alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 773.113 Application amendments. ( a ) After a State submits its application to the appropriate Operating Administration(s), but prior to the execution of the MOU(s), the State may amend its application at any time to request the addition or withdrawal of projects, classes of projects, or environmental review responsibilities consistent with the requirements of this part. ( 1 ) Prior to submitting any such amendment, the State must coordinate with the appropriate Operating Administration(s) to determine if the amendment represents a substantial change in the application to such an extent that additional notice and opportunity for public comment is needed. The Operating Administration is responsible for making the final decision on whether notice and public comment is needed and whether to provide one opportunity (pursuant to § 773.107(b)) or two opportunities (pursuant to § 773.107(b) and § 773.111(a)) for public comment. The Operating Administration will make this determination based on the magnitude of the changes.
( 2 ) If the Operating Administration determines that notice and solicitation of public comment is needed pursuant to § 773.107(b), the State must include copies of all comments received, responses to substantive comments, and note the changes, if any, that were made in response to the comments.
( b ) After the execution of the MOU(s) or renewal MOU(s), a State may amend its application to the appropriate Operating Administration(s) to request additional projects, classes of projects, or more environmental review responsibilities consistent with the requirements of this part. ( 1 ) Prior to requesting any such amendment, the State must coordinate with the appropriate Operating Administration(s) to determine if the amendment represents a substantial change in the application information to the extent that additional notice and opportunity for public comment is needed. The Operating Administration is responsible for making the final decision on whether notice and public comment are needed and whether to provide one opportunity (pursuant to § 773.107(b) or § 773.111(a)) or two opportunities (pursuant to § 773.107(b) and § 773.111(a)) for public comment. The Operating Administration will make this determination based on the magnitude of the changes.
( 2 ) If the Operating Administration determines that notice and solicitation of public comment is required pursuant to § 773.107(b), the State must include copies of all comments received, responses to substantive comments, and note the changes, if any, that were made in response to the comments.
( 3 ) The Operating Administration is responsible for making the final decision on whether to accept the amendment and whether an amendment to the MOU is required. Amendments do not change the expiration date of the initial or renewal MOU.
#### CISCO SYSTEMS, INC; Margaret M. Lynch, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. CALIFORNIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD; Lawrence F. Newman, Defendants—Appellants.

No. 01-16096. D.C. No. CV-00-21092-JW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 11, 2002.

Decided May 10, 2002.

Before BRUNETTI, LEAYY and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*380ORDER *

The California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) and Workers’ Compensation Administrative Law Judge Lawrence F. Newman interlocutorily appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss a complaint filed by Cisco Systems, Inc., and Margaret M. Lynch, a Cisco employee. Cisco’s action arose from a WCAB award to a Cisco employee and was brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, *et.seq.*

We review the decision to grant or deny declaratory relief de novo. *See Crawford, v. Lungren,*96 F.3d 380, 384 (9th Cir. 1996). “Although the decision to grant or deny declaratory relief ... is a matter initially committed to the discretion of the district court, on appeal, we exercise our own ‘sound discretion’ to determine the propriety of the district court’s grant or denial of declaratory relief.” *Ablang v. Reno,*52 F.3d 801, 803 (9th Cir.1995) (citation and quotation omitted).

The underlying WCAB award is not final. In the meantime, WCAB, in an en banc decision, held that California Labor Code § 132a is preempted by ERISA when the employee’s § 132a claim is premised upon the employer’s discontinuation of group health plan benefits to the employee pursuant to the terms of an ERISA plan. *Alonso Navarro v. A & A Farming,*2002 WL 236699 (Cal.W.C.A.B. Feb.13, 2002). This en banc decision of the WCAB is binding on all WCAB three-member panels and on all workers’ compensation administrative law judges. W.C.A.B. Policy & Procedure Manual, Index No. 6.16.1.1

Because of WCAB’s intermediate ruling, we exercise our discretion and remand to the district court for entry of judgment of dismissal.

REMANDED with instructions.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. WCAB Policy and Procedural Manual 6.16.1 provides: "En banc decisions are binding on panels of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, presiding workers’ compensation judges and workers' compensation judges as legal precedent under the principle of *stare decisis.”*
<PAGE>

                                                            HECO Exhibit 10.6(a)
                                                            --------------------

         Amendment No. 1 to "Power Purchase Contract Between Hawaiian
             Electric Co., Inc. and the City & County of Honolulu
                             Dated March 10, 1986

By mutual agreement, Appendix D of the subject Contract is hereby amended to
reflect that energy furnished by the Seller to the Company shall be in
accordance with the following revised limitations:

1.   Except as limited in accordance with Section 8, Appendix A, during the
     months of June through November, there shall be no off-peak maximum rate of
     energy delivery, except for circumstances wherein the Company experiences a
     specific equipment problem which makes it technically impossible for the
     Company to take the level of output desired by the Seller.  In any such
     circumstances, the Company shall promptly notify the Seller of the specific
     problem and use its best efforts to allow restoration of the level of
     output desired by the Seller in a timely manner.

