alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.D., A MINOR

PETITION OF: S.D. & B.D., ADOPTIVE

PARENTS :

:

:

:

: No. 738 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of December, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
### Reported Emissions and Product Content

Table 1. Reported Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from U.S. Operations

Emissions Product Content Company Second

Year Reductions Chemical

Category Releases to all

media from FP and Telomer Manufacturing (kg) kg of

release / kg of product produced Dispersions

(ppm wetweight basis) Other

Fluoropolymers (ppm dry-weight basis) Telomers

(ppm dryweight basis, unless stated otherwise) PFOA, PFOA salts and Higher Homologues 0 0 0 0 No Telomer Production Dyneon/3M 2008

Precursors 0Table 2. Reported Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from Non U.S. Operations

Emissions Product Content Company Second

Year Reductions Chemical

Category Releases to all

media from FP and Telomer Manufacturing (kg) kg of

release / kg of product produced Dispersions

(ppm wetweight basis) Other

Fluoropolymers (ppm dry-weight basis) Telomers

(ppm dryweight basis, unless stated otherwise) PFOA, PFOA salts and Higher Homologues 1,020 For FP Production: <1 kg / 100 kg 4 3 No Telomer Production Dyneon/3M 2008

Precursors 0

### Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Produc t Content

Table 3. Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from U.S. Operations % Reduction in Emissions % Reduction in Product Content

Company Second

Year Reductions Chemical

Category % Reductions in

total quantity of chemical(s) released from baseline year Fluoropolymer Dispersions Other

Fluoropolymers Telomer based products

PFOA, PFOA salts and Higher Homologues 100% 100% Not Applicable No Telomer Production Dyneon/3M 2008

Precursors No Precursor productionTable 4. Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from Non U.S. Operations % Reduction in Emissions % Reduction in Product Content

Company Second

Year Reductions Chemical

Category % Reductions in total

quantity of chemical(s) released from baseline year Fluoropolymer Dispersions Other

Fluoropolymers Telomer based products

PFOA, PFOA salts and Higher Homologues 93% 99% 0 % No Telomer Production Dyneon/3M 2008

Precursors No Precursor production
Steven T. HUMPHREY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1174

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 18, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed on account of appellant's failure to comply with this court's order dated April 4, 2018, requiring appellant to submit a copy of the circuit court order or orders being appealed.

BLACK, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ, Concur.
EX PARTE T.T.T.

(In re: K.M.G. v. T.T.T.)

2160397

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
0102030405060708090

24

‐ hour PM 2.5 Deisgn Values (μg/m

3 )199724‐hourPM2.5NAAQS:SouthCoastNonattainmentAreaTrends2001‐2013AzusaBurbankLosAngeles(MainSt.)PicoRiveraPicoRivera#2Pasadena199724‐hourPM2.5NAAQS05101520253035

Annual Design Value (μg/m

3 )1997AnnualPM2.5NAAQS:Pasadena&NearbyMonitorTrends2001‐2013AzusaBurbankLosAngeles(MainSt.)PicoRiveraPicoRivera#2Pasadena1997AnnualPM2.5NAAQS
#### * Abel Moore *versus*Luther Eames, Administrator of Luther Eames, Jun.

It is not sufficient to abate a writ against an administrator, that, after the service of the writ, and before the entry of the action, the estate had been represented insolvent, &c.

Assumpsit. The writ was tested the 18th of November, i816, and a partial service was made upon it on the 20th of the same *284month. The defendant pleaded, in abatement of the plaintiff’s writ and declaration, that, after the service of the writ, and before the entry of the action in the Common Pleas, *viz.,*on the 22d day of the same November, he represented to the judge of probate that the estate of his intestate was insolvent, that commissioners were ap pointed to receive and examine the claims, that they duly advertised, &c.; and that he, the defendant, had conformed himself to the directions of law in respect to the settlement of the said estate.

To this plea the plaintiff ^demurred, and the defendant joined in demurrer.

*Hoar*for the plaintiff.

*Tyler*and *Hilliard*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The defendant has pleaded the apparent insolvency of (he estate of which he is administrator, in abatement; but it appears, by the plea, that the represeniation of insolvency was not made until after the test of the writ, and after it actually issued. The writ was, therefore, good when it issued, and cannot be abated by the subsequent proceedings in the probate office. The defendant must answer over, (a)

(a)

*Hunt*vs. Whitney, 4 *Mass. Rep.*620
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON
FORM 10-Q

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

The undersigned is the Chief
Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the Issuer). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010.

I, Nicholas J. Tomashot, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the period ended September 30, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

This
certification is executed as of October 29, 2010.



