alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 401.108 Filing a request for records. ( a ) All requests for Commission records shall be submitted to the Records Access Officer on such forms as the Executive Director may prescribe, which shall be available on the Commission's website, *https://www.drbc.gov ,* or by written request to the Commission, 25 Cosey Road, West Trenton, NJ 08628.
( b ) A request for Commission records shall reasonably describe the records being sought, in a way that they can be identified and located. A request should include all pertinent details that will help identify the records sought. A person requesting disclosure of records shall be permitted an opportunity to review them without the necessity for copying them where the records involved contain only disclosable data and information. ( 1 ) If the description is insufficient to locate the records requested, the Records Access Officer will so notify the person making the request and indicate the additional information needed to identify the records requested.
( 2 ) Every reasonable effort shall be made by the staff to assist in the identification and location of the records sought.
( 3 ) In any situation in which it is determined that a request for voluminous records would unduly burden and interfere with the operations of the Commission, the person making the request will be asked to be more specific and to narrow the request, and to agree on an orderly procedure for the production of the requested records.
( c ) Upon receipt of a request for records, the Records Access Officer shall enter it in a public log (which entry may consist of a copy of the request). The log shall state the date and time received, the name and address of the person making the request, the nature of the records requested, the action taken on the request, the date of the determination letter sent pursuant to § 401.109(b), the date(s) any records are subsequently furnished, the number of staff-hours and grade levels of persons who spent time responding to the request, and the payment requested and received.
( d ) A denial of a request for records, in whole or in part, shall be signed by the Records Access Officer. The name and title or position of each person who participated in the denial of a request for records shall be set forth in the letter denying the request. This requirement may be met by attaching a list of such individuals to the letter.
[40 FR 14056, Mar. 28, 1975; 40 FR 17987, Apr. 24, 1975. Redesignated at 52 FR 37602, Oct. 8, 1987, as amended at 89 FR 51827, June 20, 2024]
#### § 367.2340 Account 234, Accounts payable to associate companies.

This account must include all amounts payable to associate companies by the service company within one year, which are not provided for in other accounts.
# C_2007111EN.01000701.xml

| 17.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 May 2007

(2007/C 111/05)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3574 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 163,64 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4533 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68485 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1985 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6545 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 85,41 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1725 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5832 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,235 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 248,74 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6964 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7898 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,2776 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,676 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7970 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6360 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4931 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6122 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8434 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0623 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 254,17 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,3922 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,4275 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3275 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 951,91 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6162 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 63,730 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,9740 |
| THB | Thai baht | 45,278 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3574

JPY

Japanese yen

163,64

DKK

Danish krone

7,4533

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68485

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1985

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6545

ISK

Iceland króna

85,41

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1725

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5832

CZK

Czech koruna

28,235

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

248,74

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6964

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7898

RON

Romanian leu

3,2776

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,676

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7970

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6360

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4931

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6122

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8434

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0623

KRW

South Korean won

1 254,17

ZAR

South African rand

9,3922

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,4275

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3275

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 951,91

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6162

PHP

Philippine peso

63,730

RUB

Russian rouble

34,9740

THB

Thai baht

45,278

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 12


                 COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS
                      (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS, EXCEPT RATIOS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                          ------------------------
                                                          March 31,      March 31,
                                                             1999          1998  
                                                          ---------      --------
<S>                                                       <C>             <C>
Loss) before taxes on income                               $ (83.7)        $ (1.9)
Adjustments:
Distributed income of less than
   50% owned companies                                      --              --
Fixed charges net of capitalized
   interest                                                   12.3            3.3
                                                           -------         ------
                                                           =======         ====== 

Earnings before taxes and fixed
   charges as adjusted                                     $ (71.4)        $  1.2
                                                           =======         ====== 

FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense                                           $   9.9         $  1.6
Portion of rent expense which
   represents interest factor                                  2.0            1.7
Amortization of debt costs                                     0.4          --  

Total fixed charges                                           12.3            3.3
                                                           =======         ====== 


Preferred stock dividends requirements                     $   2.6          --
                                                                           ----
Fixed charges including pre-tax preferred
   dividend requirement                                    $  12.3         $  3.3
                                                           =======         ====== 

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                           N/A            N/A

DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                                              83.7            2.1
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED
   CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS                           N/A            N/A

DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED
   FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED
   DIVIDENDS                                                  86.3          N/A

</TABLE>


                                      -21-
#### § 401.72 Notice and request for hearing.

