alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OSWER/OSRTI Washington, DC 20460


## N ATIONAL 

## P RIORITIES 

## L IST 

## (NPL)
***Proposed Site*** May 2014 

### NORTH SHORE DRIVE Elkhart , Indiana Elkhart County

 Site Location : Th e North Shore Drive site contains a contaminated ground water p lume with no identified source located in the city of Elkhart, Elkhart County, Indiana. The ground water plume is approximately 70 acres and is located north of the St. Joseph River and south of Old U.S. 20.

 Site History:
Th e North Shore Drive site was initially discovered in 1996. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has continued to investigate the plume by obtaining drinking water samples from private homes. In five homes contaminants exceeded the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Despite several investigation s in the area, the origin of the contaminants is unknown.

 Site Contamination/Contaminants: The plume consists of chlorinated solvents, specifically trichloroethene (TCE), cis

- 1,2

- dichloroethene (cis

- 1,2

- DCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trans

- 1,2

- dichloroethene (tr ans

- 1,2

- DCE).

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment : IDEM sampled drinking wells from 43 residences in the area and found 12 contaminated residential wells , five of which exceeded the MCL

. About 147 residential drinking wells within 1⁄4 m ile of the plume could be potentially contaminate d by this site.

 Response Activities (to date):
ID EM has provided carbon filters to nine residential homes for the wells in which contamination approached or exceed ed the MCLs. Other investigations have identified potential sources of contamination; however, the origin of the contaminants remains unknown.

 Need for NPL Listing: The state of Indian a referred the site to the EPA because the contaminated ground water plume is affecting nearby residences. Lis ting will allow for a n investigation into the nature and extent of contamination. Other federal and state cleanup program s were evaluated but are not viable at this time. The EPA receive d a letter of support for placing this site on the NPL from the state.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent FR notices.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1-888- 42 -ATSDR or 1- 888 -422-8737.
<PAGE>
 
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                            REUNION INDUSTRIES, INC.
                      SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                    Company                      Incorporated       Parent
                    -------                      ------------       ------
<S> <C>                                            <C>                  <C>   <C> 
 1  Reunion Industries, Inc.                       Delaware
 2  Oneida Rostone Corp.                           New York             1
 3  DPL Acquisition Corp.                          Delaware             2
 4  Data Packaging Holdings Limited                Ireland              3      (95.5%)
 5  Data Packaging Limited                         Bermuda              4      
 6  Data Packaging Limited                         Ireland              4 
 7  Juliana Vineyards                             California            1
 8  Crescent Farms Company                          Texas               1
 9  Juliana Preserve Operating Company            California            7
10  Juliana Mutual Water Company                  California            7      (90.0%)       
11  Buttes Drilling-C Company                       Texas               1
12  Reunion Titan, Inc.                             Texas              11
13  Reunion Potash Company                         Delaware             1
 
    INACTIVE COMPANIES
    ------------------
14  Buttes Farms                                  California            1
15  Buttes Resources Canada, Ltd.                  Delaware             1
16  Buttes Resources International, Inc.           Delaware             1
17  Northern Enterprises, Ltd.                      Nevada              1
18  Ocean Phoenix Transport, Inc.            District of Columbia       1
19  Reunion Sub I Inc.                             Delaware             1
20  Reunion Sub II Inc.                            Delaware             1
21  Reunion Sub III Inc.                           Delaware             1
22  Asie-Dolphin Drilling SDN BHD                  Malaysia            11        (49%)
23  Buttes Gas & Oil do Brasil, Ltda.               Brazil              1        (49%)
24  Dolphin Titan (Malaysia) SDN BHD               Malaysia            11
25  Dolphin Titan do Brazil Servicos
     de Perfuracoes, Ltd.                           Brazil             11
26  Monaco Corporation                        British Virgin Is.       11
27  Ocean Phoenix Holdings, N. V.            Netherlands Antilles       1
28  Progress Drilling International, Inc.           Panama             11
29  Progress Perfuracoes do Brasil, Ltd.            Brazil             28

