alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UTAH ARMY NATIONAL GUARD (UTARNG) DRINKING WATER PFAS SNAPSHOT 

The Army National Guard is committed to ensuring quality drinking water is provided to its 

Soldiers, and civilians. Proactive sampling is performed by the Army National Guard on its 

drinking water systems, as well as, coordination with other purveyors to ensure perfluorooctane 

sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) remains below the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) lifetime health advisory (HA) level of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). The 

EPA HA is not an enforceable or a regulatory standard, and represents a concentration in 

drinking water that is not expected to produce adverse health effects if the water is consumed 

over a lifetime.

Drinking Water Status: Finished drinking water, which is the treated water people drink at 

Camp Williams, does not contain PFOS/PFOA above the EPA HA. Additionally, Army National 

Guard-provided drinking water complies with the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA), a federal law designed to protect the quality of drinking water supplied to the American 

public. The Army National Guard will continue to monitor on-base drinking water to ensure the 

EPA HA or a properly promulgated state drinking water standard is not exceeded.

Test Date: August-2023

PFOA + PFOS Results: 10.27 ppt

Future Testing Event: November-2023

Type of Drinking Water System: Army National Guard-owned

For Questions Contact: LTC Christopher Kroeber, Utah National Guard State Public Affairs 

Office

Office Phone Number: 801-432-4407

Office E-mail Address: ng.ut.utarng.list.pao@army.mil

Water Quality Reports: A water quality report is not required for this location
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 95-10942

Summary Calendar

__________________

JAMES EDWARD O’NEAL,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, Director,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division,

 Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CV-005-Y

- - - - - - - - - -

September 9, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Texas prisoner James Edward O'Neal, # 611087, appeals the

district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. O'Neal

contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial

court denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea or appeal

without holding a hearing, that counsel was ineffective for
No. 95-10942

-2-

failing to secure O'Neal's presence at such a hearing, and that

the revocation of O'Neal's parole violated principles of double 

jeopardy. For the first time on appeal, O'Neal argues that the

revocation of his parole violated the Ex Post Facto clause. We

reject O'Neal's ex post facto argument as lacking factual basis. 

Having reviewed the record and O'Neal's brief, we AFFIRM the

district court's denial of the petition for essentially the

reasons adopted and set forth by the district court. O'Neal v.

Scott, No. 4:95-CV-005-Y (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 1995). 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
      32**




**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Resolve Staffing, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Resolve Staffing, Inc. and will be retained by Resolve Staffing, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




*/s/
                Ronald Heineman*
            */s/
                Scott Horne*Ronald
                Heineman
            Scott
                HorneChief
                Executive Officer
            Chief
                Financial OfficerDated:
                August 11, 2006
            Dated:
                August 11, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         2,414,807
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      64,033
<MORTGAGE>                                     225,743
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    4,561
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,880,843
<CASH>                                           1,814
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               1,489
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         120,481
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,384,229
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,053,740
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   7,039
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                           55,369
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                188,381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     438,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,384,229
<PREMIUMS>                                     187,823
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            228,625
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              65,983
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     261,869
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     40,160
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            54,857
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                119,130
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,859
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             74,173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    74,173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.20
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-36779, 333-43159, and 333-43181) on Form S-8 of SPACEHAB, Incorporated
and subsidiaries of our report dated August 20, 2003, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of SPACEHAB, Incorporated and subsidiaries,
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2003.


                                                         /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
McLean, Virginia
September 26, 2003
October 21, 2015

Mr

. Pierluigi Lanciotti

104 Windchase Drive

Lafayette, LA 70508

Dear Mr. Lanciotti :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

part 21 and §§ 91.203(a)(b), 45.23(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a)(b),

61.113(a)(b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, and 91.151(a) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It exp lains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your July 7, 2015 exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2943 , but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
# North Dakota health officials return from Africa

/ Published Jan. 27, 2009

BISMARCK, N.D. — The state health officer and an epidemiologist for the state of North Dakota recently spent a week providing a cultural communications course in Ghana, Africa.

A community engagement event for North Dakota’s State Partnership Program, the course provided a process for community leaders to determine their needs, prioritize them and then locate assets to address those needs.

Dr. Terry L. Dwelle, state health officer with the North Dakota Department of Health, and Alice Musumba, an epidemiologist III with the Department of Health, worked with 21 students from 15 organizations.

Eight of the students applied to receive graduate credits at the University of Mary, and Global Health Outreach subsidized the corresponding tuition costs.

"Dr. Dwelle is an expert in community engagement and the program we are bringing to Ghana is a five-phase program that leads to a master’s degree in public health,” said Lt. Col. David Skalicky, a plans and policies officer for the North Dakota National Guard.

Both the University of Mary and the University of Minnesota recognize the program.

"The course was well-received. Many organizational leaders expressed a need to re-evaluate and adjust their strategic approach to changing risky behaviors based on the community engagement concepts discussed in this training,” Dwelle said.

Interest in a student exchange program between North Dakota and Ghana also is being explored as a way to continue to grow from each other’s knowledge and experiences.

Since 2004, the North Dakota National Guard has developed a professional relationship with Ghana as part of the Department of Defense’s State Partnership Program. This program aligns states with partner countries to encourage the development of economic, political and military ties.

Building these relationships helps Guardsmen learn to interact within cultures with which they are unfamiliar, an increasingly important skill, while also bringing expertise and knowledge to a country anxious to prosper.

A second State Partnership Program engagement ended this past weekend. Dr. Neil Nordquist, dean of Minot State University’s College of Education and Health Sciences, spent a week in Ghana and is applying for a $50,000 grant through the U.S. Agency for International Development that would help form a plan for educational improvements in Ghana.
ex10-2.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2







SUMMARY OF AMENDMENT TO ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN







On February 26, 2013, the Board approved an amendment to the Company’s non-equity annual incentive plan (the “AIP”) for its named executive officers. The terms of the AIP have been previously disclosed in filings of the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and a more complete description of the AIP can be located in the Exhibits to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and in the Company’s latest proxy statement, as filed with the SEC. Determinations of awards to be made pursuant to the AIP are based on the Company’s asset growth and net income, as well as a subjective determination of the Board.


 


Based on the amendment recently approved by the Board, the discretionary awards for the fiscal year 2013 under the AIP (if any) for Mr. Remer Y. Brinson, III (CEO) and Mr. Thomas J. Flournoy (CFO) will be settled in restricted stock grants with immediate vesting, rather than cash. The amount of restricted stock to be awarded will be determined by converting the dollar amount of the discretionary bonus (as if it were to be paid in cash) to restricted stock, rounded up to the next full share, based on the “fair market value” of the shares at the date of grant. For purposes of this determination, “fair market value” shall mean the average closing price of the Company’s common stock on the Over-the-Counter Bulletin Board (or other national quotation service) for the ten (10) business days prior to such date.
Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Form
S-3 (No. 333-36487) of Chelsea GCA Realty, Inc. and Chelsea GCA Realty
Partnership, L.P. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated February 2,
2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Chelsea GCA Realty Partnership, L.P. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                              Ernst & Young LLP


New York, New York
March 9, 2000
#### *James English and A. Westbrook vs. Robert Miller and others.*

The Court of Equity of this State cannot injoin the collection of an execution issued from the United States Court.

*Before*Dunkin, Ch. *at*Chester,

*July,*1845.

In December, 1843, the defendant, who is a citizen of Kentucky, recovered judgment against the complainants, on.a promissory note, in the court of the United States for South Carolina. In February, 1845, the complainants filed this bill, praying an injunction to restrain the Marshal from collecting the execution issued on the-judgment.