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Nicholas J. Tomashot                                 
|Name: Nicholas J. Tomashot
Title: Chief Financial Officer
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                        | **Natural              Gas Services              Group, Inc.** |                                                                                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |                                                           |                                                                                               |   |
| Date:  June                8,                2007 | By:                                                            | /s/Stephen              C.              Taylor                                                     |   |
|                                                        |                                                           | Stephen              C. Taylor                                                                     |   |
|                                                        |                                                           | Chairmanof              the Board of Directors, Chief Executive              Officer and President |   |
|                                                        |                                                           | (Principal              Executive              Officer)                                            |   |
Beresford B. BERTRAM and Theresa Bertram, Appellants, v. HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D17-3813

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 7, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

# ACTION:

Notice.

This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB program that has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding the State's EB status:
      - Based on the data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on January 25, 2022, the seasonally-adjusted Total Unemployment Rate (TUR) for New Mexico fell below the 6.5% threshold necessary to remain “on” in EB. Therefore the payable period in EB for New Mexico will end on February 19, 2022.

                    The trigger notice covering state eligibility for the EB program can be found at:                     *http://ows.doleta.gov/​unemploy/​claims_​arch.as*.                

## Information for Claimants

The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state ending an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice to each individual who is currently filing a claim for EB of the forthcoming end of the EB period and its effect on the individual's rights to EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(4)).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Unemployment Insurance Room S-4524, Attn: Kevin Stapleton, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3009 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email:                         *Stapleton.Kevin@dol.gov*.                    

Signed in Washington, DC.

Angela Hanks,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor.

[FR Doc. 2022-03764 Filed 2-22-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P
#### Elkanah B. Whipple et al., Respondents, *v.*Richard Whipple et al., Appellants.

*A. P. Oaswell*for the respondents.

Affirmed by default.

Lott, Ch. C., not sitting.
**Exhibit 32(a)**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q 

OF PINNACLEDATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certificationaccompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008. 

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that, theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

Thiscertification is executed as of November 12, 2008.
Johnnie L. DAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Jennifer DAY, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1983

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 24, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Petitioner's petition for writ of prohibition is denied.

KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
Jon Webster HAY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0852

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 09, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed as untimely filed.

VILLANTI, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Faulk, Scott (OST) From: Sent: To: Subject: Mahealani Rawlins < rawlins_21@yahoo.com > Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:04 PM EAS (OST) Airlines
Dear Department ofTransportation (DOT), . ·- ·--**~.l**
I am writing to supportMokuleleAirline's 4-year bid to linkKalaupapa to Kahului, Honolulu, Kapalua and Hoolehua. Mokulele is the best candidate as they have lower fares, experienced friendly agents,frequent flights, multiple islands and ease of booking via Global Distribution System (Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, Priceline, etc.). It is important we have safe, stable & affordable service to Kalaupapa. Please selectMokulele to serve Kalaupapa for 4years. Mahea Rawlins

Sent from my iPhone

1
Re-Using	Produced	Water	
What	is	this	Idea?	

• Revenue	to	Offset	Direct	Disposal	Costs	

• No	Operator	Investment	

• Minimal	Impact	on	Opera9ons	

• U9lize	Proven	Technology	with	Iofina	Proprietary	Systems	

• Partnering	

What	Do	We	Need?	

• Iodine	Concentra9ons		

• Volume	of	Brine	Water		

2	
Iodophors	10%	

Biocides	2%	

Fluoro	deriva9ves	6%	

Nylon	4%	

Human	nutri9on	4%	

Contrast	media	22%	

Animal	nutri9on	10%	

LCDs	10%	

Pharmaceu9cals	14%	

Other	18%	

3	

Why	is	Iodine	Important	

Growing	Demand	

•Mul9ple	Industries	and	

Products	Require	Iodine	

•2012	produc9on	of	

28,700	mt	

•Iodine	Deriva9ves	

Market	Worth	$5-6.5bn		

•Iodine	Demand	is	

Forecast	to	Grow	3%-5%	

per	Year	

*Source:	Iofina	plc	
4	

Where	is	Iodine	produced	

A	Valuable	Resource	

Source:	SQM	,	ISE,	Kanto	and	Iofina		

The	global	iodine	supply	is	dominated	and	controlled	by	two	countries:	

Chile	and	Japan

58%		

5.	 1.	

2.	

3.	

4.	

2012	Iodine	ProducGon	

(28,700	MT)

5%

58%

2%	

21%	

14%	

USA	

Chile	

Others	

Japan	

Recycling	

Source:	Iofina plc	
What	Is	In	It	For	Me?	

• Example:	Oklahoma	Injec9on	Site	

– Brine	Water		10,000	to	30,000	bwpd

– Iodine		100	to	200	ppm		

– Yields	150	to	1,000	kg	of	elemental	iodine	

• Impact	on	Opera9ons	

– Minimal	

• Operator	Off-Set	

– Approximately	$0.02	to	$0.06	per	Barrel	

5	
6	

Why	extract	Iodine	from	Brine	Water?

