FOUR TO
                     SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN
                     --------------------------------------

     THIS AMENDMENT NO. FOUR ("Amendment") to the Vencor, Inc. Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan is adopted on the 16th day of February 2001.

     Reason for Amendment.  This Amendment is intended to eliminate the accrual
     --------------------
of benefits under Section 3.6, entitled "Change in Control," of the Vencor, Inc.
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (as amended by Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3
thereto, the "SERP Plan") for all participants therein, effective as of the date
hereof.

     Amendments.  The SERP Plan is hereby amended, effective as of the date
     ----------
hereof, to delete Section 3.6 thereof in its entirety and to delete all
references in the SERP Plan to such Section 3.6.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Vencor, Inc. has executed this instrument on the date
first above written.


                                    VENCOR, INC.


                                    By: /s/ Edward L. Kuntz
                                      ---------------------
                                      Edward L. Kuntz
                                      Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                      Executive Officer and President
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2211 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2211

 To provide for the award of medals or other commendations to handlers 
   of military working dogs and military working dogs, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2017

Mr. Lance (for himself, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr. LoBiondo) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the award of medals or other commendations to handlers 
   of military working dogs and military working dogs, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Guardians of America's Freedom Medal 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AWARD OF MEDALS OR OTHER COMMENDATIONS TO HANDLERS OF MILITARY 
              WORKING DOGS AND MILITARY WORKING DOGS.

    (a) Program of Award Required.--Each Secretary of a military 
department shall carry out a program to provide for the award of one or 
more medals or other commendations to handlers of military working 
dogs, and to military working dogs, under the jurisdiction of such 
Secretary to recognize valor or meritorious achievement by such 
handlers and dogs.
    (b) Medal and Commendations.--Any medal or commendation awarded 
pursuant to a program under subsection (a) shall be of such design, and 
include such elements, as the Secretary of the military department 
concerned shall specify.
    (c) Regulations.--Medals and commendations shall be awarded under 
programs under subsection (a) in accordance with regulations prescribed 
by the Secretary of Defense for purposes of this section.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Johnifer Ray Mumphrey

No. 06-23-00079-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Stevens, Justice van Cleef and 

Justice Rambin participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief 

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED MAY 1, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
# C_2005132EN.01002301.xml

| 28.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/23

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 17 March 2005

in Case T-177/00, Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Council of the European Union (1)

1

(Dumping - Failure by the Council to adopt a Commission proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Absence of simple majority necessary for the adoption of a regulation - Obligation to state reasons)

(2005/C 132/42)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-177/00, Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV, established in Eindhoven (Netherlands), represented by C. Stanbrook, QC, and F. Ragolle, lawyer, against Council of the European Union (Agent: S. Marquardt, assisted by G.M. Berrisch, lawyer) — action for annulment of the Council's decision of 8 May 2000 to reject the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain parts of television camera systems originating in Japan, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on 7 April 2000 (document COM (2000) 195 final) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh, P. Mengozzi, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the Council's decision of 8 May 2000 to reject the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain parts of television camera systems originating in Japan, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on 7 April 2000 (document COM (2000) 195 final). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Council's decision of 8 May 2000 to reject the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain parts of television camera systems originating in Japan, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on 7 April 2000 (document COM (2000) 195 final).

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.

1

---
.1

" • '• •"• •••n

- •

•

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON •

NMPIErlNAND r

Orme Os mc UNIX* SeCACTARY March 24, 1972

MEMORANDUM FOR MAJOR GENERAL HOGAN, SAFOI

SUBJECT: Classification of Budget Data

For the past several years, there have been problems

with the security classification of budget data furnished

to Congress on the Classified Programs and Special

Activities.

In order to protect the scope of the programs involved,

I would like your security review people to follow this

policy:

Where fiscal appropriation identifications

and related dollars for Classified Programs or Special

Activities are given for one appropriation only, the data

are CONFIDENTIAL. It is inappropriate to consider these

data as UNCLASSIFIED even though only appropriations and

dollars are involved.

•

Where fiscal appropriation identifications

and related dollars for Classified Programs or Special

Activities are listed to reflect aggregate , totals, the

data are SECRET. In particular, the OSD Fiscal Guidance,

OSD Program/Budget Decisions, OSD Five Year Defense

Programs, and USAF Program Objective Memoranda should

be so classified.

•••• e••••

I. w•• • ....in,. • • If a. • •1•.. • . ••• .1, MI.V.W.W.NOMMIIIMP

sy, • .

.0 7t :11. :3

...mormamemilmmvoimumisrammorn nwwwwwwwwwwgilmmOMMM
4$1111111111,

,004

IN REPLY ROPER TO

PM-18:RKG

15 June 1971

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVY SPACE PROJECT OFFICE, PM-16

WASHINGTON. O.C. 20360

; •

' • "

Napa trm

TOP SECRET

114111,54/71 2

Pg 1 of 2

MEMORANDUM FOR NRO STAFF (Lt Col Hofmann, SS-5)

Subj: Comments for PFIAB Report

The following comments are submitted for inclusion in

subject report. Feel free to make modifications as you

desire as long as the substance remains essentially the

same. Give me a call if you have any questions (extension 22387).

Effective 5 January 1971 the responsibility for

Program C was reassigned by the Chief of Naval Operations

to the Naval Material Command fro

N v

an za on

ogram ocated at the Space and

Missile Systems Organization (SAMS0) in Los Angeles.

_ ue o • e respons ve o e

development and operation of the

n addition, the Director, Program C,

y to assess NRO space systems and

technology for use in surface ocean surveillance, subsurface

ocean surveillance, and other problem areas faced by the

Navy.

An agreement signed by Admiral Zumwalt, CNO;

Dr. Frosch, OASN (R&D); and Dr. McLucas, DNRO, on 2 April

1971, stated that existing assets which would include space

systems, technology, facilities, and expertise would be used

wherever possible to mee a minimum of

redundancy. The use of r ocean

surveillance, in additi no-Soviet

Bloc, is an obvious firs step.

Studies are now being pursued by Program C to

determine the best existing systems or variations thereof

to support the ocean surveillance mission for both the

/06 -4r-Of
aptain, USN

Director, Program C

rx.

-

-*7: ..s.

national community and the Navy. Other existing and future

NRO assets will also be studied for interface and/or joint

participation. Ultimate utilization will be determined on

a case-by-case basis.

54,71

Pg 2 of 2
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22
- 10806 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff

— Appellee **,** versus **Lynnette Marie Jacobs,** Defendant

— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:22
- CR
- 6 - 1

**__________________ ____________**  Before **Davis, Duncan,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Lynnette Marie Jacobs has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jacobs has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the re levant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 21, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10806 Document: 00516684286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2023No. 22
- 10806

2 with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further resp onsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-10806 Document: 00516684286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/21/2023