alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2135

___________ John P. Conville, Jr., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Emerson Electric, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 6, 2007 Filed: April 11, 2007

___________ Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. John P. Conville, Jr. appeals from the district court’s 1 dismissal of his Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act co mplaint. Upon de novo review, seeFarm Credit Servs. of Am. v. Am. State Bank , 339 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Ci r. 2003), we affirm.
Emerson Electric Company (Emerson) employed Conville until 1993. In 1992, he suffered a stroke. Based upon his re sulting medical restrictions, Emerson informed him that it did not have a positi on available for him, and terminated his-2- employment in March 1993. In 2005, Conville filed a pro se charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which determined that the charge was untimely. Using a Title VII pr o se complaint form, Conville alleged that Emerson violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Whether under Title VII or the ADA, Conv ille’s charge was filed well outside of the 180-day statute of limitations period. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(e)(1) (establishing 180-day statute of limitations for Title VII actions), 12117(a) (adopting Title VII procedures); Diaz v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. , 318 F.3d 796, 798 (8th Cir. 2003) (applying 180-day statute of limitations to T itle VII action); Douglas v. Cal. Dep’t of Youth Auth. , 271 F.3d 812, 823 n.12 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting 180-day statute of limitations applies to ADA actions). The di strict court properly rejected Conville’s argument that the statute of limitations was subject to equitable tolling. Conville was aware of the relevant facts at the time of his termination, yet waited twelve years to bring a formal charge of discrimination. SeeDring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. , 58 F.3d 1323, 1329 (8th Cir. 1995) (permitting e quitable tolling only “when a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s situation would not beexpected to know of the . . . violation”). Having dismissed Conville’s suit for failing to satisfy the statute of limitations, the district court properly denied as moot Conville’s motion to amend his complaint, which sought to add allegations that Emers on failed to provide hi m with a reasonable accommodation. Conville’s unopposed motion to place correspondence from Emerson’s counsel into the record is granted. We have re viewed this corresponde nce and conclude that it does not affect the merits of the appeal.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
Michael JUREK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1896

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




I,
      Trevor
      Drinkwater, Chief Executive Officer of Genius Products, Inc. (the “Registrant”),
      do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange
      Act
      of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
      United States Code that:




(1)
      the
      Registrant's Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the period
      ended
      June 30, 2006 (the “Report”), to which this statement is filed as an exhibit,
      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
      Registrant.





Dated:September
                26,
                2007
            
            By:
            /s/
                Trevor DrinkwaterTrevor
                Drinkwater
              Chief
                Executive Officer
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO.: 21-11136-BKC-MAM

PROCEEDING UNDER CHAPTER 13

IN RE:

YSELA RODRIGUEZ-MARQUEZ

XXX-XX-9386

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DE# 47)

DEBTOR

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the March 2, 2023 Consent Calendar without opposition on

Robin R. Weiner, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee's ("Trustee") Motion to Dismiss ("Motion"), and based on 

the record, it is

ORDERED:

1. The Trustee's Motion is GRANTED.

2. This case is dismissed without prejudice.

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on March 3, 2023.

Case 21-11136-MAM Doc 50 Filed 03/03/23 Page 1 of 2
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

CASE NO.: 21-11136-BKC-MAM

3. Any funds remaining in the possession of the Trustee, either in a pre-confirmation or 

post-confirmation account, shall be utilized by the Trustee to be applied to the payment of any 

outstanding filing fees or other costs due to the Clerk of Court with respect to the subject Chapter 13 

proceeding. The Trustee is authorized to disburse such funds, less all applicable Trustee's fees and 

costs on each such disbursement. If the Trustee does not have sufficient funds available to pay the 

balance due in full on behalf of the Debtor, the Debtor shall forthwith pay directly to the Clerk of the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Court any amount due and owing on said filing fees or other costs, as required by 

Local Rule 1017-2(E).

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to refuse to accept for filing any future voluntary petitions submitted 

by the Debtor if the refiling violates a prior order of the Court or if the petition is accompanied by an 

Application to Pay Filing Fees and Administrative Fees in Installments and filing fees remain due 

from any previous case filed by the Debtor.

5. All pending motions are denied as moot.

###

ORDER SUBMITTED BY:

ROBIN R. WEINER, ESQUIRE

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 559007

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33355-9007

954-382-2001

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

DEBTOR

YSELA RODRIGUEZ-MARQUEZ

1701 VILLAGE BOULEVARD

#101

WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33409

ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR

JEFFREY S. HOCHFELSEN, ESQUIRE

1615 FORUM PLACE 5TH FLOOR

WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

ROBIN R. WEINER IS DIRECTED TO SERVE COPIES OF THIS ORDER UPON THE PARTIES 

LISTED AND FILE A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

Case 21-11136-MAM Doc 50 Filed 03/03/23 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served through ECF on the debtor’s attorney or by U.S. First Class 

pre-paid Mail on the pro se debtor on the same day filed with the Court.

Submitted by:

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQ, STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806, MIRAMAR, FL 33027, (954) 443-4402

RE: STANLEY PACHECO & JESSICA AGUIRRE CASE NUMBER:21-10746-LMI

TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY FOR CONFIRMATION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Trustee reviewed this case and found the following deficiencies remain unresolved from the Trustee’s letter 

requesting documents and prior deficiencies and thus objects as follows (If this case is dismissed, this 

deficiency is an objection to reinstatement until all documents are received or all issues are addressed): 

WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AND/OR DOCUMENTS REQUESTED MUST BE 

RECEIVED BY 5PM AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS (NOT INCLUDING HOLIDAYS) PRIOR TO THE 

CONFIRMATION HEARING TO AVOID DISMISSAL. Please note: documents that were not timely 

filed/received by the trustee may not be considered as there is not sufficient time for an additional review of this 

case. Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to “re-sending” documents. The Trustee 

reserves the right to raise additional objections UNTIL all documents are timely provided to the Trustee and 

reviewed for possible issues raised and additional documents needed. 

The debtor or debtor’s attorney must appear at the confirmation hearing even if they pre-hear with the 

Trustee. The debtor may be dismissed for failure to fund the plan if they are delinquent in payments. 

The Court may dismiss this case if no one appears to represent the debtor at the confirmation hearing.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: IF THE DEBTOR(S) OBJECTS TO THE TRUSTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THE 

DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY MUST CONTACT THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE AND SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY 

BEFORE 2PM THE LAST BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION HEARING TO SEEK A 

RESOLUTION OR THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DEEMED UNCONTESTED BY THE DEBTOR. 

===============================================================================

Recommendation for May 4, 2021 hearing. All amendments and documents for the May 4, 2021 hearing 

were due as of April 16, 2021. (Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to "re-sending" 

documents)

1AP @ ECF#23

Serviced 21 days prior: YES DE#24 (4/1)

If Counsel for the debtor(s) appears at confirmation, confirms service, and agrees on the record:

Continue to 6/3:

Due on or before 5pm on 5/17: 1) obj/conform to cl#13

Case 21-10746-LMI Doc 26 Filed 04/28/21 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Form 10-KSB of Rivoli Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for
the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), J. Patrick McGoldrick, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Geraldine Bolen, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best
of our knowledge and belief 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.



/s/ J. Patrick McGoldrick
----------------------------------
J. Patrick McGoldrick
Chief Executive Officer
March 25, 2005


/s/ Geraldine Bolen
----------------------------------
Geraldine Bolen
Chief Financial Officer
March 25, 2005

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
NUMBER 13-14-00493-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

PATRICK DIXON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Patrick Dixon, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion to dismiss 

his appeal because he no longer desires to prosecute it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). 

Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed 

the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our 
2

mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

16th day of October, 2014.
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           What is “big data” and how should we use it? The role of large datasets, secondary data, and associated analysis techniques in outdoor recreation research      

      July 18, 2023    

With researchers increasingly interested in big data research, this conceptual paper describes how large datasets, secondary data, and associated analysis techniques can be used to understand outdoor recreation. Some types of large, secondary datasets that have been increasingly used in outdoor recreation research include social media, mobile device data, and trip reports or online reviews. First, we give a brief overview of big data terms and outline the steps involved in conducting big data research. In doing so, we describe data sources and analysis techniques relevant for outdoor recreation, and review how they have been applied in previous published works. We then describe opportunities, limitations, and considerations of using big data. Finally, we outline several questions researchers may consider when designing, conducting, reporting, and reviewing outdoor recreation research using big data. Overall, big data approaches can expand our understanding of outdoor recreation and, by addressing key questions, may help researchers harness the strengths of big data while ensuring quality and integrity.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Emily  J Wilkins, PhD

##### Research Social Scientist

Fort Collins Science Center

ewilkins@usgs.gov

970-226-9338

## Related Content

#### Emily  J Wilkins, PhD

##### Research Social Scientist

Fort Collins Science Center

ewilkins@usgs.gov

970-226-9338

### Contact

####               Fort Collins Science Center          

2150 Centre AvenueBldg CFort Collins, CO80526United States

970-226-9100

970-226-9230
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 Energy

          - 10 CFR Part 431 
          - [Docket Number EERE-2006-STD-0125] 
          - RIN 1904-AB58 

      ( print page 45979)    

### Correction 

In rule document E9-19392 beginning on page 44914 in the issue of Monday, August 31, 2009, make the following correction: 

                    1. On page 44914, in the first column, under the                     **DATES**                     section, in the fourth line, “August 31, 2011” should read “August 31, 2012”.                 

§431.296 

2. On page 44967, in § 431.296, in the third and fourth lines, “[Insert date 3 years from the date of publication of this final rule]” should read “August 31, 2012”. 

[FR Doc. Z9-19392 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 224 (Friday, November 20, 1998)]
[Corrections]
[Page 64539]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-41120]


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

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY

U.S. Agency for International Development

48 CFR Part 742

[AIDAR Notice 98-2]
RIN 0412-AA30


Miscellaneous Amendments to Acquisition Regulations

Correction

    In proposed rule document 98-28804 beginning on page 59501 in the 
issue of November 4, 1998, make the following corrections:
    1. On page 59501, in the third column, in the fifth line from the 
bottom ``reduce'' should read ``induce''.
    2. On the same page in the same column, in the last line, 
``provision'' should be added after ``withholding''.
    3. On page 59502, in the first column, in the second full 
paragraph, in the 20th line ``gown'' should read ``grown''.


742.1170-1  [Corrected]


742.1170-1  General.

    4. On page 59503, in the second column, the section heading should 
read as set forth above.


742.1170-3  [Corrected]

    5. On page 59504, in the first column, in 742.1170-3(c), in the 
fifth line from the bottom ``the claims'' should read ``the scope or 
terms of the contract or may result in claims''.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5074 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5074

   To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State or local 
      educational agency that denies or prevents participation in 
                   constitutional prayer in schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2016

Mrs. Ellmers of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State or local 
      educational agency that denies or prevents participation in 
                   constitutional prayer in schools.

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

SECTION 1. FUNDING CONTINGENT ON RESPECT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOOL 
              PRAYER.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
funds made available through the Department of Education shall be 
provided to any State or local educational agency that has a policy of 
denying, or that effectively prevents participation in, constitutional 
prayer in public schools by individuals on a voluntary basis.
    (b) Limitation.--No person shall be required to participate in 
prayer, or shall influence the form or content of any constitutional 
prayer, in public schools.
                                 <all>
```
This media is not available in Regulations.gov. Contact the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be made as follows:

In person/writing: Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 Washington, DC. 20004

Telephone: 202-566-1744

Fax: 202-566- 9744

Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov

## This media is not available in Regulations.gov. For further information please contact:

Marcus Sarofim USEPA - Climate Change Division sarofim.marcus@epa.gov 202-343-9993
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001097896
<NAME>                        VEGA-ATLANTIC CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                          56,018
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                61,018
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,019
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          889,630
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           264
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,223,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (828,611)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,109,563
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,801
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,109,563)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,109,563)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.091)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0






</TABLE>
### N ICKEL 

### P RODUCING 

### I NDUSTRY 

### P OSITION ON

THE 

### U.S. EPA N ICKEL 

### URE

1. The nickel producing industry’s intent is not to change the outcome of the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP, but to bring best science to nickel exposure risk derivations included therein.

2. To facilitate discussion of the most scientifically robust unit risk

, we accept (as a no

- threshold reasonable worst case): That mix of refinery exposures are relevant for emissions and ambient air All nickel compounds are carcinogenic to some ex tent

Linear no

- threshold dose

- response (unit risk) is appropriate approach to calculate cancer risk

3. We propose that the Texas (TCEQ) derived unit risk value of 1.6 x 10 - 4 is the most appropriate unit
risk to use because:

It is based on consideration of al l available epidemiological data in last 25 years Includes more sophisticated model ing than in 1985 It underwent rigorous peer review (TERA panel + RTP journal where it was published as Haney et al 2012)

4. We suggest that the value of 1.6 x 10 - 4 is still v ery conservative value based on:

1. T he latest decisions by experts and other rulemaking bodies (e.g., the EU Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits

- SCOEL) regarding the actual or practical threshold for Ni carcinogenicity.

2. Results from the r ecent paper by Conard and Seilkop (2011, Human and Ecological Risk

Assessment 17: 892

- 905). B Conard and S Seilkop derived a unit risk specifically for Ni subsulfide (2.9 x 10 - 4 ) and Ni oxide (5.1 x 10 - 5 ) based on refinery and animal data. The value for 1 00% Ni
subsulfide is lower than that calculated by EPA in 1985 (4.8 x 10 - 4 ).

3. The c omposition of ambient air and emissions from ferronickel facilities , which have a far lower percentage of Ni subsulfide than nickel refineries . The paper by Sivulka and Se ilkop (2009) for alloy manufacturing in the USA indicates 8 2 % of Ni is oxidic

, 7% metallic , and the balance is largely water soluble nickel species.

5. In addition, use of the TCEQ’s URE values was endorsed by EPA’s independent peer reviewers.