alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.804 The appeal petition. ( a ) *Form.* There is no required format for an appeal petition. However, it must include the following: ( 1 ) The completed SBA Dispute Form;
( 2 ) A copy of the Step One and Step Two decisions, if any;
( 3 ) Statement of why the Step Two decision (or Step One decision, if no Step Two decision was received), is alleged to be in error;
( 4 ) Any other pertinent information the OHA Judge should consider;
( 5 ) A request for mediation, if applicable; and
( 6 ) If represented by an attorney, the attorney's contact information and signature.
( b ) *Service of the appeal petition upon the SBA.* The Employee must serve copies of the entire appeal petition upon three SBA officials: ( 1 ) The Step Two Official;
( 2 ) Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416; and
( 3 ) Associate General Counsel for General Law, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, e-mail: *OGLService@sba.gov ,* except that an employee of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) must serve it upon the Counsel to the Inspector General, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416, e-mail: *ig.counseldiv@sba.gov .*
( c ) The rules governing filing and service are in § 134.204.
( d ) *Dismissal.* An appeal petition that does not meet all the requirements of this section may be dismissed by the Judge at his or her own initiative or upon motion of the SBA.
[75 FR 47443, Aug. 6, 2010, as amended at 82 FR 25507, June 2, 2017]
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS   Document 207-34   Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023   Page 1 of 1
#### § 127.500 In what industries is a contracting officer authorized to restrict competition or make a sole source award under this part?

A contracting officer may restrict competition or make a sole source award under this part only in those industries in which SBA has determined that WOSBs are underrepresented or substantially underrepresented in Federal procurement, as specified in § 127.501, regardless of the place of performance.

[80 FR 55022, Sept. 14, 2015, as amended at 81 FR 48593, July 25, 2016]
July 21, 2015 

Dear Mr. Gregory Phillips: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA-2015-1659). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Your petition references the material listed below, however the material was not 

submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials: 

o Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 8/4/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-98-46 July 24, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC STAFF FINDS SUFFICIENT IMPROVEMENTS FOR RESTART

OF UNIT 1 OF THE LASALLE NUCLEAR POWER STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that

Commonwealth Edison Company has made sufficient improvements at

Unit 1 of the LaSalle Nuclear Power Station for the unit to

resume operations. The two-reactor facility is located near

Seneca, Illinois.

The utility is planning to begin startup of the unit next

week.

Both units were shut down in September 1996 for refueling

and maintenance and remained shut down for extensive plant

modifications, staff retraining, and other performance

improvement initiatives.

The NRC staff and utility officials met today to review the

readiness of Unit 1 to resume operations. The utility has

focused its efforts on Unit 1, and Unit 2 will remain shut down

for similar plant modifications and improvements.

In April of last year, the NRC staff issued a Confirmatory

Action Letter to the company, documenting its agreement to

develop a performance improvement plan and to meet with the NRC

staff periodically to review plant status. Today's meeting was

the final meeting of that review process.

The NRC has performed extensive inspections at the LaSalle

plant, including a review by a 10-person team of the readiness of

Unit 1 for restart. This review was completed Tuesday and, along

with other recent inspections, provided the basis for the NRC's

conclusion that the plant was ready for restart.

The NRC will increase its inspection oversight of the plant

during the startup process, including round-the-clock monitoring

of control room activities for the first few days of operation.

Work on Unit 2 will also be monitored closely.

####
2
§ 61.14 Standard Flood Insurance Policy Interpretations. ( a ) *Definition.* A Standard Flood Insurance Policy Interpretation is a written determination by the Federal Insurance Administrator construing the scope of the flood insurance coverage that has been and is provided under the policy.
( b ) *Publication and requests for interpretation.* The Federal Insurance Administrator shall, pursuant to these regulations from time to time, issue interpretative rulings regarding the provisions of the Standard Flood Insurance Policy. Such Interpretations shall be published in the Federal Register, made a part of appendix C to these regulations, and incorporated by reference as part of these regulations. Any policyholder or person in privity with a policyholder may file a request for an interpretation in writing with the Federal Insurance Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472.
[43 FR 2570, Jan. 17, 1978. Redesignated at 44 FR 31177, May 31, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 39072, Aug. 29, 1983]
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

**pursuant to Section 302 of the**

**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, David B. Kaysen, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Diametrics Medical,Inc.; 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial 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 significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date:November 14, 2003
EX-10.8





