alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 24, 2015 

Mr. Drew Smith 

P.O. Box 141 

Baraboo, WI 53913 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 8, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2187), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply 

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

INTERIM SCHEDULING ORDER 

REGARDING THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION PROCESS AND 

ORDER SETTING INTERIM CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Pursuant to the Court’s Order dated November 21, 2022 [ECF No. 1447], the Securities 

and Exchange Commission, Defendants Lisa McElhone and Joseph LaForte, and the Receiver, 

Ryan K. Stumphauzer (the “Receiver”) (collectively, the “Parties”), have conferred and proposed 

this schedule for the Court’s consideration regarding the claims administration process in this 

litigation. The Court, having reviewed the parties’ proposed scheduling order and the record in 

this matter, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. On or before December 2, 2022, the Receiver shall file a motion and proposed 

order with the Court to authorize the Receiver’s engagement of a claims administration company 

to assist the Receiver in the administration of the claims process in this litigation.

2. On or before December 16, 2022, the Receiver shall file a Motion to Establish and 

Approve (i) Procedure to Administer and Determine Claims, (ii) Proof of Claim Form, (iii) Claims 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1454 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Bar Date, and (iv) Notice Procedures, along with a proposed order, which will establish the claims 

administration process for this litigation.

3. The Court will conduct an interim status conference via Zoom on Wednesday 

January 11, 2023 at 11:00 A.M., during which the Court will request the Parties to provide an 

update regarding the progress of the claims administration process. The Zoom conference can be 

accessed at:

https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1619666946?pwd=eld5c29zeldQRFFjUDhDQkx4Rzd3Zz09 

Meeting ID is 161 966 6946 and the Passcode is 872384.

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 23rd day of November, 2022.

________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Counsel of Record

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1454 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2022 Page 2 of 2
#### § 107.1800 Licensee's agreement to terms and conditions in §§ 107.1810 and 107.1820.

Any Licensee that violates the terms and conditions of its Leverage is subject to SBA remedies. The terms, conditions and remedies in § 107.1810 apply to outstanding Debentures issued after April 25, 1994. The terms, conditions and remedies in § 107.1820 apply to outstanding Preferred Securities and Participating Securities issued after April 25, 1994, or if you have Earmarked Assets in your portfolio.
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.100 Entry, examination, and tariff status.

Except as otherwise provided for in §§ 10.101, 10.102, 10.104, 141.83(d)(8), 141.102(d), or elsewhere in this chapter, importations made by or for the account of any agency or office of the United States Government are subject to the usual Customs entry and examination requirements. In the absence of express exemptions from duty, such as are contained in subheadings 9808.00.10, 9808.00.20, 9808.00.30, 9808.00.40, 9808.00.50, 9808.00.60, 9808.00.70, or other subheadings in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (19 U.S.C. 1202) providing for free entry, such importations are also subject to duty.

[T.D. 77-23, 42 FR 2310, Jan. 11, 1977, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51251, Dec. 21, 1988; T.D. 97-82, 62 FR 51769, Oct. 3, 1997]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303

Tel. 404-562-4416 or 4417 Fax 404-562-4980

Internet: kmc2@nrc.gov or rdh1@nrc.gov

No: II-99-29 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Tuesday, April 20, 1999)

NRC STAFF SETS ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WITH ALABAMA COMPANY TO

DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATION OF NRC REGULATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a predecisional enforcement conference

in Atlanta on Thursday, April 22, to discuss with Code Services, Inc. of Madison, Alabama an

apparent violation of NRC requirements related to the use of radiation alarms during radiographic

operations.

The meeting will be held at 1:00 p.m. at the NRC’s Region II office, located in the Atlanta Federal

Center at 61 Forsyth Street on the 24th floor. It is open to observation by interested members of

the public and news media representatives. NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to

answer questions from interested observers.

