alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
0 Sr. 

# I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX PH01 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

# SP 30 2014 The Honorable Reggie Lewis, Chairperson Picayune Rancheria ofChukchansi Indians ofCalifornia 

### 46575 Road 417 Coarsegold, California 93614 Dear Chairperson Lewis: Pursuantto Executive Order 1 3175 and the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, I would like to invite the Picayune Rancheria ofChukchansi indians ofCalifornia to engage in government-to-governmentconsultation on action EPA is considering to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley nonattainment area from Moderate nonattainmentto Serious nonattainment fortwo National AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM 2

. 5 ). The San Joaquin Valley is currently classified Moderate nonattainment fortwo PM 2

. 5 NAAQS established in 1997 and 2006. EPA is evaluating air quality and modeling analyses regarding the ability ofthe San Joaquin Valley to attain the 1997 and the 2006 PM 2

. 5 NAAQS by the applicable attainment dates for each standard. Consistent with these evaluations, EPA is also considering action to reclassify the San Joaquin Valley as Serious nonattainment forthe 1997 and 2006 PM 2

. 5 NAAQS. These reclassification actions would establish new attainment dates and outline new air quality planning requirements. These reclassifications would also lowerthe applicable “major source” thresholds forthe purposes ofthe nonattainment new source review program and the Title V operating permit program from its current level of 100 tons per year (tpy) to 70 tpy, potentially subjecting more stationary sources to these requirements. The reclassifications may also lowerthe de minimis threshold forthe Clean AirAct’s General Conformity requirement from 100 tpy to 70 tpy. Underthe General Conformity requirement, Federal agencies bearthe responsibility ofdetermining conformity ofactions in nonattainment and maintenance areas that require Federal permits, approvals, or funding. To ensure thatthe interests and concerns ofthe Picayune Rancheria ofChukchansi Indians ofCalifornia are considered, I would like to invite you oryour designated consultation representative to engage in government-to-governmentconsultation with EPA. To request further information, orto initiate consultation. please have your staffcontact Mr. Kerry Drake, Associate Director, Air Division, at (415) 947-41 57 orby electronic mail at drake.kerryepa.gov. Ifyou desire government-to-government consultation with EPA, we respectfully requestthatyou notify us by October 27, 2014. Thankyou and I look forward to receiving your input. Sincerel ‘,

Deborah Jordan Director, Air Division

I’rz,,te(l Ufl Re(c/ed I tlJler
### §88b–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 88b–4 was editorially reclassified as section 4913 of this title.
(March 10, 1949.)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald J. Sadness, Appellant.

Foster, P. J., Heffeman, Brewster, Deyo and Bergan, JJ., concur.
### §6102a. Assistance awards information system

(a) The Director shall—

(1) maintain the United States Government assistance awards information system established as a result of the study conducted under section 9 of the Federal Program Information Act; and

(2) update the system on a quarterly basis.

(b) To carry out subsection (a) of this section, the Director—

(1) may delegate the responsibility for carrying out subsection (a) of this section to the head of another executive agency;

(2) shall review a report the head of an agency submits to the Director on the method of carrying out subsection (a) of this section; and

(3) may validate, by appropriate means, the method by which an agency prepares the report.

(c) The Director shall transmit promptly after the end of each calendar quarter, free of charge, the data in the system required by subsection (a) to the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate and to the Committee on House Oversight of the House of Representatives.

(Added Pub. L. 97–452, §1(23)(A), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2477; amended Pub. L. 98–169, §1(2), Nov. 29, 1983, 97 Stat. 1113; Pub. L. 99–547, §2(b)(1), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3060; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §219(b)(2), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1748.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6102a | 31 App.:6102(note). | Oct. 15, 1982, Pub. L. 97–326, §8, 96 Stat. 1609. |

In subsection (a)(1), the words "operate and" are omitted as surplus. The words "United States Government" are substituted for "Federal" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The words "information system" are substituted for "data system" for consistency with 31:6102. The words "by the Director" are omitted as surplus.

In subsection (b)(1), the words "the head of another executive agency" are substituted for "any authority of the executive branch of the Federal Government" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code.

