alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Public Law #/Report # Report Title Date Submitted Submitted 

111‐117 Military Construction, Army National Guard 1/8/2010 House and Senate Appropriations Commit

111‐117 Military Construction, Air National Guard 1/11/2010 House and Senate Appropriations CommitHouse Report 111‐188 North Carolina ‐ Morrisville, Army Aviation Support Facility 4/26/2010

House Appropriations Committee, Subcom

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

House Report 111‐188

North Carolina ‐ Murphy, Fire Fighting Team Support

Facility 4/26/2010

House Appropriations Committee, Subcom

Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies

111‐118 194th Regional Support Wing 5/12/2010

House and Senate Appropriations Commit

Subcommittee on Defense;

NGB Witness(es) Hearing Topic Date Committ

Chief, National Guard Bureau; Director, Air

National Guard; Director, Army National

Guard National Guard and Reserve Posture 3/24/2010 Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on D

Chief, National Guard Bureau; Director, Air

National Guard; Director, Army National

Guard National Guard and Reserve Posture 4/14/2010 House Appropriations Subcommittee on D

Director, Air National Guard; Director, ArmyNational Guard

Supporting the Reserve Component as an Operational

Force 4/15/2010 House Armed Services Subcommittee on P

Deputy Director, Air National Guard;Director, Army National Guard

Army/Air Force Military Construction, Family Housing,

BRAC 4/22/2010 Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on M

Director, Air National Guard; Director, Army

National Guard Reserve Training Funding 4/27/2010 House Armed Services Subcommittee on R

Chief, National Guard Bureau; Director, Air

National Guard; Director, Army National

Guard Reserve Component Personnel Issues 5/12/2010 Senate Armed Services Subcommittee of P

Congressional Reports Submitted in 2010

2010 Congressional Hearings

FOIA RReleasPage 1 

Posted to NGB Reading Room June 22, 2011
Dennis GUYTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4974

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
From: Joseph Stolle <joseph@shellengr.com>

To: Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "Stotts, Stacy" <SStotts@stinson.com>, "Miller, Aaron" <amiller@doerun.com>, "Marucheau, Louis" <lmarucheau@doerun.com>, nate.topham@gmail.com

Date: 06/02/2011 02:15 PM Subject

: Re: Primary MACT

Nathan, EP-17B and 17C correspond to dumping and loading fume at the south storage area. They no longer dump/store fume at this location.

Thanks, Joe Joseph A. Stolle, PE Shell Engineering (913)898-3000 Cell (816)377-2470

On 6/2/2011 9:50 AM, Topham.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov wrote: Hi Stacy & Joe,

Thanks for the quick response. I have one more question regarding emissions in the remodel submitted as part of your comments. Three volume sources (20004, 20004B, and 20004C) that relate to fume loading/unloading are listed with zero emissions in your modeling due to zero throughput. The 2009 EIQ lists emission points corresponding to 20004B and 20004C (they are EP-017B and EP-017C in the EIQ) that have zero lead emissions but 0.12552 tons/year of controlled lead compounds emissions (column 9 of form 2.T).

Are the emissions from these two points truly zero? If so, what is the reason, enclosure and ventilation to control device, cessation of this process, something else? Am I reading the EIQ form 2.T for these emission sources wrong?

Page 1I'd appreciate if you're able to get back to me this afternoon, hopefully this will be a relatively simple

answer.

Thanks, Nathan Topham Environmental Engineer US EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MIG Phone - (919)541-0483

From: "Stotts, Stacy" <SStotts@stinson.com>

To: Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <nate.topham@gmail.com>

Cc: "Joseph Stolle" <joseph@shellengr.com>, "Miller, Aaron" <amiller@doerun.com>, "Marucheau, Louis" <lmarucheau@doerun.com>

Date: 06/02/2011 01:20 AM Subject

: Primary MACT

Nathan – As a follow-up to our conversation today, the stack stacking done in 2009 is a valid stack test. As you know stack tests necessarily have variability due to a differences in the conditions, feed etc. at any facility. The test for 2009 does (and would be expected to) reveal different information for the time frame tested in 2009 than in prior years. This test is valid and was accepted by the state

agency and can be used as a part of the evaluation of comments submitted by Doe Run on the proposed Primary MACT rule.

Please contact me if you have any other questions.

Stacy Stotts | Partner | Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900 | Kansas City, MO 64106-2150 T: 816.691.3363 | F: 816.412.9326 | M: 816.304.3067 SStotts@stinson.com | www.stinson.com

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

This communication is from a law firm and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please contact the sender for instructions concerning return or destruction, and do not use or disclose the contents to others.