NRC officials said an NRC inspection in March determined that, while the company was doing

radiographic work at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama during

February, a radiographer’s assistant entered a radiography boundary without an alarm ratemeter

while radiographic equipment was being used. Radiographic equipment uses a radioactive source

to make x-ray-like images of piping and other industrial systems. In 1998, Code Services had also

been cited twice by the State of Alabama for failures to properly use alarm ratemeters in areas

under state jurisdiction.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that a determination

has been made that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. The purpose

is to discuss the apparent violation, its causes and safety significance; to provide the licensee with

an opportunity to point out errors that may have been made in NRC inspection reports; and to

enable the licensee to outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action, such as a civil

penalty, will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later

time.

#
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

ˇ ̨ ̋ ̧ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̇ ̆ ̄ ̃ˆ ˇ ̊ ̨ ̨

ˇ

 ̧ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊  ̊ ̇ ̇ ̆

 ̨ ̧ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̆ ̆ ̄ ̆ ̃ ̆

 ̄ ̨ ̧ ̊ ̊ ̊ 

ˇ ̊ ̨ˇ ̊ ̊ ̋ ̊ ̊  ̄ ̃

 ̊ ̊ ̊ˇ  ̊  ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̨ ̊ˇ ̊  ̊ ̊ˇ ̊ ̨ ̋

 ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ 

 ̃ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ˇ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ˇ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊

 ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ 

 ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊  ̄ ̃ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊

 ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊

 ̊ ̊ ̧ˆ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̄ ̃ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊

 ̄ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊

 ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ˇ ̊ ̊ 

 ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊



  ̄ ̃ ̊  ̊ ̊  ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ 

 ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ˇ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ 

 ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊  ̊ ̊ ̊ ̊
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EGAN, Respondent, v. TAYLOR, et al, Appellants (Walkin, Intervener and Respondent.)

(184 N. W. 244.)

(File No. 4877.

Opinion filed August 31, 1921.

Rehearing denied November 22, 1921.)

Fraudulent Conveyances — Judgment Creditors — Conflictng Evdience, Facts Only Involved — Findings Not Against Clear Preponderance — Affirmance.

In an action by judgment creditors against defendant grantor and his alleged fraudulent grantees, to set aside such conveyances, the evidence being voluminous and quite conflicting, and facts only being involved; held, that, findings not being against clear preponderance of evidence, judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Whiting, J., not sitting.

Appeal from 'Circuit Court, Day County. 'Hon. Frank And-' Urson, Judge.

Action by First National Bank of Egan, a corporation, against A. I .Tajdor, also known as Albert I. Taylor, and others; John Walkin, Intervener, as judgment creditors to have set aside certain- conveyances as fraudulent.- From a judgment for plaintiff *509and the intervener, ancl from an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

*Parliman & Parliman,*for Appellants.

*Rice & Rice,*and *Waddel & Dougherty,*for Respondent.

*Loncks, Hasche & Foley,*for Intervener and Respondent.

MoCOY, J.

This action was instituted by plaintiff and also the intervener, as judgment creditors of Albert I. Taylor, defendant, to have certain real estate transfers and mortgages made by the said defendant Albert I. Taylor to the defendants John C. Taylor and Lottie Jennie Taylor set aside on the ground that such transfers and mortgages were made with the fraudulent intent and purpose of defrauding, hindering, and delaying the said creditors of the said Albert I. Taylor in the collection of their debts. The trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the plaintiff and the intervener. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff and intervener, and order denying new trial, the defendants appeal.

The vital question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of fact. The evidence is voluminous and quite conflicting, and it will serve no useful purpose to make a resume thereof in this opinion. This appeal involves only questions of fact. On numerous occasions this court has held that it will not disturb findings of the trial court based on conflicting testimony. In this case the learned trial court saw and heard the witnesses testify, observed their demeanor on the witness stand, and gave such credence thereto as he deemed the same entitled. We cannot say that the findings as made are against the clear preponderance of the evidence. All assignments of error have been carefully considered.

'Finding no prejudicial error in the record, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

WHITING, J„ not sitting.
#### § 115.62 Where to apply.