2.   During off-peak hours, the Company shall accept from the Seller during the
     months of December through May, on Monday through Friday up to 40 MW and on
     Saturday, Sunday, and holidays up to 25 MW.  The maximum off-leak dispatch
     levels noted in this subparagraph 2 shall also be subject to the same
     exception for equipment problems of the Company noted in subparagraph 1
     above, but may also be raised if the Company has a normally base-loaded
     unit off-line for overhaul.

3.   To enhance the Company's ability to accept energy from the Seller, Seller
     agrees to notify the Company by noon on Wednesday of each week of the
     expected hourly dispatch level of the Seller's facility for the coming
     week.  If the Seller so desires it and the circumstances permit it, the
     Company may waive the limitations noted above on a week-to-week basis.

This Amendment covers dispatch levels only and is in no way intended to affect
the pricing mechanisms established in the Contract.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.             CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU


By /s/ Richard K. McQuain   3/7/90          By /s/ Theodore Jung        3-9-90
   --------------------------------            --------------------------------
   Its Vice President        Date              Its Director of Finance   Date


By /s/ Vern E. Cronkhite    3/7/90          By /s/ Sam Callejo         3-12-90
   --------------------------------            --------------------------------
   Its Vice President        Date              Its Director & Chief     Date
                                                   Engineer, Department
                                                   of Public Works
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

In re: )

)

FELIPE RUIZ )

) Case No. 16-35182-KLP

) Chapter 13

Debtor. )

_________________________________________ )

SECOND NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS PURSUANT TO STANDING 

ORDER 20-24

The Debtor, having certified to undersigned Counsel that he has been adversely impacted 

financially by the COVID-19 pandemic, hereby gives notice of the suspension of his Chapter 13 

Plan payments for an additional three (3) calendar months, beginning with the month of January 

2021.

The Debtor will resume plan payments following the suspension period, which payments 

will continue until all payments due under the plan are completed, and the Chapter 13 Plan shall 

be automatically extended by the number of months stated above for the suspension.

Respectfully submitted this 8

th day of January 2021.

By: /s/ Jeremy Huang

Jeremy Huang, VA Bar #76861

3201 Jermantown Road, Suite 600

Fairfax, Virginia 22030

(703) 755-0214

jhuang@lawfirmvirginia.com

SEEN AND AGREED:

/s/ Carl M. Bates

Carl Bates, Chapter 13 Trustee

Case 16-35182-KLP Doc 32 Filed 01/08/21 Entered 01/08/21 17:27:40 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Notice was mailed to or electronically 

served by ECF on those the Chapter 13 Trustee and to all creditors and parties in interest at their 

respective addresses as listed on the mailing matrix maintained by the clerk of the court.

By: /s/ Jeremy Huang

Jeremy Huang

Case 16-35182-KLP Doc 32 Filed 01/08/21 Entered 01/08/21 17:27:40 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
### §6576. Protections and measures

#### (a) Protections

In the case of a landowner that enrolls land in the program and whose conservation activities result in a net conservation benefit for listed, candidate, or other species, the Secretary of Agriculture shall make available to the landowner safe harbor or similar assurances and protection under—

(1) section 1536(b)(4) of this title; or

(2) section 1539(a)(1) of this title.

#### (b) Measures

If protection under subsection (a) requires the taking of measures that are in addition to the measures covered by the applicable restoration plan agreed to under section 6573 of this title, the cost of the additional measures, as well as the cost of any permit, shall be considered part of the restoration plan for purposes of financial assistance under section 6574 of this title.

(Pub. L. 108–148, title V, §506, Dec. 3, 2003, 117 Stat. 1914.)
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of EarthLink, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael C. Lunsford, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to myknowledge that:

(1)          the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/  MICHAEL C. LUNSFORD |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael C. Lunsford                |
| Interim Chief Executive Officer    |
| May 7, 2007                        |

 

----
**HEI Exhibit 23.1**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.: 

We consent to incorporation by referencein Registration Statement Nos. 333-108110, 333-141622, and 333-155053 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-05667, 333-02103, and 333-105404 on Form S-8 of Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., and Registration StatementNo. 333-155053-02 on Form S-3 of Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust II and Registration Statement No. 333-155053-01 on Form S-3 of Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust III of our reports dated February 20, 2009, withrespect to the consolidated balance sheets of Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for eachof the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, and our report dated February 20, 2009 on all related financial statementschedules, which reports are incorporated by reference and appear, respectively, in the 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. 

Our reports refer to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, *Fair Value Measurements*, in 2008 and FASB Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*, in 2007.

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Honolulu, Hawaii 

February 27, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

March 2, 2021

____________________________________ 

In the Matter of

ARCIS RESOURCES CORPORATION ORDER OF SUSPENSION OF 

TRADING

File No. 500-1

____________________________________ 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the public interest and the 

protection of investors require a suspension in the trading of the securities of Arcis Resources 

Corporation (“ARCS” or “the Company”) (CIK No. 0001465130), a Nevada corporation, 

because of questions regarding the accuracy and adequacy of information about the Company 

and its securities in the marketplace and because of potential fraud affecting the market for its 

securities, including among other things: (1) ARCS has not publicly provided information about 

its business or financials for several years; (2) in at least December 2020, certain social media 

accounts may have engaged in an attempt to influence ARCS’s share price by posting potentially 

misleading information; (3) during December 2020, ARCS’s share price and volume greatly 

increased in the absence of any publicly available news from the Company; and (4) in February 

2021, ARCS’s share price and volume experienced additional volatility.

ARCS’s common stock is quoted and traded on OTC Link whose parent company is 

OTC Markets Group Inc., under the symbol ARCS. As of February 18, 2021, ARCS’s stock had 

six market makers and was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of Rule 15c2-11(f)(3) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). 
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors 

require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Exchange Act, that 

trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. 

EST, on Wednesday, March 3, 2021 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on Tuesday, March 16, 2021. 

By the Commission. 

Vanessa A. Countryman 

Secretary
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- 

# /01'3 -'O/t-.;.2. Directorate Identifi er:



### llvo u make changes to the values in the table below. you must ensure the totals update u ccordingly 

### (t' they do not, cl ick (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell
. Estimated Costs : Action Costs per 

### Product (e.g., aircraft , engine, (e.g., In spection , propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + 

## u.s. for U
. S. Fleet Do not include on condition costs here access, testing, (@$85 /h parts) 

### Registered and close -up ) our) 

### Products 

### Major Inspection of 160 0 

### " I,044 

### the hub and blades 

### . \ (, j( I l) o!, I 11 1 II (II I I (l1 ('If '· I lit) ! • Ill 

### ' [\ I ti 

# "' ) I 

### '· l \0 'I I •, l) l) ()'I
<. ; t;' 'H) 

# " 1 t 1 

### n

.., ,),IJ( I ( ()I)**~** 1 1 1 11) (' I) )\ 

## ·'or, (l { '1. ' !11 'J 

## ··n ' ( ( ..) 1(1 ') '(ll () i)

\ )\ (It I H) (i J•

. i) i\t)



## . f) r 1**~** 

### ' ! I 1,(11 'l ('

' I 

# ,, ., ., Ill The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for 

### U
. S. fleet: $ 14 , 198 ,400 Costs covered under warranty 

### (if known) $


### On-Condition Costs:

## ~ Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g. , Inspection , (include access , ( @$ 85 /hour) testing , and c loserep lacement) up) < il >I I )I (I I )(.1 ., .. !)I
.: , )•j 

### ., 

## . (' <. ) l( ' {) 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use th i s field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might n ot be obvious. Thisfield can also be used to explain warranty costs) :

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a "s ignificant regulatory

# action**~** YES* 

# 0 NO 

# i:8J *Exp lanation : 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant?

# , YES* 

# 0 NO 

# i:8J *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No

# answer.**~** YES 

# 0 NO 

# i:8J Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? '

- YES* 

# 0 NO 

# i:8J *Explanation:
#### § 293.3 Time of payment.

Interest shall be paid only at time of disposition of principal cash when the immigration bond has been cancelled or declared breached.

[80 FR 34242, June 16, 2015]
§ 710.409 Disposal of excess real property. ( a ) Excess real property outside or within the approved right-of-way limits or other project limits may be sold or conveyed to a public entity or to a private party in accordance with § 710.403(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and this section. Approval by FHWA is required for disposal of excess real property unless otherwise provided in this section or in the FHWA-SDOT Stewardship/Oversight Agreement.
( b ) Federal, State, and local agencies shall be afforded the opportunity to acquire excess real property considered for disposal when such real property interests have potential use for parks, conservation, recreation, or related purposes, and when such a transfer is allowed by State law. When this potential exists, the grantee shall notify the appropriate agencies of its intentions to dispose of the real property interests determined to be excess.
( c ) The grantee may decide to retain excess real property to restore, preserve, or improve the scenic beauty and environmental quality adjacent to the transportation facility.
( d ) Where the transfer of excess real property to other agencies at less than fair market value for continued public use is clearly justified as in the public interest and approved by FHWA under § 710.403(e), the deed shall provide for reversion of the property for failure to continue public ownership and use. Where property is sold at fair market value, no reversion clause is required.
( e ) No FHWA approval is required for disposal of excess real property located outside of the approved ROW limits or other project limits if Federal funds did not participate in the acquisition cost of the real property.
( f ) Highway facilities in which Federal funds participated in either the ROW or construction may be relinquished to another governmental agency for continued highway use under the provisions of 23 CFR part 620, subpart B.
( g ) A request for approval of a disposal must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of § 710.403(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) and this section. An individual, company, organization, or public agency requesting a grantee to approve of a disposal of excess real property within the approved ROW limits or other project limits, or to approve of a disposal of excess real property outside the ROW limits that was acquired with title 23 of the United States Code funding, shall submit a written request to the grantee, together with an application supporting the proposal. If the FHWA is the approving authority, the grantee shall forward the request, the SDOT recommendation if the proposal affects a Federal-aid highway, the application, and proposed terms and conditions, together with its recommendation and any necessary supplemental information, to FHWA. The submission shall affirmatively provide for adherence to requirements contained in this section and must include the information specified in § 710.405(e)(1) through (9).
All PM test data from 2003 survey, ICR, Florida DEP, and PCA - Duplicates removed or multiple tests averaged **Test No. Data Source**  **Company Location**  **Kiln ID Raw MillOn/Off** **TestStart Date Wtd avg emissions (lb/tonclinker)**  **Notes**

1 PCA comments on NSPS Mitsubishi Lucerne V 1 on/off Apr02&Mar98 0.01 3 separate tests averaged 22003 Survey Lafarge Sugar Creek, MO Kiln Off 0.01 PCA result was incomplete; used complete test results instead 3PCA comments on NSPS cemex xenia 1 on/off mar02 0.02 4PCA & ICR lafarge harleyville kiln on/off oct06&Jun02 0.042 separate tests combined & 1 duplicate dropped 5Florida DEP Florida Rock Industries Newberry, FL Kiln/raw mill Line 1 N.R. 7/20/2004 0.05 6PCA comments on NSPS holcim theodore 1 on/off Jul02 0.06 7NESHAP ICR Ash Grove Louisville, NE Kiln 2 (Humbolt) - TDF N.A. 7/13/2005 0.06 8PCA comments on NSPS cemex louisville 1 on feb01 0.07 9 Florida DEP CEMEx Brooksville, FL Kiln #2 N.R. 3/10/2003 0.09 10 Florida DEP CEMEX Brooksville, FL Kiln #1 N.R. 12/13/2006 0.09 11 PCA comments on NSPS holcim florence 1 on/off Oct02&Jun03 0.092 separate tests combined 122003 Survey Mountain Laramie, WY Kiln #1 (April 2002) N.R. 0.10 13NESHAP ICR Lehigh Glen Falls, NY Kiln On 2/22/2006 0.11 14 ICR Ash Grove Louisville, NE Kiln 1(ACL) Dec-90 0.12 152003 Survey Illinois LaSalle, IL Kiln On 0.14 16PCA comments on NSPS Monarch Humbold 5 on/off jun04&Aug02 0.142 separate tests combined 17PCA comments on NSPS GCC Rio G Tijeras 2 NA dec02 0.15 18 ICR Lone Star Ogelsby, IL Kiln Nov-99 0.16 19NESHAP ICR Lehigh Mitchell, IN Kiln 1(after modification) N.A. 12/16/2003 0.23 20PCA comments on NSPS GCC Rio G Tijeras 1 NA dec02 0.25 21 PCA comments on NSPS Monarch Humbold 4 NA Aug02 0.28 22 PCA & ICR lafarge joppa 2 NA nov04&9/25/2002 0.41 2 separate tests combined 232003 Survey Mountain Laramie, WY Kiln #2, Mill On 4/1/2002 0.42 24PCA comments on NSPS lehigh mitchell 3 NA dec02 0.45 25 ICR Lone Star Pryor Kiln 3 Feb-97 1.05 26 ICR Lone Star Pryor Kiln 1 Feb-97 1.29 27 ICR Lone Star Pryor Kiln 2 Feb-97 1.29 28 ICR Ash Grove Seattle, WA Kiln Jul-92 1.44
No. 21366.

#### Benjamin Zesch *v.*The People of the State of Colorado.

(409 P.2d 522)

Decided January 10, 1966.

Ben Klein, for plaintiff in error.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, John P. Moore, Assistant, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Mr. Chief Justice Pringle

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a search and seizure case. The Attorney General confesses that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the fruits of the search and points out that the search warrant in issue here is constitutionally *20invalid under the express language of *Hernandez v. People,*153 Colo. 316, 385 P.2d 996, and *Aguilar v. Texas,*378 U.S. 108, 84 Sup. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed.2d 723. We agree. The search warrant was obtained upon an affidavit based on testimony of a policeman whose only source of information was a telephone call to the police department by a person who refused to give his name. Such an affidavit does not meet the constitutional requirement set forth in *Hernandez*and *Aguilar, supra.*

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.