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 21.01

Listed below are subsidiaries of the registrant, all of which are wholly-owned,
as of March 30, 2000:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                     Jurisdiction of
                                    Subsidiary                                        Incorporation
         -----------------------------------------------------------------           ---------------
         <S>                                                                            <C>
         Application Methods, Inc. (d/b/a e-Sell Commerce Systems)                      Colorado
         Rocky Mountain Broadband, Inc.                                                 Colorado
         RMI-INI, Inc. (d/b/a Internet Now!)                                            Colorado
         Rocky Mountain Internet, Inc.                                                  Colorado
         Infohiway, Inc.                                                                Colorado
         Internet Acquisition Corporation                                               Colorado
</TABLE>

                                      E-2
OSWER/OSRTI 

Washington, DC 20460 

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL) 

***Proposed Site*** May 2014 

NORTHSHORE DRIVE Elkhart, Indiana

Elkhart County

 Site Location:

The North Shore Drive site contains a contaminated ground water plume with no identified source located in the city of 

Elkhart, Elkhart County, Indiana. The ground water plume is approximately 70 acres and is located north of the St. 

Joseph River and south of Old U.S. 20. 

 Site History: 

The North Shore Drive site was initially discovered in 1996. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

(IDEM) has continued to investigate the plume by obtaining drinking water samples from private homes. In five 

homes contaminants exceeded the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Despite several 

investigations in the area, the origin of the contaminants is unknown. 

 Site Contamination/Contaminants:

The plume consists of chlorinated solvents, specifically trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), 

tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trans-1,2-dichloroethene (trans-1,2-DCE).

 Potential Impacts on Surrounding Community/Environment:

IDEM sampled drinking wells from 43 residences in the area and found 12 contaminated residential wells, five of 

which exceeded the MCL. About 147 residential drinking wells within 1⁄4 mile of the plume could be potentially 

contaminated by this site.

 Response Activities (to date): 

IDEM has provided carbon filters to nine residential homes for the wells in which contamination approached or 

exceeded the MCLs. Other investigations have identified potential sources of contamination; however, the origin of 

the contaminants remains unknown.

 Need for NPL Listing:

The state of Indiana referred the site to the EPA because the contaminated ground water plume is affecting nearby 

residences. Listing will allow for an investigation into the nature and extent of contamination. Other federal and state 

cleanup programs were evaluated but are not viable at this time. The EPA received a letter of support for placing this 

site on the NPL from the state.

[The description of the site (release) is based on information available at the time the site was evaluated with the HRS. The description may 

change as additional information is gathered on the sources and extent of contamination. See 56 FR 5600, February 11, 1991, or subsequent 

FR notices.]

For more information about the hazardous substances identified in this narrative summary, including general information regarding the effects of exposure to 

these substances on human health, please see the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ToxFAQs. ATSDR ToxFAQs can be found on 

the Internet at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/index.asp or by telephone at 1-888-42-ATSDR or 1-888-422-8737.
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4508 

AN ACT 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small 

Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4508 EH

1 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AU2 THORIZATION OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE 

3 SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND THE SMALL BUSI4 NESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An 

6 Act to extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small 

7 Business Administration’’, approved October 10, 2006 

8 (Public Law 109–316; 120 Stat. 1742), as most recently 

9 amended by section 1 of Public Law 111–89 (123 Stat. 

10 2975), is amended by striking ‘‘January 31, 2010’’ each 

11 place it appears and inserting ‘‘April 30, 2010’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 subsection (a) shall take effect on January 30, 2010. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 27, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4508 

AN ACT 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of 

other purposes. Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for programs under the Small Business Act and the
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

ROBERT LEON HILLMAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:18-cv-154 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge Jolson 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 Defendant. 

 ORDER 

On February 23, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that the Plaintiff’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis be 

denied pursuant to the “3 strikes provision,” that Plaintiff has previously filed 3 cases that were 

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Further, it was 

recommended that if Plaintiff intends to pursue this action, he must pay the full $400.00 filing 

fee within thirty days. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 2). The parties were advised of 

their right to object to the Report and Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on 

Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 3). The 

Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 

 Plaintiff’s Objections assert a number of legal issues, but the only one relevant to the 

Report and Recommendation is his claim that he is under imminent danger. The Three Strikes 

Provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act “(PLRA”) prohibits Plaintiff from proceedings 

unless he “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 
2 

 Plaintiff asserts that his health care needs are being ignored while incarcerated. He also 

argues that he is in danger simply by being incarcerated “alongside of killers rapest, and others.” 

(Doc. 3 at 2). After carefully considering Plaintiff’s argument, the Court does not find that he 

has demonstrated that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury to allow him to 

proceed in forma pauperis under the PLRA exception to the Three Strikes Provision. 

 Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED. The 

Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1) is hereby DENIED. 

 Additionally, Pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s February 23, 2018 Report and 

Recommendation and this Order adopting that Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff is hereby 

required to pay the entire $400.00 filing fee within thirty days of the date of this Order. If 

Plaintiff fails to do so, this case will be dismissed. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 1 and 2 from the Court’s pending motions list. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

 GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Thi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

The pane lunani m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a) (2). NOT F OR P UB L I CA T I ON UN I TE D STATE S COURT OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CI RCUI T J ESU S A RQ U I M ED ES REY ES, P et i t i o n er, v. E R IC H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72021 A ge nc y N o. A 028- 806- 189 M E M OR AN DU M *

O n Pet i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ardo f I m m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls Subm i tt e d D e c e m be r14, 2010 ** B efore: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcuitJu d g es. Jesu s A rqu i m ed es R ey es, a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f E lS al v ad o r, p et i t i o n s p ro se fo r r e v ie w o f th e B o ardo f I m m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “ B IA ” ) o rd e r d is m is s in g h is ap p e a lf r o m ani mmi g r at i o n j u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h i s ap p l i c at i o n f o ra s y l u m, w i th h o l d i n g o f r em o v al , an dp rotect i o n u n d er th e C o n v en t i o n A g ai n stT o rtu re 

# FI L ED DEC 27 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U . S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS09- 72021 2 ( “CA T”) . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by 8 U . S. C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f or s ub s ta n ti a l e v id e n c e , Zehat yev. G on zales , 4 5 3 F . 3 d1 1 8 2 , 1 1 8 4 -85 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ), an dwe d e n y th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e s up p o rts th e a g e n c y ’s fin d in g th at R e y e s fa ile dto d e m o n s tr ate th e h arm h is f am il y s u f

f e r e dw a s o n a c c o u n t o f

ap r o te c te dg r o u n d . Se e I N S v . El i as - Zacar i as , 502 U . S. 478, 481- 82 ( 1992) . A c c or di ngl y, hi s a s yl um an dw ith h o ld in g o f

r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il . Se e id . a t484. Subst ant i a le vi de nc e a l s o s upport s the a ge nc y’ s c onc l us i on tha tR e ye s i s not e l i gi bl e f orC A T r e l i e f

be c aus e he f

a i l e d t o s how i ti s m or e l i ke l y than nothe w o u ldb e to rtu r e dif

r e m o v e dto E l S a lv a d o r . See W akkaryv. H

older , 558 F. 3d . 1 0 4 9 , 1 0 6 7 -68 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). W e dec l i ne t o con si derthe evi dence R eyes att ac hed t o h i s openi ng bri ef b ecau se o u r r ev i ew i s l i m i t edt o th e ad m i n i strat i v e recordu n d erl y i n g th e B IA ’s d e c is io n . Se e Fis h e rv . I NS , 7 9 F . 3 d9 5 5 , 9 6 3 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( en b an c). P E T I T I ON F OR R E VI E W DE NI E D.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-50979

c/w No. 12-50115

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

JERMAINE LYNN AGU, also known as Bart,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CR-66-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jermaine Lynn Agu pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute crack

cocaine, and he was sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment and a 10-year

term of supervised release. Agu now appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion to suppress evidence. The Government moves for summary affirmance

or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a brief.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 31, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-50979 Document: 00512038632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/31/2012
No. 11-50979

c/w No. 12-50115

We review a district court’s factual findings on a motion to suppress for

clear error and its conclusions about whether the Fourth Amendment was

violated de novo. United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.), modified,

622 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010). We view the evidence in the light most favorable

to the party that prevailed in the district court—in this case, the

Government. Id.