A manufacturer may apply for approval of a road vehicle by design type to a Certifying Authority of the country in which the road vehicle is manufactured, if such country is a contracting party to the TIR Convention, 1975.
§ 208.22 Preparedness Cooperative Agreement process. ( a ) *Application.* To obtain DHS funding for an award or amendment of a Preparedness Cooperative Agreement, the Sponsoring Agency must submit an application. Standard form SF-424 “Application for Federal Assistance” generally will be used. However, the application must be in a form that the Assistance Officer specifies.
( b ) *Award.* DHS will award a Preparedness Cooperative Agreement to each Sponsoring Agency to provide Federal funding to develop and maintain System resource capabilities and operational readiness. For the purposes of the Preparedness Cooperative Agreement, the Sponsoring Agency will be considered the “recipient.”
( c ) *Amendment* — ( 1 ) *Procedure.* Absent special circumstances, DHS will fund and amend Preparedness Cooperative Agreements on an annual basis. Before amendment, the Assistance Officer will issue a call for Cooperative Agreement amendment applications. The Assistance Officer will specify required application forms and supporting documentation to be submitted with the application.
( 2 ) *Period of performance.* Absent special circumstances, the period of performance for Preparedness Cooperative Agreements will be 1 year from the date of award. The Assistance Officer may allow for an alternate period of performance with the approval of the Assistant Administrator.
( 3 ) *Assistance Officer.* The Assistance Officer is the only individual authorized to award or modify a Preparedness Cooperative Agreement.
( d ) *Award amounts.* The Assistant Administrator will determine award amounts on an annual basis. A Task Force is eligible for an annual award only if the Program Manager receives and approves the Task Force's current-year Daily Cost Estimate.
( e ) *DHS priorities.* The Assistant Administrator will establish overall priorities for the use of Preparedness Cooperative Agreement funds taking into consideration the results of readiness evaluations and actual Activations, overall priorities of DHS, and other factors, as appropriate.
( f ) *Cost sharing.* The Assistant Administrator may subject Preparedness Cooperative Agreement awards to cost sharing provisions. In the call for Preparedness Cooperative Agreement amendment applications, the Assistance Officer must inform Sponsoring Agencies about any cost sharing obligations.
( g ) *Sponsoring Agency priorities.* The Sponsoring Agency should indicate its spending priorities in the application. The Program Manager will review these priorities and will make recommendations to the Assistance Officer for negotiating the final agreement.
( h ) *Responsibility to maintain integrity of the equipment cache.* The Sponsoring Agency is responsible to maintain the integrity of the equipment cache, including but not limited to, maintenance of the cache, replacement of equipment or supplies expended in training, activations, or local use of the cache, and timely availability of the cache for Task Force Activations.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

61 Forsyth Street, Suite 23T85

Atlanta, GA 30303

No: II-97-86 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark or Roger Hannah (Friday, December 12,997)

NRC STAFF TO HOLD PREDECISIONAL ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE

WITH CP&L TO DISCUSS REGULATORY CONCERNS AT BRUNSWICK

Meeting In Atlanta Will Be Open To Public

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a predecisional enforcement

conference in Atlanta on December 19 from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon to discuss regulatory

compliance concerns at the Brunswick nuclear power plant, operated by Carolina Power & Light

Company near Southport, NorthCarolina.

NRC officials said they will discuss a two-part regulatory concern for failure to promptly take

action when Unit 1 drywell temperatures exceeded existing limits after a cooler fan failed, and failure to

promptly take action to correct a design deficiency where the pressure suppression design function of

primary containment could be bypassed under certain operating conditions.

The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. in the NRC’s Region II office on the 24th floor of the

Atlanta Federal Center, located at 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. While the meeting is between the NRC and

CP&L, members of the public are welcome to attend to observe, and NRC officials will be available at its

conclusion to answer questions from interested observers.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that a

determination has been made that a violation has occurred or that enforcement action will be taken. The

purpose of the conference is to discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to

provide the licensee an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC

inspection report; and to enable the company to outline its proposed corrective actions. No decision on

the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action, such as a civil penalty, will be made at

the conference. Those decisions will be made later by senior NRC officials.