The Executive Director shall serve notice of an action or decision by him under the regulations in this chapter by personal service or certified mail, return receipt requested. The affected discharger shall be entitled (and the notice of action or decision shall so state) to show cause at a Commission hearing why such action or decision should not take effect. A request for such a hearing shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commission not more than 30 days after service of the Executive Director's determination. Failure to file such a request within the time limit shall be deemed to be an acceptance of the Executive Director's determination and a waiver of any further hearing.

[62 FR 64158, Dec. 4, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 45943, Aug. 28, 1998]
### §3501. Exclusive territorial licenses to manufacture, distribute, and sell trademarked soft drink products; ultimate resale to consumers; substantial and effective competition

Nothing contained in any antitrust law shall render unlawful the inclusion and enforcement in any trademark licensing contract or agreement, pursuant to which the licensee engages in the manufacture (including manufacture by a sublicensee, agent, or subcontractor), distribution, and sale of a trademarked soft drink product, of provisions granting the licensee the sole and exclusive right to manufacture, distribute, and sell such product in a defined geographic area or limiting the licensee, directly or indirectly, to the manufacture, distribution, and sale of such product only for ultimate resale to consumers within a defined geographic area: Provided, That such product is in substantial and effective competition with other products of the same general class in the relevant market or markets.

(Pub. L. 96–308, §2, July 9, 1980, 94 Stat. 939.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 96–308, §1, July 9, 1980, 94 Stat. 939, provided that: "This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act'."

#### Suspension of Statute of Limitations on Institution of Antitrust Proceedings by United States; Enforcement of Trademark Licensing Agreement Provisions Concerning Soft Drink Products

Pub. L. 96–308, §4, July 9, 1980, 94 Stat. 939, provided that: "In the case of any proceeding instituted by the United States described in subsection (i) of section 5 of the Clayton Act (relating to suspension of the statute of limitations on the institution of proceedings by the United States) (15 U.S.C. 16(i)) which is pending on the date of the enactment of this Act [July 9, 1980], that subsection shall not apply with respect to any right of action referred to in that subsection based in whole or in part on any matter complained of in that proceeding consisting of the existence or enforcement of any provision described in section 2 of this Act [this section] in any trademark licensing contract or agreement described in that section."
EXHIBIT 32

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


         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of  Neighborhood  Investment,
Ltd.,  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31,  2003 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof (the  "REPORT"),  the
undersigned, B. Stephen Bailey, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 401.114 Data and information previously disclosed to the public.

Any Commission record that is otherwise exempt from public disclosure pursuant to this part is available for public disclosure to the extent that it contains data or information that have previously been disclosed in a lawful manner to any member of the public, other than an employee or consultant or pursuant to other commercial arrangements with appropriate safeguards for secrecy.
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5 -75.0

 38.5

 39.0

 39.5

 40.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.77 N 77.11 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■

■

★

■ ■ ■ ■

★

●

●

●

★

● ● ● ●
1

Best Practices: 

Tips to keep track of files and 

organize your MOVES runs 

FHWA Resource Center

EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality

EPA-420-B-09-027
2

2

Naming Strategies

z Name all the files you use for a specific run using 

the same name, but with different extensions (eg. 

Washtenaw2008_in, Washtenaw2008.mrs, 

Washtenaw2008_out)

– Identifies each part of the run file

– Helps organize information

z When testing MOVES include “Test” or “Temp” in 

the name

– Mysql/data folder can get cluttered

– Allows for easier clean-up
3

3

Other Tips

z Save all Run Specs outside of the MOVES 

directory folders 

– Folders installed in MOVES will be overwritten when new 

versions of MOVES are installed

– Input files can be saved in or near the folder containing the 

corresponding MOVES runspec

z Decide on the Scale before making any other 

selections on the panel

– Changing scale after making selections may reset those 

selections

When using CDM, the folder where the runspec is saved is the folder that is 

opened, so having them close makes importing files easier
4

4

Other Tips

z Any run used for official purposes should be 

archived completely

– Including batch files, run specs, MOVES code and 

configuration files, supplemental code, default database, user 

input databases, etc.

– Months or years later, runs can be reproduced

z Save output to same MySQL database

– Except for very large files

– Easy to find output files
5

5

Pre-Aggregation

z MOVES calculations can take a long time.

z Aggregation of inputs is one way to reduce the 

number of calculations and speed up a run.

z Aggregation of inputs will affect results; while 

aggregation of outputs does not affect results.

z Proper aggregation is a policy issue and will be 

addressed in guidance.

Pre-aggregation is one way to get results quickly, but at the expense of using less 

precise calculations of the results.

I favor “no aggregation” unless there is a good reason.
EXHIBIT 32

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of ASP Ventures Corp. (Registrant) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, Nora Coccaro, chief executive officer and chief financial officer, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)     This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of Registrant

| | at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of Registrant for the period covered by this Report.
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Nora Coccaro

Nora Coccaro

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

December 12, 2005

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §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 Registrant for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7375

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRUNO SAUCEDO-OLVERA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00097-2; 1:06-cv-00219) Submitted: October 23, 2006 Decided: November 14, 2006 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruno Saucedo-Olvera, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bruno Saucedo-Olvera seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Saucedo-Olvera has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
~D S~. (i:)

q~ PRO~

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

October 17, 2014

Teec Nos Pos Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation

P.O. Box 106

Teecnospos, AZ 86514

ATTN: ADMIN OFFICE

Subject: Public documents at the Teec Nos Pos Chapter for public inspection

Dear Sir or Madam:

The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency sent you a package containing a number of documents

regarding the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation

near the city of Aneth, San Juan County, Utah. Two of these documents contained an error, and need

to be replaced. Please replace the following documents in the package previously sent to you with

the enclosed documents:

1. PUBLIC INFORMATION SHEET

2. AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACT REPORT & FACT SHEET

Your assistance with this matter is greatly appreciated. Feel free to contact me at (415) 947-4156 or

kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov if you have any questions.

Environmental Engineer

Air Division

Shaheerah

Permits Office

Enclosures
§ 381.517 Federal oversight of a cooperative interstate shipment program. ( a ) The FSIS selected establishment coordinator for a State that has entered into an agreement for a cooperative interstate shipment program will visit each selected establishment in the State on a regular basis to verify that the establishment is operating in a manner that is consistent with the Act and the implementing regulations in this chapter. The frequency with which the SEC will visit selected establishments under the SEC's jurisdiction will be based on factors that include, but are not limited to, the complexity of the operations conducted at the selected establishment, the establishment's schedule of operations, and the establishment's performance under the cooperative interstate shipment program. If necessary, the selected establishment coordinator, in consultation with the District Manager that covers the State, may designate qualified FSIS personnel to visit a selected establishment on behalf of the selected establishment coordinator.
( b ) The selected establishment coordinator, in coordination with the State, will verify that selected establishments in the State are receiving the necessary inspection services from designated personnel, and that these establishments are eligible, and remain eligible, to participate in a cooperative interstate shipment program. The selected establishment coordinator's verification activities may include: ( 1 ) Verifying that each selected establishment employs, and continues to employ, 25 or fewer employees, on average, as required under § 381.513(a) of this part, unless the establishment is transitioning to become an official establishment;
( 2 ) Verifying that the designated personnel are providing inspection services to selected establishments in a manner that complies with the Act and the implementing regulations in this chapter;
( 3 ) Verifying that that the State staffing levels for each selected establishments are appropriate to carry out the required inspection activities; and
( 4 ) Assessing each selected establishment's compliance with the Act and implementing regulations in this chapter.
( c ) If the selected establishment coordinator determines that designated personnel are providing inspection services to selected establishments in the State in a manner that is inconsistent with the Acts and the implementing regulations in this chapter, the Administrator will provide an opportunity for the State to develop and implement a corrective action plan to address inspection deficiencies identified by the selected establishment coordinator. If the State fails to develop a corrective action plan, or the selected establishment coordinator for the State determines that the corrective action plan is inadequate, the Administrator will terminate the agreement for the cooperative interstate shipment program as provided in § 381.187(d) of this part.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 17, 2013

No. 04-13-00174-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.H., a child

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-PA-00997

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed 

against Appellant in relation to this appeal because he qualifies as an indigent under TEX. R. APP.

P. 20.

It is so ORDERED on July 17, 2013.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of July, 2013.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk