alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop/For%20Rendering/OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0349%20M.%20King%20(2).txt

-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 10:27PM ----- To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Harrison, James R." <James.Harrison@Exterran.com> Date: 10/20/2009 05:39PM cc: "Rebecca Rentz (rebecca.rentz@bgllp.com)" <rebecca.rentz@bgllp.com>, "Bowes, Bill" <Bill.Bowes@Exterran.com>, "Jantzen, Kyle" <Kyle.Jantzen@Exterran.com>, "japanek@ameritech.net" <japanek@ameritech.net>, "Jantzen, Kyle" <Kyle.Jantzen@Exterran.com>, "Wasson, Mike" <Mike.Wasson@Exterran.com>, Jim McCarthy <jamesmccarthy@comcast.net>, "'Thomas McGrath'" <tmcgrath.mea@gmail.com>, "David O'Leary (David.O'Leary@warren-equipment.com)" <David.O'Leary@warren-equipment.com>, "JDutton@jwoperating.com" <JDutton@jwoperating.com>, "tom.p.monahan@exxonmobil.com" <tom.p.monahan@exxonmobil.com>, "jeffrey.adams@bp.com" <jeffrey.adams@bp.com> Subject: 2SLB-Cameron oxidation catalyst pricing Melanie, Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 2SLB engines today. In response to your request during that call, I’ve attached the premium catalyst equipment pricing matrix supplied by Cameron in July of this year, which details the configurations available from Cameron. Note that our cost analysis used the assumption that the premium muffler and housing would be required to retrofit our 2SLB fleet. Note, too, that catalysts suppliers will typically state certain operational restrictions and/or parameters that must be satisfied in order to realize the published emission reductions. Exterran has requested an explanation of any such restrictions and/or parameters from Cameron and is awaiting their response. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, James Harrison N.American Fleet Services

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop...ndering/OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0349%20M.%20King%20(2).txt2/22/2010 10:09:3 1 AM
# Fire Warden Appreciation Day

/ Published June 20, 2019
Richmond, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Richmond’s Fire Prevention staff showed their appreciation during their quarterly training session June 13 with a luncheon and tour of the fire station to over 30 Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, employees who serve as fire wardens. Fire wardens have the responsibility to ensure their work areas remain safe. They serve as the “eyes and ears” of the fire department by playing an important role: ensuring their areas are free from potential fire hazards, assisting in evacuations and personnel accountability during an emergency. Fire wardens provide pertinent information to arriving fire department personnel once they arrive on the scene of an incident.
#### Com. v. Stalter

10/27/2015

401 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1141
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[OR-010-1430-00; GP8-0185]


Bureau of Land Management

AGENCY: Lakeview District, Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The South Steens Subcommittee of the Southeast Oregon Resource 
Advisory Council will meet at the Burns District BLM Office, HC 74-
12533 Hwy 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738, on June 25, 1998, at 8 am and 
proceed to the South Steens allotment for a field trip. They will 
reconvene on June 26, 1998, at 8 am at the Burns District BLM Office on 
June 26, 1998. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information on 
the proposed projects associated with the Catlow Conservation 
Agreement.

DATES: June 25, 1998, and June 26, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sonya Hickman, Bureau of Land 
Management, Lakeview District Office, P.O. Box 151, Lakeview, OR 97630 
(Telephone 541-947-2177).
Steve Ellis,
Lakeview District Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-13754 Filed 5-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
### C AROLE 

### K ING 

### B OYD

ATTORNEY AT LAW

15 751 HIGHWAY 16 NORTH

M ED I NA

, TEXAS 78 0 55 TEL: ( 830 ) 589

- 7587 FAX: ( 830 ) 589

- 7598

March 2, 2015

Court of Appeal Fourth Court of Appeals District

Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037 Attention: Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

Re: Court of Appeals Numbers: 04-15-0006

- CV

04 -14-00824

- CV

Trial Court Case No.: CV-13-0200356

Style: Robert Tyson et als. v. Robert N. Freeman II et als.

Dear Mr. Hottle:

I was informed by the court that a second appeal needed to be filed and fee paid

since the individual defendants in the underlying case were all severed from the suit. The three defendants are all agents of the corporate defendant in the district court case, and were severed by the court, not because they required a separate litigation independent from the main case, but solely to make the judgments final for appeal purposes. My initial appeal encompassed all three defendants. I cannot determine what the second appeal would achieve or which defendants it would include, nor has the court been able to give me this information. These defendants are not autonomous or unrelated. They all worked together and all of the same facts and circumstances apply to each of them. Boren and Yeates were agents of the corporation, taking direction from Freeman, the manager. There would be no benefit to two separate appeals and additionally, it would work a financial hardship on Appellants.