#

EDITORS: Recorded information on all upcoming NRC predecisional enforcement conferences may be

obtained by dialing 1-800-952-9674. A copy of the inspection report covering the issues to be discussed

at this conference is available upon request.

#
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.773 Value of materials. ( a ) *General.* For purposes of § 10.770(b) of this subpart and, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the value of a material produced in the territory of one or both of the Parties includes the following: ( 1 ) The price actually paid or payable for the material by the producer of the good;
( 2 ) The freight, insurance, packing and all other costs incurred in transporting the material to the producer's plant, if such costs are not included in the price referred to in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
( 3 ) The cost of waste or spoilage resulting from the use of the material in the growth, production, or manufacture of the good, less the value of recoverable scrap; and
( 4 ) Taxes or customs duties imposed on the material by one or both of the Parties, if the taxes or customs duties are not remitted upon exportation from the territory of a Party.
( b ) *Exception.* If the relationship between the producer of a good and the seller of a material influenced the price actually paid or payable for the material, or if there is no price actually paid or payable by the producer for the material, the value of the material produced in the territory of one or both of the Parties, includes the following: ( 1 ) All expenses incurred in the growth, production, or manufacture of the material, including general expenses;
( 2 ) A reasonable amount for profit; and
( 3 ) The freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs incurred in transporting the material to the producer's plant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DENNIS HOLLOMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 295 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DENNIS HOLLOMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 296 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DENNIS HOLLOMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 297 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v. :

:

:

:

:

: No. 298 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court[ 295 EAL 2021, 296 EAL 2021, 297 EAL 2021, 298 EAL 2021, 299 EAL 2021, 300 EAL

2021, 301 EAL 2021 and 302 EAL 2021 ]

- 2 DENNIS HOLLOMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DENNIS HOLLOMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 299 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DENNIS HOLLOMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 300 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DENNIS HOLLOMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 301 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent :

:

:

: No. 302 EAL 2021[ 295 EAL 2021, 296 EAL 2021, 297 EAL 2021, 298 EAL 2021, 299 EAL 2021, 300 EAL

2021, 301 EAL 2021 and 302 EAL 2021 ]

- 3 v.

DENNIS HOLLOMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

: Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of January, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.

Justice Brobson did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
### §336. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 336 was editorially reclassified as section 4535 of this title.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

RIV: 98-16 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Breck Henderson April 22, 1998

OFFICE: 817/860-8128

PAGER: (800) 443-7243 (065477)

E-MAIL: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC INSPECTION FINDS APPARENT VIOLATION OF FEDERAL

REGULATION; AGENCY REQUIRES FURTHER INFORMATION

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a report on a special

inspection and investigation of Envirocare of Utah, which operates a radioactive waste

disposal facility near Clive, Utah.

The inspection, conducted last October, determined that Envirocare apparently

violated NRC regulations by possessing special nuclear material in quantities in excess

of Federal limits between May and September 1997. A subsequent investigation,

concluded in February, has raised a concern that this apparent violation may involve

careless disregard for the NRC’s regulatory requirements.

In his letter transmitting the report to Envirocare, NRC Regional Administrator

Ellis W. Merschoff has directed that the company provide information concerning the

reasons for the apparent violation (including the issue of careless disregard); corrective

steps that have been taken and results achieved; measures taken to avoid further

violations; and the date when full compliance with NRC requirements will be achieved.

Mr. Merschoff said NRC is postponing a decision on enforcement action until current

enforcement proceedings between Envirocare and the State of Utah on the same issue

are concluded.

Special nuclear material is defined as certain isotopes of uranium and plutonium

that, in sufficient quantity and geometry, could result in a nuclear fission chain reaction.

However, there was never any possibility that such a chain reaction could have

occurred at Envirocare because the special nuclear material was dispersed through

many tons of contaminated soil and other wastes received from various sources.

The company has 30 days to comply with the demand for information.

###

EDITORS: The text of the letter is attached. Both the letter and the text of the

inspection report will be posted on the Internet at

www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports.