alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Statement of the Air and Radiat ion Management Administration Department of the Environment for the Public Hearing Relating to Proposed Amendments to Regulation .10 Flexographic and Rotogravure Printing and Proposed New Regulation .10-1 Flexible Packaging Printing under COMAR 26.11.19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Specific Processes held on January 21, 2010 Baltimore, MD

My name is Husain Waheed. I am a Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer with the Regulation Development Division of the Ai r and Radiation Management Administration, Department of the Environment.

This public hearing is being held pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR Section 51.102

and Sections 2-301 et.seq. of the Environment Article , Annotated Code of Maryland. It is also being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedures Act under the State Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101.

Notice of this hearing appeared in the:

Maryland Register on December 18, 2009; MDE's website on December 17, 2009 to January 21, 2010; Baltimore Sun on December 18, 2009; Saint Mary's Enterprise on December 18, 2009; Cumberland Times-News on December 18, 2009; Frederick News-Post on December 18, 2009; Salisbury Daily Times on December 18, 2009; and the Washington Post on December 17, 2009.

Copies of these notices were submitted for the record.

Copies of the proposed action and supporting documents were submitted for review to the State Clearinghouse and are also submitted at this time into the hearing record. Copies were also made available for public inspection at th e Air and Radiation Management Administration offices in Baltimore, Cumberland, and Salisbury, and at all local health departments or local air quality control offices.

The purpose of today's hearing is to give the public an opportunity to comment on proposed amendments to Regulation .10 and new Regulation 10-1 under COMAR 26.11.19.

Summary

COMAR 26.11.19.10 is amended to state that the requirements for flexible packaging printing are in COMAR 26.11.19.10-1 Flexible Packaging Printing. Standards for flexible packaging printing lines are:

1. 0.8 lb VOC/lb or kg VOC/kg solids applied; or

12 2. 0.16 lb VOC/lb or kg VOC/kg materials applied; or

If a control device is used: The dryer exhaust is required to be ducted to a control device that is constructed, operated, and maintained to achieve various overall control efficiencies based on the installation date of the flexible packaging line and air pollution control device.

The work practice standards apply to the usage of all VOC containing materials.

Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

This action will be submitted to the EPA for approval as part of the SIP.

Consideration of Comments

The Department will consider all comments before making a decision to adopt the amendments and proposed new regulation.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41210 Summary Calendar

ROBERT DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WILBUR DIXON, Coffield Unit; KEVIN MOORE, Warden, Coffield Unit; C. CHOATE, Mailroom, Coffield Unit, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-409

- - - - - - - - - - March 31, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Davis, a Texas prisoner (# 584003), appeals from the dismissal of his in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), following an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate judge pursuant to Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). Davis contends that the magistrate judge erred in rejecting his claims that a prison doctor had been deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by2

failing to prescribe arch supports for his shoes and that the warden and mailroom supervisor had violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to forward to him shoes that he mail-ordered from an outside vendor. Davis had also vaguely alleged that failure to provide him with sufficient hygiene items in the “Level III” unit where he is confined constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We have reviewed the record and Davis’ brief and AFFIRM essentially for the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge in her memorandum opinion. Davis v. Dixon , No. 6:97-CV-409 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 1997); see Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33-34 (1992) (construing former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)). Davis has raised other claims for the first time on appeal--regarding “paper gowns,” “paper masks,” and food loaf-- but he had not demonstrated plain error as to these new allegations. See Robertson v. Plano City of Tex. , 70 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Quenton PETIT, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2259

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 29, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Fabian Darque JONES v. STATE

CR-16-0154

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 2017 Reh. denied May 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Kevin COOLIDGE v. Austin BUTLER, dba Austin's Auto Salvage

No. 2018-C-0313

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 27, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, DISTRICT 1E**

PER CURIAM

For the reasons assigned in our opinion in *Angela Jackson v. Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, Inc., et al.* , 18-0170 (La. 6/27/18), --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 3154628, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed insofar as it determined it had jurisdiction to consider this devolutive appeal, although it could not entertain the appeal until the bond was posted. The case is remanded to the court of appeal to determine whether the bond has been posted and, if so, to consider the appeal on the merits.

**DECREE**

For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed insofar as it determined it had jurisdiction over this devolutive appeal. The case is remanded to the court of appeal for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice, dissents and assigns reasons.

*112In this case, Kevin Coolidge, was injured in the course and scope of his employment as a mechanic with Austin Butler d/b/a Austin's Auto Salvage ("Austin"). On June 29, 2016, the OWC awarded him benefits, including medical expenses, temporary total disability, and supplemental earnings benefits, and assessed sanctions and attorney's fees against Austin. On August 29, 2016, Austin filed a motion for appeal and the OWC signed the order on September 1, 2016. Neither the motion nor the order specified the type of appeal, and Austin did not request that a bond be set. On September 2, 2016, the OWC issued a notice of appeal indicating the appeal was devolutive. No appeal bond was set. On November 28, 2016, claimant filed the instant motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely based on Austin's failure to post an appeal bond in accordance with La. R.S. 23:1310.5(C). The Court of Appeal granted claimant's motion and dismissed Austin's appeal as premature. The court remanded the case to the OWC for the setting of a bond in compliance with La. R.S. 23:1310.5(C).

