alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 9, 2023

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

From: Michael Blackmon

NEPA Coordinator

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Subject: NEPA Determination

Project: Addition to the University of Maine’s Composites Center for the 

Green Engineering and Materials Research Factory of the Future 

Location: University of Maine

Orono, Maine 04469-5765

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and associated implementing regulations (40 

CFR Parts 1500-1508) require that all major federal actions be reviewed with respect to their

environmental consequences. The Green Engineering and Materials Research Factory of the 

Future has been selected for a federal funding grant. Consequently, NEPA and the associated 

implementing regulations apply to this project.

 

This memorandum summarizes the review of the Green Engineering and Materials Research 

Factory of the Future Project, and the determination that this project will require the preparation 

of an environmental assessment to comply with NEPA.

Basis for Determination

Based on the following considerations, an environmental assessment is determined to be the 

appropriate level of review for this project:
1. The overall size and cost of the project: 78,000 square feet and $47.8 million.

2. The project site is located within a designated coastal zone, and freshwater wetlands have 

been delineated on the project site.

3. Endangered species habitats range onto the project site; however, no significant impacts 

to endangered species are anticipated.

4. Permits that remain to be obtained and associated mitigation measures to be identified

include:

a. Wetlands Alteration Permit – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

b. Natural Resources Protection Wetland Impact – State of Maine

c. Site Location Development Permit - State of Maine

d. Construction General Permit - State of Maine

e. Stormwater Permit - State of Maine

5. Coordination and notices required/recommended:

a. Public notice of application for Site Location Development Permit and Natural 

Resources Protection Wetland Impact Permit

b. General coordination with local municipality 

c. Maine Natural Areas Program,

d. Maine Department of Marine Resources

e. Maine Department of Environmental Protection

An environmental assessment will provide for a consolidated review of the environmental

impacts of this project and the proposed mitigation measures.

_________________________________ ______________________

Michael Blackmon Date

NIST NEPA Coordinator

_________________________________ ______________________

R.C. Vaughn Date

NIST Chief Facilities Management Officer
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is 

not citable as precedent. It is a public record. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 

 

 

06-3094 

DENISE P. THOMAS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent. 

 __________________________ 

 DECIDED: October 10, 2006 

 __________________________ 

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge, CLEVENGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRYSON, 

Circuit Judge. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Denise P. Thomas appeals from a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board, which dismissed as untimely her appeal of the Office of Personnel 

Management’s (“OPM”) disallowance of her application for disability retirement. 

Thomas v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., MSPB Docket No. CH844E050583-I-1 (Oct. 7, 2005). 

We reverse and remand. 
On March 14, 2005, OPM issued a reconsideration decision affirming its previous

denial of Thomas’ application for disability retirement. Thomas received OPM’s final 

decision via certified mail on March 28, 2005, and she appealed to the board in a filing 

that was postmarked April 26, 2005. The administrative judge dismissed her appeal as

untimely, and Thomas filed a petition for review with the full board on July 7, 2005. The 

board denied her petition, and Thomas appeals. 

We review a decision of the board to determine whether it is “arbitrary, 

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” or

“unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c). Here, both parties agree 

that the board’s decision to dismiss Thomas’ appeal as untimely was not supported by

substantial evidence and not in accordance with the law. Thomas had 30 days from the 

date on which she received the OPM’s final decision, i.e., March 28, 2005, to file her 

appeal. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.22(b)(1). Both the record and the administrative judge agree 

that the appeal was filed on April 26, 2005, which was clearly within 30 days from the 

date on which she received OPM’s final decision. The administrative judge, however,

incorrectly calculated the filing deadline by using the date on which the decision was 

issued rather than the date on which Thomas received the decision via certified mail.

Therefore, her decision to dismiss Thomas’ appeal as untimely was neither supported 

by substantial evidence nor in accordance with law. Accordingly, the decision of the

Merit Systems Protection Board is reversed and the case is remanded for further 

proceedings. 

06-3094 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from Empire Gold
Inc.'s  Consolidated  Balance  Sheets  at December  31,  1997  and  Consolidated
Statements of Operations  and Deficit for the year ended  December 31, 1997, and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                       1
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               12,796 
<SECURITIES>                                              0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                        18,032 
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0 
<INVENTORY>                                               0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     30,828 
<PP&E>                                              439,507 
<DEPRECIATION>                                            0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      470,335 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               192,863 
<BONDS>                                                   0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0 
<PREFERRED>                                               0 
<COMMON>                                         48,228,778 
<OTHER-SE>                                      (47,951,306) 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        470,335 
<SALES>                                                   0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      4,103 
<CGS>                                                     0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    572,785 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (568,682) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (568,682) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0 
<CHANGES>                                                 0 
<NET-INCOME>                                       (568,682) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (0.01) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.00 
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of Gaiam, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lynn Powers, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

Date:April 1, 2013
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FELECIA L. ARSO, o/b/o : 

IESHA ARSO, 

 : 

 Plaintiff, 

 : 

vs. CA 10-0036-KD-C 

 : 

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

Commissioner of Social Security, : 

 Defendant. 

 

 ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to 

the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l)(B) and dated August 5, 2010 is 

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

DONE this August 25, 2010. 

 s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

 KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00036-KD-C Document 22 Filed 08/25/10 Page 1 of 1
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

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 the direction of the Court.

