alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Input and Output Files for the Full-Scale Modeling for Coal Combustion Waste (CCW) Risk Assessment

The ftp site ftp://ftp.epa.gov/coal-combustion-residues contains the following files:

CCW.zip -- This file is approximately 58 MB and contains a folder labeled "HGL Input" (groundwater model outputs), a folder labeled "Risk Results" that accepts risk modeling outputs, the exposure/risk model named CCW_exposure_risk.e xe, a file called CCW_Exp_Risk_Inputs.mdb that co ntains the exposure-risk m odel inputs that are not the groundwater model outputs, and a da tabase file called MPRAT.mdb.

CCW_GW_Modeling_System -- This file is approximately 128 MB and cont ains a sub-folder la beled "CCW" for the groundwater modeling inputs. The “CCW” folder contains the inputs in three sub-folderslabeled, Ash, Ash and Coal, and FBC, corresponding to the three waste types. A subfolder, named Execution is also provide d and contains the groundwater model (EPACMTP) executable file and associated files.

The site also contains the following two files providing only the modeling inputs and outputs for the CCW modeling. These two file s are zipped in a single file labeled, CCR_Inputs_Outputs_7_14_2010.zip.An EPA’s contra ctor created these files earlier for

the use of EPA.

CCR_Inputs_Outputs_7_14_2010.zip:

1. File labeled "INPUTS_FOR_ANALYSIS.mdb"

2. File labeled "Risk_Results_with_Conc.m db" that contains the results from the modeling described as "full scale modeling" th at are presented in the document entitled "Draft Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Wastes" (April 2010).

For questions about these file s, please contact Dr. Zubair A. Saleem of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (5305P), Washington, DCV 20460. Phone: (703) 308-0467.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20069 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus NAM VAN NGUYEN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR-H-94-0142-02
- - - - - - - - - - December 21, 1995 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * This is a direct appeal from a guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to make, utter, and possess counterfeit check and to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Appellant contends that the district court failed to make specific factual findings concerning the relevant conduct attributable to him as required by Rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We have reviewed the record and find that theNo. 95-20069 -2- district court complied with Rule 32. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2129]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice; withdrawal.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports for Larimer County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas.

# DATES:

This withdrawal is effective February 10, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

                        You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2129, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)                         *patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)                         *patrick.sacbibit@fema.dhs.gov;*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On May 7, 2021, FEMA published a proposed notice at 86 FR 24641, proposing flood hazard determinations for Larimer County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing the proposed notice.

*Authority:*42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.                

Michael M. Grimm,

Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2022-02865 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
R.E.B., JR., Father of T.S.B., T.J.B., T.A.B., J.D.B., J.D.B., I.L.B., R.E.B., and J.L.B., Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-588

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018

Ryan Thomas Truskoski, of Ryan Thomas Truskoski, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant.

Kelley Schaeffer, Appellate Counsel, Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Appellee.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and David P. Krupski, Appellate Counsel, Sanford, for Guardian ad Litem Program.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a final judgment terminating his parental rights arguing that his procedural due process rights were violated when the trial court held a manifest best interest hearing in his involuntary absence. We agree and reverse.1

The trial court held two adjudicatory hearings below. The first hearing, on November 2, 2017, considered only whether there were statutory grounds to terminate *958Appellant's parental rights. The trial court then held a second hearing, on November 9, 2017, addressing whether termination was in the children's manifest best interest and the least restrictive means to protect the children from harm.

Although Appellant and his counsel were present at the first hearing, the trial court did not allow Appellant to attend the second hearing. "So important is the parent-child relationship that the termination of it may be accomplished by the state only with a punctilious regard for the due process rights of the parent." *E.A. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams.* , 894 So.2d 1049, 1052 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (quoting *R.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams.* , 835 So.2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing *Santosky v. Kramer* , 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) ; *J.B. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.* , 768 So.2d 1060, 1064 (Fla. 2000) ) ). In this case, Appellant had a due process right to be present for the manifest best interest and least restrictive means portion of the proceedings. *See**T.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams.* , 222 So.3d 646, 647 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). We therefore reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to conduct a de novo manifest best interest and least restrictive means hearing and to ensure that Appellant and his counsel have an opportunity to attend and fully participate. *See* Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.525(c)-(d).

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

BERGER, LAMBERT, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

1

The Department properly concedes error.
Regina Rose PADILLA, C.N.A., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4510

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### John Clint DRAPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. LEWIS, Deputy Director; California Correctional Health Care Services, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-15042

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

*273John Clint Draper, 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 **

California state prisoner John Clint Draper appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims related to a potential data breach. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, *Wilhelm v. Rotman,*680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Draper’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Draper failed to establish an injury in fact as required for Article III standing. *See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC) Inc., 528*U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (outlining elements of Article III standing, and explaining that the alleged injury must be “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical” to establish Article III standing).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright, 587*F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Draper’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1 Section 906 CEO Certification

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter Ended October 5, 2004 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the
undersigned hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


     November  15,  2004     /s/  Stephen  E.  Pomeroy
                             -------------------------
                            Stephen E. Pomeroy
                            Chief Executive Officer and President


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


<PAGE>
Yenly ALBEJAS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Fredy Noel JUI, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4781

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 08, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Granted. Mandamus is dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahr a Bridget M. McCormac k
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstei n Kurtis T. Wilde r Elizabeth T. Clement,
J ustices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at t he direction of the Court.

March 21, 2018

d0314 

# Order

Clerk 

### March 21, 2018

156032

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 156 032 COA: 331151 Wayne CC: 00-0011035-FH WALTER E. COX, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 11, 2017 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIE D, because we are not persuaded that the question pres ented should be reviewed by thi s Court.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                       OPTION CARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                       COMPUTATIONS OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                       (In thousands, except share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 THREE MONTHS ENDED        SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                      June 30,                 June 30,
                                                  1998        1997          1998       1997
                                                 -------    --------      --------   --------
<S>                                              <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>    
Net income (loss)........................        $  (585)    $   434      $   280    $ 1,356
                                                 =======     =======      =======    =======
Shares issued and outstanding............         10,829      10,571       10,817     10,562
Weighted average shares issued...........             18          67           11         39
                                                 -------     -------      -------    -------
Weighted average common shares
  outstanding............................         10,847      10,638       10,828     10,601
Additional shares included assuming
  exercise of stock options using
  treasury stock method..................            ---         150           36        167
                                                 -------     -------      -------    -------
Weighted average common and
  common equivalent shares...............         10,847      10,788       10,864     10,768
                                                 =======     =======      =======    =======
Net income (loss) per common shares
  outstanding (basic)....................        $ (0.05)    $  0.04      $  0.03    $  0.13
                                                 =======     =======      =======    =======
Net income (loss) per common and common
  equivalent shares (diluted)............        $ (0.05)    $  0.04      $  0.03    $  0.13
                                                 =======     =======      =======    =======
 
</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 617 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to deem foods containing xylitol as misbranded unless the label or labeling of such foods 

contains a warning specifying the toxic effects of xylitol for dogs if 

ingested, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2023 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself, Mr. WALTZ, Mr. STANTON, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

KRISHNAMOORTHI, Ms. TITUS, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. 

FITZPATRICK, and Mr. SMUCKER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

deem foods containing xylitol as misbranded unless the 

label or labeling of such foods contains a warning specifying the toxic effects of xylitol for dogs if ingested, 

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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Paws Off Act of 

5 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 617 IH

1 SEC. 2. XYLITOL LABEL AND LABELING REQUIREMENTS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 403 of the Federal Food, 

3 Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by 

4 adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(z) If it is a food that contains xylitol, unless the 

6 label or labeling of such food contains a warning specifying 

7 the toxic effects of xylitol for dogs if ingested.’’. 

8 (b) RULEMAKING.— 

9 (1) INTERIM RULE.—Not later than six months 

10 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec11 retary shall issue an interim final rule to carry out 

12 the amendment made by subsection (a). 

13 (2) FINAL RULE.—Not later than one year 

14 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Sec15 retary shall issue a final rule to carry out the 

16 amendment made by subsection (a). 

17 (c) SECRETARY DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

18 ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Health and Human 

19 Services, acting through the Commissioner of Food and 

20 Drugs. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
**Docket Number FAA -**  **2013 -**  **0791**
Michelle ADAMS and Luisa Farbman, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Max ADAMS, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2501

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 22, 2017

Following review of the petition for writ of prohibition, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

SALTER, EMAS and FERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas E. Mara, as Chief Executive Officer of The FINOVA Group Inc. (the
Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |     |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 10, 2004 |  |     |  |                        
|                       |  | By: |  | /s/ Thomas E. Mara     
|                       |  |     |  | Thomas E. Mara         
|                       |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
Randy G. NAUGLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 4D17-2744 4D17-2745 4D17-3032 4D17-3303

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 30, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Brad R. Schlesinger, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

Gerber, C.J.

*1128We affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences following a plea. However, we remand for the circuit court to correct a scoresheet error.

As pointed out in the defendant's amended motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), two misdemeanor charges were erroneously scored as additional offenses instead of as prior offenses on the defendant's scoresheet. The circuit court denied the defendant's motion, adopting the state's reasoning that any error was harmless because the total points would not change as the result of any correction. We agree that the error was harmless because the sentence would have been the same. *See* *Brooks v. State* , 969 So.2d 238, 241 (Fla. 2007) (when scoresheet errors are presented via (1) direct appeal, (2) Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), or (3) Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, then "any error is harmless if the record conclusively shows that the trial court *would have imposed* the same sentence using a corrected scoresheet").

However, the proper action should have been to grant the defendant's motion for the sole purpose of correcting the scoresheet. *See* *Henion v. State* , --- So. 3d ----, 2018 WL 2230718 (Fla. 4th DCA May 16, 2018) (affirming the defendant's sentence, but remanding for entry of a properly calculated scoresheet, even though the sentence would have been the same); *but see* *McCool v. State* , 211 So.3d 304, 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (where the defendant's scoresheet erroneously included a sixth "prior record" misdemeanor, sentence was reversed and remanded for resentencing based upon a correctly calculated scoresheet; rejecting the state's argument that the error was harmless because the points assessed for the sixth misdemeanor offense were the same as those that should have been assessed for misdemeanor battery as an "additional offense" on the scoresheet).

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the defendant's convictions and sentences, but remand for the circuit court to correct the scoresheet error. The defendant need not be present for the ministerial act of correcting the scoresheet on remand. *Henion* , --- So. 3d at ----.

*Affirmed; remanded for correction of scoresheet only.*

Warner and Forst, JJ., concur.
Stephen ASTBURY, DOC #733763, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3299

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                          29,691
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  192,659
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    167,660
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               422,066
<PP&E>                                         514,380
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,951
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,005,907
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,701
<BONDS>                                        687,387
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           122
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,005,907
<SALES>                                        732,944
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               732,944
<CGS>                                          669,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  669,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,334)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,590)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,744)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,744)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.40)


</TABLE>