Agu argues that the incriminating evidence in this case should have been

suppressed because it was discovered pursuant to a traffic stop that was

pretextual. As Agu concedes, under the facts of his case, the Supreme Court’s

holding in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), precludes him from

obtaining relief on appeal. See Whren, 517 U.S. at 817-19. Although Agu’s

argument lacks merit, it is not so frivolous as to warrant summary disposition. 

See United States v. Holy Land Found. For Relief & Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781-82

(5th Cir. 2006).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s

alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED as

unnecessary.

2

Case: 11-50979 Document: 00512038632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/31/2012
#### Geraldine INMAN *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-79

500 S.W. 2d 82

Opinion delivered October 1, 1973

[Rehearing denied November 5, 1973.]

*Harold L. Hall,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *O. H. Hargraves,*Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Frank Holt, Justice.

The jury convicted appellant of pandering [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-3208 (Repl. 1964)] and assessed her punishment at four years in the State Department of Corrections. Appellant first contends for reversal of the judgment that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.

The state’s principal witness testified that she was a prostitute and had previously worked for the appellant. This witness stated that she called the appellant who told her that “everybody had been asking about me. . .” and “she asked me if I wanted to come back to work and I told her yes.” The appellant told her she could make good money if she would work again. She then worked for the appellant as a prostitute at appellant’s house and houseboat moored at the Arkansas Yacht Club. The appellant set the terms at a 60/40 *198fee splitting arrangement and also determined the price to be charged to the customers. In addition to providing the premises, the appellant furnished certain items, transportation back and forth from her house to her houseboat, and told the witness when to call the next day. Two other witnesses, who admitted they were prostitutes before working for appellant, testified that they also had worked for the appellant during the same year at her house and houseboat.

This evidence is amply substantial to support the jury’s findings that the appellant procured, enticed and encouraged a female to remain a prostitute in violation of § 41-3208. By the comprehensive provisions of this statute, it is immaterial whether the female is virtuous or whether she consented to become or remain a prostitute. *Boyle*v. *State,*110 Ark. 318, 161 S.W. 1049 (1913).

Other contentions for reversal were considered and determined adversely today in *Morgan*v. *State,*255 Ark. 181, 500 S.W. 2d 83.

Affirmed.

Byrd, j., not participating.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10.26

                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                    AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

         This Amendment No. 1, dated January 24, 2000, amends a certain Amended
and Restated Severance Agreement dated as of August 15, 1997 by and between
Silicon Image, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "COMPANY"), and David D. Lee
("EXECUTIVE") (the "RESTATED AGREEMENT").

         WHEREAS, the Restated Agreement aimed to enhance Executive's ability to
perform effectively by providing him with employment security; and

         WHEREAS, with a view to that purpose, the Restated Agreement provided
certain benefits to Executive during the period that his equity compensation
continued to vest, that is, until December 31, 2000; and

         WHEREAS, Executive has since been awarded additional equity
compensation by the Company that is subject to vesting until November 11, 2003;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

         1. The Restated Agreement is hereby amended to replace the date,
"December 31, 2000" with the date, "December 31, 2003", each place that it
appears (including, without limitation, Sections 3(i), 3(ii), and 7).

         2. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, the terms of the Restated
Agreement remain in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this
Amendment No. 1 (or have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed by their
duly authorized representatives) as of January 24, 2000.

Silicon Image, Inc.

By:      /s/ Steve Tirado                            /s/ David D. Lee
    ---------------------------------       -----------------------------------
         Steve Tirado                       David D. Lee
         Executive Vice President
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Microtune, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Justin M. Chapman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JUSTIN M. CHAPMAN                                                                 
|Justin M. Chapman                                                                     
|Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer)

Date: May 4, 2010