 Exhibit 10.8 

To: Guangzhou Liangkeshu Network Technology Co., Ltd. 
 To Whom
It May Concern: 
 To ensure the cash flow requirements of Guangzhou Liangkeshu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (the “VIE”) operations are met
and/or to set off any loss accrued during such operations, the undersigned, Onion Global Limited (the “Company”), is obligated and hereby undertakes to provide unlimited financial support to the VIE, to the extent permissible
under the applicable PRC laws and regulations, whether or not any such operational loss is actually incurred. The form of financial support shall include, but not limited to, extension of cash, entrusted loans and borrowings. The Company will not
request repayment of the loans or borrowings if the VIE or its shareholders do not have sufficient funds or are unable to repay. 
 The undersigned agrees
and acknowledges such undertaking shall be irrevocable and continuously valid from signing date until the earlier of (1) the date on which all of the equity interests of the VIE have been acquired directly or indirectly by the Company or its
designated representative (individual or legal person); or (2) the date of unilateral termination by the Company, at its sole and absolution discretion, by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice to the VIE of its intention to
terminate this letter. 
 Please confirm receipt of this letter by returning a signed copy of this letter to the undersigned. 

 

			
	Onion Global Limited
	
	/s/ Li Cong
	Name:	 	Li Cong
	Title:	 	Director
§ 7.944 Prohibition against intimidation or retaliation. A recipient may not engage in acts of intimidation or retaliation against any person who: ( a ) Attempts to assert a right protected by the Act or this regulation; or
( b ) Cooperates in any mediation, investigation, hearing, or other part of FEMA's investigation, conciliation and enforcement process.
#### Dorothea R. Turpin, as Administratrix, Respondent, v. David B. Fleming, Sr., Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER III—PERSONNEL
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 96-132 FOR IMMEDIATER RELEASE

(Friday, October 4, 1996)

NRC PROPOSES TO BROADEN SCOPE

OF DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT RULE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to broaden

the scope of its regulation which prohibits individual misconduct

that could cause violations of NRC requirements.

The proposed changes would extend the coverage of what is

known as the NRC Deliberate Misconduct Rule to include applicants

for licenses or certificates, as well as their employees or

consultants. At present, the rule, adopted in 1991, applies only

to current licensees and their employees.

NRC moved to make this change as the result of an

enforcement action taken shortly after the Deliberate Misconduct

Rule took effect. In that case, the NRC staff found that a

materials license had been granted based on false information in

a license application prepared by the applicant's consultant.

NRC revoked the license, but lacked authority to take additional

enforcement action against the individuals involved.

The NRC believes that false information submitted by an

applicant could have serious safety consequences. For example, a

spent fuel cask that is certified by the NRC on the basis of

falsified data could pose a threat to public health and safety.

Proposed amendments would subject the following additional

individuals to the Deliberate Misconduct Rule:

ˇ All applicants for licenses;

ˇ Applicants for or holders of early site permits,

certified designs, and combined licenses for nuclear

power plants;

ˇ Applicants for and holders of certificates of

compliance, certificates of registrations, and quality

assurance program approvals; and
ˇ Employees, contractors, subcontractors and consultants

of all the above.

The public has 75 days to comment on the proposed amendments

which were published in the October 4 edition of the Federal

Register. Comments may be addressed to the Secretary, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attn:

Docketing and Service Branch. Comments may be hand-delivered to

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and

4:15 p.m. on federal workdays.

###
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-29454 

03-OCT-2013 

02:06 PM 

SCWC-29454
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

THOMAS FRANK SCHMIDT and LORINNA JHINCIL SCHMIDT,


Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees,
 

vs.
 

HSC, INC., a Hawai'i corporation,


RICHARD HENDERSON, SR., and ELEANOR R.J. HENDERSON,


Respondents/Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(ICA NOS. 29454 and 29589; CIV. NO. 06-1-0228)
 

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.


and Circuit Judge Garibaldi, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)
 

It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court 

of Appeals at the time the application for writ of certiorari was 

filed, see Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2011); see 

also Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) 

(2012), 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners/Plaintiffs-


Appellants, Cross-Appellees’ application for writ of certiorari,
 

filed on September 26, 2013, is dismissed without prejudice to
 
re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1()a) (2012) 


(“The application shall be filed within thirty days after the
 

filing of the intermediate court of appeals’ judgment on appeal
 

or dismissal order, unless the time for filing the application is
 

extended in accordance with this rule.”).
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 3, 2013. 

R Steven Geshell 

and Thomas P. Dunn 

for petitioners	 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 


/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

/s/ Colette Y. Garibaldi
 

2
#### In the Matter of the Application of Matthew A. McLaughlin, Jr., for Admission to Practice as an Attorney. (From the State of South Carolina.)

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.
#### Sadie Schrold et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of New York, Appellant, and Oceana Realty Corporation, Impleaded Defendant-Respondent.