January 2, 2020

a1216 

# Order

Clerk January 2, 2020

160170

GARY HIXON,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 160170

AGC: 18

- 2366

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the complaint for superintending control is considered, and

relief is DENIED, because the C ourt is not persuaded that it should grant the requested

relief.

C AVANAGH , J., did not participate due to her prior service as a member of the

Attorney Grievance Commission.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-131729 on Form S-8, and Registration
Statement Nos. 333-144043 and 333-144989 on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 21, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedules of Huntsman Corporation (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to: i) the presentation of the consolidated financial
statements of Huntsman Corporation as if Huntsman Holdings LLC and Huntsman Corporation were combined for all periods presented, ii) the adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 47
during 2005, FASB Statement No. 158 during 2006, and FASB Interpretation No. 48 during 2007 and iii) the company's change in measurement date for its pension and other
postretirement benefit plans during 2005), and the effectiveness of Huntsman Corporation's internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Huntsman Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Houston,
Texas
February 21, 2008

---



QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIREDPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

 

Solely for the purposes ofcomplying with 18 U.S.C. §1350,I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Reporton Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended March 5, 2005 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| /S/ NORBERT E. WOODHAMS |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Norbert E. Woodhams     |
| January 3, 2006    |

 

Solely for the purposes ofcomplying with 18 U.S.C. §1350,I, the undersigned Principal Financial Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K/Aof the Company for the year ended March 5, 2005 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| /S/ JOSEPH W. MEYERS |   |
|----------------------|--------|
| Joseph W. Meyers     |
| January 3, 2006 |

 

----
**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Kay Carter, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial officer) of Whitehall Limited,Inc. certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

a) designedsuch 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 knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based onsuch evaluation; and 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor 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 financialreporting. 

Date: September 1, 2006
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

IT IS ORDERED..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0."is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



IT IS SO ORDERED



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

ALBERT EMIL TILLMAN 11-00362-001

12410-003

08-22-2013

Pro Se

✔

✔

80 66 months

08-22-2013

04-28-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.04.27 11:07:25 -06'00'

Case 1:11-cr-00362-CG-B Document 62 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1687 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1687

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the ``Paul 
                        Ignatius Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2023

   Mr. Schiff (for himself, Mr. Aguilar, Ms. Barragan, Mr. Bera, Ms. 
Brownley, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Cardenas, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Correa, Ms. Chu, 
 Mr. Costa, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Duarte, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. 
Mike Garcia of California, Mr. Robert Garcia of California, Mr. Gomez, 
   Mr. Harder of California, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Issa, Ms. Jacobs, Ms. 
   Kamlager-Dove, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Kiley, Mrs. Kim of California, Mr. 
 LaMalfa, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieu, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. 
Matsui, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Mullin, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Obernolte, Mr. 
Panetta, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Peters, Ms. Porter, Mr. Ruiz, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. 
    Sherman, Mrs. Steel, Mr. Swalwell, Mr. Takano, Mr. Thompson of 
California, Mrs. Torres of California, Mr. Valadao, Mr. Vargas, and Ms. 
   Waters) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, as the ``Paul 
                        Ignatius Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. PAUL IGNATIUS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6444 San Fernando Road in Glendale, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Paul Ignatius Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Paul 
Ignatius Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERTA MAY, : 

Plaintiff, : 

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 09-00625-WS-C 

MOBILE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL, : 

SYSTEM, et al., 

 : 

Defendants. 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Counts 1-3 of Plaintiff=s Complaint 

(the federal law claims) be and are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice and that Counts 4-6 of 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (the state law claims) be and are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE this 4th day of August, 2010. 

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

Case 1:09-cv-00625-WS-C Document 17 Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICK JOSEPH CHAREST,

AIS 182262,

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-0067-CG-C

)

BILLY MITCHEM, )

)

Respondent. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be dismissed not only as an unconscionable abuse of 

the writ, but also because it is time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2013.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00067-CG-C Document 71 Filed 04/10/13 Page 1 of 1
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 Justice
 Notice is hereby given that the United States Department of Justice, on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (“DOI”), together with the State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”), reached agreement on a proposed settlement with Honeywell International, Inc. and Amphenol Corporation regarding natural resource damages arising from environmental contamination at the Richardson Hill Site in Sidney and Masonville, New York. The settlement will resolve claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Oil Pollution Act, the Clean Water Act, and applicable state law. The settlement will require Honeywell and Amphenol to pay a total of $400,000. DOI and DEC will receive $81,210 and $20,000 respectively to reimburse assessment costs. The rest of the money, $298,790, will fund projects to restore, rehabilitate, replace, and/or acquire the equivalent of the natural resources injured at the site, including the costs of restoration planning and oversight activities. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the settlement agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to Richardson Hill Settlement Agreement, D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-11059. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: *To submit comments:*
*Send them to:*By email
*pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov.*By mail
Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
 During the public comment period, the settlement agreement may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: 
                    *http://www.usdoj.gov/​enrd/​Consent_​Decrees.html.*
                     We will provide a paper copy of the settlement agreement upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $2.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Robert E. Maher Jr., Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.


[FR Doc. 2014-29444 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P