• Revenue	to	Off-Set	Direct	Disposal	 Revenue	 Expense	

• Iofina	Pays	100%	of	CAPEX	

Installa9on	and	Support	

Turnkey	

Solu9on	

• Proven	Technology	U9lizing	

Proprietary	Systems	in	Various	

Oilfield	Environments		 Technology	

• Minimal	Impact	on	Exis9ng	

Opera9ons;	Operates	In-Line	with	

Exis9ng	Field	Systems	

Opera9ons	

• Major	Independent	Oil	&	Gas	

Producers,	Salt	Water	Disposal	and	

Water	Treatment	Companies		 Partnering	
Benefits	of	Partnering	with	Iofina	

• Reduce	Your	Opera9ng	Expense	

• No	Operator	Investment	

• Minimal	Impact	on	Opera9ons	

• Technology	Leaders	in	Iodine	

• Good	Partner	

7	
8	

Who	Is	Iofina?

• Iodine	Extrac9on	from		Brine	

Streams		

• Speciality	Chemical	Division	

• Recycling	of	Iodine	

• Major	Investors	

• Black	Rock,	JP	Morgan,	

Stena	Investment,	BT	

Pension	

• Listed	on	London	AIM	Exchange	

• Current	Market	Cap	$300	mm	

• Trades	1	mm	shares	a	day		

Iofina	

plc	

Specialized	

Iodine	

Deriva9ves	

Recycling	of	

Iodine	

Mid-stream	

Iodine	

Produc9on	of	

Third	Party	

Brine	
Who	Is	Iofina	Resources?	

• Contracts	with	Major	Independent		Oil	&	Gas	Producers	

and	Salt	Water	Disposal	(SWD)	Companies	

• Two	Plants	Currently	Opera9ng	

– Texas	and	Oklahoma	

• Four	Addi9onal	Plants	Planned	in	2013	

9	
Iofina	plc	

Contact	Informa9on:	

Forest	Dorn		

Office:		303-222-1215	x	307	

Cell:		303-382-6653	

Email:		forest@iofina.com	

10
Richard W. HOWELL, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee FOR HOMEBANC MORTGAGE TRUST 2005-5 MORTGAGE BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-5, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-5225

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

Lee Segal of Florida Foreclosure & Credit Defense Firm, P.L., Clearwater, for Appellant.

Allison Morat of Pearson Bitman LLP, Maitland, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, SLEET, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
454 A.2d 148

#### Alley v. Alley, Appellant.

Submitted April 23, 1982.

Frederick S. Wolf, for appellant; Bernard A. Buzgon, for appellee.

Before WICKERSHAM, BROSKY and WIEAND, JJ.

Order affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CORY DEVON ANDERSON
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 679

[ February 8, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County ; Lawrence Michael Mirman , Judge; L.T. Case No.

432015CF000055A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Mara C. Herbert, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T.

Acu ñ a, Assist ant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed

.

W ARNER
, M AY and D AMOORGIAN

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         Each of the undersigned officers and/or directors of Too, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby appoints Michael W. Rayden and Kent
A. Kleeberger as his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, or either of them
individually with power to act without the other, as his or her true and lawful
attorney-in-fact, in his or her name and on his or her behalf, and in any and
all capacities stated below, to sign and to cause to be filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004, and any and all amendments thereto,
hereby granting unto said attorneys, and to each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any
and all such capacities, every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in
and about the premises as fully as each of the undersigned could or might do in
person, hereby granting to each such attorney full power of substitution and
revocation, and hereby ratifying all that any such attorney or his substitute
may do by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of
Attorney in counterparts if necessary, effective as of April 7, 2004.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
               Signature                                    Title
<S>                                     <C>
         /s/ Michael W. Rayden          Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and
------------------------------------    Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
         Michael W. Rayden

         /s/ Kent A. Kleeberger         Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
------------------------------------    Officer (Principal Accounting Officer and
         Kent A. Kleeberger             Principal Financial Officer)

         /s/ Elizabeth M. Eveillard     Director
------------------------------------
         Elizabeth M. Eveillard

         /s/ Nancy J. Kramer            Director
------------------------------------
         Nancy J. Kramer

         /s/ David A. Krinsky           Director
------------------------------------
         David A. Krinsky

         /s/ Philip E. Mallott          Director
------------------------------------
         Philip E. Mallott
</TABLE>

                                      182
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<S>                                     <C>
         /s/ Fredric M. Roberts         Director
------------------------------------
         Fredric M. Roberts

         /s/ Kenneth J. Strottman       Director
------------------------------------
         Kenneth J. Strottman
</TABLE>

                                      183
#### Mark BUMPHUS EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Frank PERRY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6122

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

Mark Bumphus El, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark Bumphus El, a North Carolina inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s *163order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bumphus El has not made the requisite 'showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Bumphus El does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition of his various claims in his informal brief. Thus, Bumphus El has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).