The plaintiff wife, a pedestrian, sued the City of New York to recover damages for personal injuries suffered as the result of a defect in a public sidewalk. The defect was occasioned by failure to repair an open drainpipe, maintained for the special benefit of respondent’s property. On appellant’s application, respondent, abutting owner, was impleaded as a defendant and a cross complaint served on it by the City of New York. Plaintiff recovered judgment against appellant. No appeal is taken from that portion of the judgment. Defendant City of New York, however, appeals from so much of the judgment as dismissed its cross complaint against respondent on the latter’s motion, made at the close of the case. Judgment modified on the law by striking out that portion which dismissed the city’s cross complaint and substituting therefor a provision granting judgment in favor of the City of New York against respondent Oceana Bealty Corporation, as prayed for in the city’s cross complaint. As thus modified, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is unanimously affirmed, with costs to the appellant. In view of the concession made by respondent in this court, that the accident was caused by plaintiff wife falling into a hole caused by the absence of a cover over á drainpipe maintained for the special benefit of respondent’s property, appellant was entitled to recover against respondent by way of indemnity for the loss it sustained by reason of being compelled to pay the judgment in favor *873of plaintiff. *(Satta*v. *City of New Torio,*272 App. Div. 782; *Nicicelsburg*v. *City of New Torio,*263 App. Div. 625; *Washington Gas Co.*v. *Dist. of Columbia,*161 U. S. 316.) Present — Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–011 2005

109th Congress 1st Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 109–41 

A REPORT TO THE CONGRESS CONCERNING THE 

EXTENSION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR VIETNAM 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE 

TRANSMITTING

A RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT A WAIVER OF APPLICATION OF SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 402 OF 

THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 WITH RESPECT TO VIETNAM FOR A 

FURTHER 12-MONTH PERIOD AND A DETERMINATION THAT 

CONTINUATION OF THE WAIVER CURRENTLY IN EFFECT FOR 

VIETNAM WILL SUBSTANTIALLY PROMOTE THE OBJECTIVES OF 

SECTION 402 OF THE ACT AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH A DETERMINATION, PURSUANT TO 19 U.S.C. 2432(C) AND (D) 

JULY 11, 2005.—Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and 

ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(1) 

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

U.S. DEAPRTMENT OF STATE, 

Washington, DC. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of the Secretary, I am transmitting to you the Determination and Report to the Congress, referred 

to in Subsection 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (the ‘‘Act’’), as 

amended, with respect to the continuation of a waiver of application of Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 402 of the Act to Vietnam. 

This document constitutes the Secretary’s recommendation to 

continue this waiver for a further twelve-month period and includes her determination that continuing the waiver currently in 

effect for Vietnam will substantially promote the objectives of Section 402 of the Act, and the reasons for such determination. 

I hope that this information will be helpful to you and other 

Members of Congress. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can 

be of further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

MATTHEW A. REYNOLDS, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs. 

Enclosure: As stated. 

(3) 


Insert graphic folio 3 here HD41.001
4 


Insert graphic folio 4 here HD41.002
5 


Insert graphic folio 5 here HD41.003
6 


Insert graphic folio 6 here HD41.004
7 


Insert graphic folio 7 here HD41.005
Editorial Note on Part 4
Editorial Note: For additional information, see related documents published at 47 FR 57369, Dec. 23, 1982; 48 FR 17101, Apr. 21, 1983; and 48 FR 29096, June 24, 1983.

§ 4.7 How does the Administrator communicate with State and local officials concerning FEMA's programs and activities? ( a ) For those programs and activities covered by a state process under § 4.6, the Administrator, to the extent permitted by law: ( 1 ) Uses the state process to determine views of State and local elected officials; and,
( 2 ) Communicates with State and local elected officials, through the state process, as early in a program planning cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions.
( b ) The Administrator provides notice to directly affected State, areawide, regional, and local entities in a State of proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal development if: ( 1 ) The State has not adopted a process under the Order; or
( 2 ) The assistance or development involves a program or activity not selected for the State process.
This notice may be made by publication in the Federal Register or other appropriate means, which FEMA in its discretion deems appropriate.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. E. De Motte Lyon, Relator, v. Thomas Nelson and Others, as Board of Trustees of the Village of Peekskill, and Albert E. Cruger, as Clerk of Said Village, Respondents.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ. Settle order before Mr. Justice Stapleton.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7054

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANIF CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-93-10, CA-96-916-R)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 21, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anif Christopher Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Ruth Elizabeth

Plagenhoef, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anif Christopher Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-93-10;

CA-96-916-R (W.D. Va. June 1, 1998). 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