My motion for consolidation filed January 8th has had no disposition, yet I received an Order stating that the fee for the second appeal is due today. Please extend the time for payment until it is known whether a second appeal is called for and my motion is decided. In the alternative, if I do not hear back from the court today, I will send my check to the court for payment of the fee which I ask be held until disposition of my motion. ACCEPTED

04-14-00824-cv
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
3/2/2015 2:34:31 PM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERKI would very much appreciate the Court ’ s cons ideration in this matter, as the

appeal is being handled by me without charge to my clients . Even for them to pay an additional appeals fee is a hardship for them.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Carole K. Boyd

CKB:hs

C c: C. Dixon Mosty via e

- filing Stephen Schulte via e

- filing
No. 12-6768.

No. 12-6797.

#### Bryant *v.*Lufkin Independent School District. Abraham *v.*UAW International Union et al. *1084Tucker et vir *v.*Tift County Hospital Authority et al. Kiskila et ux. *v.*United States. Robertson *v.*Cree, Inc. Chalasani *v.*Daines et al.

*1083C. A. 5th Cir.;

C. A. 6th Cir.;

*1084No. 12-6853.

No. 12-6879.

No. 12-6920.

No. 12-7201.

Ct. App. Ga.;

C. A. 9th Cir.;

C. A. 4th Cir.; and

C. A. 2d Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied. Petitioners are allowed until January 28, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
#### Com. v. Mandrum

08/23/2016

112 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 368
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 99.2




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned officer of Veridien Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies
to my knowledge that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the on date hereof, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or
"filed" for any purpose whatsoever.


Date:  November 14, 2002            Name:  /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton
                                           ---------------------
                                           Sheldon C. Fenton

                                    Title: Chief Executive Officer and
                                           Acting Chief Financial Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7404** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,

v.
NORRIS JUANDRON BROWN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:13

- cr - 00843

- RBH

- 2 )

Submitted : November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS , Circu it Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Norris Juandron Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Norris Juandron Brown appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction. We generally review a n order granting or denying a
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Goines , 357 F.3d 469, 478 (4th Cir. 2004). We review
de novo , however, a district court’s determination of the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir. 2009). Here , because Brown was sentenced as a career offender, Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the offense levels applicable to drug offenses, did not have the effect of lowering his applicable Guidelines range. We therefore affirm the dist rict court’s order. 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 in the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### Denise A. Rubin, Respondent, v Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, et al., Defendants, and Paul J. Napoli, Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 320]

*604Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered September 30, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the individual defendant’s motion to amend his answer insofar as he sought to assert counterclaims for defamation and defamation per se, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Because the notice of appeal was limited to “the defamation and defamation per se causes of action,” we cannot consider defendant’s arguments relating to the motion court’s denial of leave to amend his answer to assert counterclaims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress *(see D’Mel & Assoc. v Athco, Inc.,*105 AD3d 451, 453 [1st Dept 2013]).

As to the proposed defamation counterclaims, defendant initially sought to assert them as standalone counterclaims within the one-year limitations period. However, the counterclaims were dismissed as procedurally improper, since they were not appended to an answer *(see*CPLR 3011; *Newman v Newman,*245 AD2d 353, 354 [2d Dept 1997]). Because the motion for leave to amend was made less than six months later, the proposed counterclaims could be saved by CPLR 205 (a)’s six-month grace period *(see George v Mt. Sinai Hosp.,*47 NY2d 170, 177-179 [1979]; *Weksler v Weksler,*140 AD3d 491, 493 [1st Dept 2016]).

Nevertheless, in the record before us, defendant fails to state with particularity the allegedly defamatory statements, and therefore his fourth and fifth counterclaims are defective as a matter of law (CPLR 3016 [a] [“the particular words complained of shall be set forth in the complaint”]; *Dillon v City of New York,*261 AD2d 34, 40 [1999]).* To the extent that defendant’s counterclaim sets forth some of the words complained of, they consist largely of verbatim quotations from the complaint, and thus are “absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis of a defamation action” *(Flomenhaft v Finkelstein,*127 AD3d 634, 637 [1st Dept 2015]; *see Tacopina v O’Keeffe,*645 Fed Appx 7, 8 [2d Cir 2016]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Gesmer, JJ.

*

 Defendant’s counterclaim refers to exhibits that are not in the record before us. It is not clear whether they were attached to the papers before the motion court.
Memo to Docket 

Subject: Call Between Freeport McMoRan Miami Inc. (FMMI) and EPA

Date: May 28, 2014

Participants:

Summary: 

 This call was requested by FMMI to discuss the compliance deadline for the Miami 

Smelter in the Arizona RH FIP.

 FMMI described need for shakedown period and reiterated request for a compliance date 

four years from publication of final rule.