I disagree with the majority's holding that the court of appeal has jurisdiction to consider this devolutive appeal. I respectfully dissent for the reasons I assigned in my dissent this day in *Angela Jackson v. Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana* , *Inc., et al.* , 18-0170 (La. 6/27/18), --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 3154628 (J, dissenting).

WEIMER, J., dissenting.

I respectfully dissent for the reasons assigned in my dissent in **Angela Jackson v. Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, Inc., et al.** , 18-0170 (La. 6/ /18), --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 3154628.

CRICHTON, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons:

I additionally concur for the reasons assigned in *Angela Jackson v. Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana, Inc., et al.* , 18-0170 (La. 6/27/18), --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 3154628.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Jose GARCIA-GARCIA, also known as Juan Garcia-Garcia, also known as Juan J. Garcia, also known as Juan Jose Garcia, also known as Juan Jose Garcia Garica, also known as Juan Garcia Garcia, also known as Jose J. Garcia-Garcia, also known as Juan Jose Garcia Garcia, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-20033 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juan Jose Garcia-Garcia, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Jose Garcia-Garcia 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.Edüd 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia-Garcia 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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       5,399,458
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,952,779
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  6,356,141
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            20,253,590
<PP&E>                                      13,352,458
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,701,188)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,213,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,800,985
<BONDS>                                      1,615,627
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        30,895
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,685,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,213,829
<SALES>                                     35,468,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                       29,185,755
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,789,403
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,505,681
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,385,860
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,119,821
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,119,821
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.93


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41581 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Francisco Madrigal, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Francisco Madrigal pleaded guilty of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marihuana. His advisory guideline range was 120 months of imprisonment, which was the statutory minimum. The district court departed downward and imposed a term of 90 months. Madrigal challenges the denial of. his motion for a reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

*323Here, however, the district court lacked authority to reduce Madrigal’s sentence because Madrigal’s advisory guideline range was governed by the statutory minimum. *See United States v. Carter,*595 F.3d 575, 578-81 (5th Cir. 2010); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(vii); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a), p.s. *&*comment. (n.l(A)). Because Madrigal was not eligible for a reduction, the court was not authorized to grant him one.

The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1552 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1552

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 42 Main Street in Slatersville, Rhode Island, as the ``Specialist 
                   Matthew R. Turcotte Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 3, 2021

 Mr. Cicilline (for himself and Mr. Langevin) introduced the following 
   bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 42 Main Street in Slatersville, Rhode Island, as the ``Specialist 
                   Matthew R. Turcotte Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SPECIALIST MATTHEW R. TURCOTTE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 42 Main Street in Slatersville, Rhode Island, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Specialist Matthew R. Turcotte Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Matthew R. Turcotte Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit No. 32.1

Form 10-KSB
Echo Resources, Inc.
File No. 000-26703


          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 Annual Report of Echo Resources,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December  31, 2006 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Pieter  DuRand,
Chief  Executive and 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.



Date: March 29, 2007      By: /s/ PIETER DURAND
                             ---------------------------------
                             Pieter DuRand
                             Chief Executive Officer
                             Chief Financial Officer

---------------
A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Echo Resources,  Inc. and will be retained by Echo  Resources,  Inc.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas J. Baldwin, the Chief Executive Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: May 5, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ THOMAS J. BALDWIN  
|Thomas J. Baldwin      
|Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Merrill Clark GARDNER, a.k.a. Clark Gardner, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30183

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Colin Michael Rubich, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee

Robert L. Kelleher, Jr., Esquire, Attorney, Kelleher Law Office, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Merrill Clark Gardner, Pro Se

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Merrill Clark Gardner appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 183-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gardner contends that the district court erred by applying a four-level aggravating role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(a). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. *See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz,*852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded, based on the undisputed facts in the pre-sentence report and the testimony of Special Agent Robert Grayson, that Gardner acted as a leader or organizer of the conspiracy 'within the meaning of section 3B1.1(a). *See United States v. Rivera,*527 F.3d 891, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2008) (enhancement supported where evidence established that defendant exercised control over others and “exercised decision making authority in the procurement and distribution of narcotics”); *see also United States v. Garcia,*497 F.3d 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2007) (enhancement “does not require control over all of the five or more participants”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Stephen HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3380

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8830-8831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03321]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-541-000.
    Applicants: Greylock Production, LLC, EOG Resources, Inc.
    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waiver of Capacity 
Release Regulations, et al. of EOG Resources, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 2/9/22.
    Accession Number: 20220209-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/18/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-417-002.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: TGP PCG Pooling Amendment Feb 9/22 
to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/9/22.
    Accession Number: 20220209-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/22/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

[[Page 8831]]

    Dated: February 10, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03321 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```