*The Chancellor.*If the complainants had any peculiar equitable ground of relief against the judgment rendered at law, their application should have been made on the equity side of the court which rendered the judgment. This court has certainly no authority to injoin the proceedings of the Federal court. See *Mc-Kim vs. Voorhies, 7*Cra. 279 ; 2 Story Eq. 186.

On appeal to this court the decree of the circuit court was affirmed.

Johnson, Johnston and Dunkin, CC. concurring.

*Eaves*& *Thomson*for the motion.

*Gregg*& Gregg, contra.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7671

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LARRY EUGENE REED, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-96-22) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 2, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Larry Eugene Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on November 17, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on November 18, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Larry Eugene Reed appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for preparation of transcript at government expense andfor enlargement of time. 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. See United States v. Reed , No. CR-96-22 (E.D. Va. Nov. 18, 1999). * We dispense withoral 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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MITSUI O.S.K. LINES, LTD., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

SEAMASTER LOGISTICS, INC.; TOLL

GLOBAL FORWARDING (AMERICAS)

INC., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17295

D.C. Nos. 3:10-cv-05591-SC

3:11-cv-02861-SC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Samuel Conti, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 15, 2017

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and HUCK,** District

Judge.

 

Plaintiff-Appellant Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, LTD. (“MOL”) appeals the

dismissal of its Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)

FILED

MAY 23 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Paul C. Huck, United States District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for Southern Florida, sitting by designation.
claims against SeaMaster Logistics, Inc. (“SeaMaster”) and Toll Global

Forwarding (Americas) Inc. (“Summit”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291, and we affirm.

MOL alleges that Summit and SeaMaster’s fraudulent wire and mail

transmissions proximately caused its domestic injuries. To show proximate cause,

MOL must prove “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the

injurious conduct alleged.” Holmes v. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268

(1992). Mere “but-for” or factual causation is insufficient. Hemi Group, LLC v.

City of New York, 559 U.S. 1, 9 (2010). So too is “[a] link that is too remote,

purely contingent, or indirect.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Defendants’ use of U.S. mails and wires did not proximately cause MOL’s

injuries. Those injuries were the direct result of Summit and SeaMaster’s

false Shenzhen door declarations, which induced MOL to issue payments to

Rainbow and forego the higher origin receiving charges and space protection

premiums to which it otherwise would have been entitled. The false wire and mail

transmissions at issue may have facilitated the overall arrangement, but their role

in the scheme was insufficiently direct to constitute a proximate cause of MOL’s

injuries. See Oki Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, 298 F.3d 768, 774 (9th

Cir. 2002). 

2
Because MOL cannot show proximate cause, we need not address whether it

suffered “domestic injury” within the meaning of RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European

Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090, 2106-11 (2016). Defendants’ Motion for Judicial Notice is

accordingly denied. 

AFFIRMED.

3
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1
ContiFinancial Corporation
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
Exhibit 12.1 of March 31, 1998 Form 10-K


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Fiscal 98    Fiscal 97    Fiscal 96    Fiscal 95    Fiscal 94
<S>                                                     <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Summary:
 Earnings                                                385,425      297,677      197,996       77,895       42,334
 Fixed Charges                                           165,904      120,636       74,770       29,635       12,124
                                                        --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
 Ratio                                                      2.32         2.47         2.65         2.63         3.49
                                                        ========     ========     ========     ========     ========
Earnings:         
 Income before income taxes and minority interest        224,965      177,041      126,536       56,988       35,286
 Plus:  Interest expense                                 165,904      120,636       74,770       29,635       12,124
 Less:  Equity income in unconsolidated subsidiaries      (5,444)        -            -            -            -
 Less:  Minority interest                                  n/a          n/a         (3,310)      (8,728)      (5,076)
                                                        --------     --------     --------     --------     --------
  Total "Earnings"                                       385,425      297,677      197,996       77,895       42,334
                                                        ========     ========     ========     ========     ========
Fixed Charges:
 Interest expense                                        165,904      120,636       74,770       29,635       12,124

</TABLE>