Page 2
SOUTH FLORIDA MULTISPECIALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. STONEGATE BANK, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1562

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7249

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MARK ALLEN ROLLYSON, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00098-JPB-JES-1; 3:08-cv-00143- JPB-JES)

Submitted: October 29, 2009 Decided: November 10, 2009

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Allen Rollyson, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Mark Allen Rollyson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2006). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Rollyson that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Rollyson failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Rollyson has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Rollyson’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

23 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                               945
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                         443
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                   1,396
<CASH>                                              31
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                  24
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               5
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,979
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                  1,194
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                 65
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       1
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                               48
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                         663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,979
<PREMIUMS>                                         162
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                 90
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  22
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                         346
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          1
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                65
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    149
<INCOME-TAX>                                        55
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                133
<DISCONTINUED>                                     127
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (94)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (4)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (4)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                   1,061
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                179
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                  240
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                  42
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                   244
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                  1,194
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12

                              THE FINOVA GROUP INC.
                 COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
                          AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                             (Dollars in Thousands)

                                                   Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                                       1998
                                                      1999           restated
                                                  ------------     ------------
Income before income taxes and preferred
  dividends                                         $ 82,772         $ 66,686
Add fixed charges:
Interest expense                                     131,183          110,280
One-third rentals                                      1,111              926
                                                    --------         --------
Total fixed charges                                  132,294          111,206
                                                    --------         --------
Income as adjusted                                  $215,066         $177,892
                                                    ========         ========
Ratio of income to fixed charges                        1.63             1.60
                                                    ========         ========

Preferred stock dividends on a pre-tax basis        $  1,581         $  1,581
Total fixed charges and preferred stock
  dividends                                         $133,875         $112,787
                                                    ========         ========
Ratio of income to fixed charges and preferred
  stock dividends                                       1.61             1.58
                                                    ========         ========
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JOSEPH E. COTTERMAN 

Plaintiff,

:

:

CASE NO. 3:18cv177

v. :

JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

SHELBY COUNTY, et al.

Defendants.

: 

:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATION ENTRY 

The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been 

settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties, 

provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if 

settlement is not consummated.

Parties intending to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the settlement should be 

aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and incorporate 

appropriate language in any substituted judgment entry. 

The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement between the parties, if 

necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WALTER H. RICE, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

(tp - per Judge Rice authorization)

Case: 3:18-cv-00177-WHR-MJN Doc #: 70 Filed: 08/07/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 537
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Neri Gonzalez RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50376 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S-. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jose Neri Gonzalez Rodriguez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Neri Gonzalez Rodriguez has moved *135for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez Rodriguez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur 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 responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *135published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Sarah Fairley, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[771 NYS2d 558]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 20, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was employed as a home health aide working the night shift until she was discharged for sleeping on the job. Claimant testified that the patient had a cot set up in the back room for the aides and, notwithstanding the employer’s policy prohibiting such conduct, claimant admitted that she occasionally napped while the patient was sleeping. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct *(see Matter of Carr [Commissioner of Labor],*253 AD2d 931 [1998]; *Matter of Dimassimo [Eastman Kodak Co.—Sweeney],*231 AD2d 777 [1996]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Efrain ESTRADA-BENAVIDEZ, also known as El Pijin, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50947 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

■ Efrain Estrada-Benavidez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Efrain Estrada-Benavidez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Estrada-Benavidez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment *151that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Jeremy Emanuel CRENSHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3378

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Mateo AGUILAR-LANDA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4317

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 15, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882343
<NAME> 90BC
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         119,312
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,541
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               282,853
<PP&E>                                       9,619,327
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,965,809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,936,371
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,405
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,908,966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,936,371
<SALES>                                        330,703
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               334,819
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  170,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                164,319
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            164,319
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   164,319
<EPS-BASIC>                                      13.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Michael K. FISCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dawn T. ALGERS, individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56736

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

*545Michael K. Fischer, Pro Se

Jill Vander Borght, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael K, Fischer, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging' excessive force. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015), and may affirm on any basis supported by the record, *Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co.,*389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Summary judgment was proper because Fischer failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he exhausted his administrative remedies before filing his lawsuit or whether administrative remedies were “effectively unavailable.” *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires “proper exhaustion,” which means “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)); *Sapp v. Kimbrell,*623 F.3d 813, 826 (9th Cir. 2010) (PLRA does not require exhaustion when remedies are “effectively unavailable”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
TAMMY THEISS,

Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT 

ASSISTANCE APPEALS 

COMMISSION and FANATICS 

RETAIL GROUP 

FULFILLMENT INC.,

Appellees.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4639

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 5, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission.

Tammy Theiss, pro se, Appellant.

Cristina A. Velez, Appellate Counsel, Tallahassee, for Appellee Reemployment 

Assistance Appeals Commission.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
EX PARTE Frederick Ike ODOM

CR-16-0273

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

January 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.