 FMMI described possible interim requirements.

Name: Organization:

Chris West Freeport-McMoRan

Jeff Harrington AMEC (FMMI contractor)

Margaret Peloso Vinson & Elkins (external counsel)

Todd Weaver Freeport-McMoRan

Eugene Chen EPA R9 

Geoffrey Glass EPA R9

Charlotte Withey

Colleen McKaughan

EPA R9

EPA R9
No. 09-11478.

#### Corey Broadnax, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 883, 131 S. Ct. 207,

178 L. Ed. 2d 124,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6507.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 601 F.3d 336.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VERIDIEN CORP FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          55,961
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  383,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,096
<INVENTORY>                                    144,331
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               598,219
<PP&E>                                         463,898
<DEPRECIATION>                                 417,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 737,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,492,229
<BONDS>                                      2,232,481
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,154
<COMMON>                                        89,283
<OTHER-SE>                                  (4,136,204)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   737,943
<SALES>                                         80,255
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               304,907
<CGS>                                           76,940
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  592,252
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              62,518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (349,863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (349,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (349,863)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.002)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>
With regard to commitments and contingencies at March 31, 1999, there are no
material changes from the financial statement footnotes as presented December
31, 1998.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 302 I, Martin C. Clague, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Covansys
Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this annual report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this annual report, fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods represented in this annual report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control
over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. /s/ Martin C. ClagueChief Executive Officer and PresidentDate: August 4, 2004
The last member of the Percy Jones Alumni Caucus passes away
 
  By Jeff Landenberger
  Senator Bob Dole, 98, passed away December 5 in his sleep.  Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. He served as a Senator from 1969-1996.




Painting of Senator Bob Dole
        Senator Bob Dole
            Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. He served as a Senator from 1969-1996.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: U.S. Senate
                    
                    VIRIN: 211206-D-YU183-556  On April 14, 1945, Dole was a young Army officer in the 10th Mountain Division. Hisradioman, Corporal Sims, had been wounded. Dole was attempting to get Sims, who later died of his wounds, back to safety when he was hit.  The bullet that hit Dole bruised his spinal cord.  Dole was sent to the Percy Jones Army Hospital in Battle Creek, Michigan. While there he met people who would influence the rest of his life.  “I was part of what we later called the Percy Jones Alumni Caucus,” said Dolein an interview with History.net Dole. “Our ward’s ranking officer was Colonel Philip Hart, who later became Senator Phil Hart, after whom the Hart Senate Office Building is named.”  Bob Dole joined the Army in 1942 and was part of the 10th Mountain Division. He was wounded in Italy in 1945.




Photo of a young Bob Dole in Army uniform
        Bob Dole in the Army
            Bob Dole joined the Army in 1942 and was part of the 10th Mountain Division. He was wounded in Italy in 1945.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: U.S. Army
                    
                    VIRIN: 211206-D-YU183-444“Another guy in our ward was Dan Inouye. He was the best bridge player in the whole hospital and later represented Hawaii in the Senate. He had been wounded in Italy, too—he lost his right arm,” Dole said.  While at Percy Jones Dole also met and married Phyllis Holde an occupational therapist who worked at the hospital. The couple had one daughter. They divorced in 1972.  The Percy Jones Army Hospital was closed after the Korean War and turned in to a federal office building. In 2003 it was renamed The Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center. Both Dole and Inouye attended the event.  Hart passed away in 1976, Inouye in 2012.
TOMMY ALLEN GARDNER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

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. 1D15-2403

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 14, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

John L. Miller, Judge.

Tommy Alan Gardner, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., WETHERELL and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Navigators Insurance Company et al., Respondents, v Ironshore Indemnity, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[64 NYS3d 522]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered October 26, 2015, which denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint as against them, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment declaring that defendants must reimburse it for indemnity and defense costs it incurred in the underlying personal injury action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the motions granted, and the cross motion denied. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered April 25, 2017, upon reargument and renewal of the foregoing motions, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of defense and settlement payments it made on behalf of its insureds in the underlying action. As subrogee of its insureds, plaintiff has only the rights that its insureds have *(Daimler Chrysler Ins. Co. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*125 AD3d 518 [1st Dept 2015]). The *427insureds stipulated to the discontinuance with prejudice of their defense and indemnification claims in the underlying action. Thus, plaintiff’s subrogation claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata *(Schwartzreich v E.P.C. Carting Co.,*246 AD2d 439 [1st Dept 1998]).

Concur—Richter, J.R, Manzanet-Daniels, Andrias, Kern and Singh, JJ.
No. 09-11365.

#### William Brewley-Carrero, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 876, 131 S. Ct. 185,

178 L. Ed. 2d 111,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6848.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.