In subsection (b)(2), the words "the head of" are added for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the Code.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 9 of the Federal Program Information Act, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), is section 9 of Pub. L. 95–220, Dec. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1617, and was repealed by Pub. L. 97–258, §5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1068.

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–186 substituted "House Oversight" for "House Administration".

1986—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–547 added subsec. (c).

1983—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–169 substituted "Director" for "Director of the Office of Management and Budget".

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on House Oversight of House of Representatives changed to Committee on House Administration of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Sixth Congress, Jan. 6, 1999.
Exhibit 8.1

                                 ANTENNA TV S.A.

                                  Subsidiaries

1.       Nova Televizia S.A. (Bulgaria)
2.       Radio Express S.A. (Bulgaria)
3.       Part Time Simvouleftiki S.A. (Greece)
4.       Radiotileoptikes Epihirisis S.A. (Antenna Radio) (Greece)
5.       Antenna Spoudastiki EPE    (Greece)
6.       Pacific Broadcast Distribution Ltd. (Liberia)
7.       Audiotex S.A. (Greece)
8.       Daphne Communications S.A. (Greece)
#### Arthur Wolfsohn Company, Inc., v. Max Jaffe and Others.

Entry of judgment pending determination of appeal allowed to the amount of $8,000; in other respects, motion for stay granted. Order to be settled on notice. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
#### Frehiwot TAFESSE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 01-2203.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 18, 2002.

Decided May 29, 2002.

Frehiwot Tafesse, Petitioner Pro Se. Paul J. McNulty, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Allen Warren Hausman, Assistant Director, Joshua Eric Terrence Braunstein, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Frehiwot Tafesse, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her untimely motion to reopen. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. 8 C.F.R. § 3.2(a), (b)(1) (2001); *Matter of Cerna,*20 I. *&*N. Dec. 399 (BIA 1991). We accordingly affirm the Board’s order. We grant Respondent’s motion for leave to file answering brief out of time, and 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 99.1

[Esoft Letterhead]

March 27,
2002

Securities
and Exchange Commission
Washington, D.C. 20549

Dear
Securities and Exchange Commission:

Arthur
Andersen LLP has audited the consolidated financial statements of eSoft, Inc. as of December 31, 2001, and for the year then ended and has issued its report thereon
dated January 25, 2002. Arthur Andersen LLP has represented to us in a letter dated March 25, 2002 that their audit of the financial statements of eSoft, Inc. was subject to their
quality control system for U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Arthur Andersen LLP personnel working on the audit, and that there was availability of national office consultation. The letter further states that the availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Arthur Andersen LLP was not relevant to this audit.

Very
truly yours,

/s/
Amy Beth Bennett

Amy
Beth Bennett
Vice President, Finance

---
exv10w62



 





EXHIBIT 10.62



JPS INDUSTRIES, INC.



555 North Pleasantburg Drive



Suite 202




Greenville, SC 29607-2181




Phone: (864) 239-3916



Fax: (864) 271-9939




Michael L. Fulbright



Chairman, President and




Chief Executive Officer




December 19, 2002




Mr. Charles R. Tutterow




18315 Invergorden Lane





Cornelius, NC 28031





Dear Mr. Tutterow:



     
We are writing with respect to your employment
agreement (the “Agreement”) with JPS Industries, Inc.
(the “Company”) dated May 30, 2000, a copy of
which is attached hereto. The Company desires to amend the
Agreement by extending the term of employment in the Agreement
from December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2003. All
references in the Agreement to December 31, 2002, shall
hereafter be deemed to be December 31, 2003, and all
references to the “Employment Period” shall hereafter
be deemed to end on December 31, 2003. All other terms,
definitions and conditions in the Agreement shall remain
unchanged, and the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect with no changes other than as specifically referenced
herein.



     
If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, please
so indicate by signing and returning to the Company the enclosed
copy of this letter agreement.




		
	 	
    JPS INDUSTRIES, INC.
    
	 
	 	
    /s/ Michael L. Fulbright
    
	 	
    

	 	
    President and C.E.O.
    





ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:




/s/ Charles R. Tutterow










Charles R. Tutterow
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov 

No. III-03-062 September 30, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO MEET WITH FIRSTENERGY ON LONG-TERM SAFETY CULTURE PLANS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating

Company officials on Wednesday, October 1, in Lisle, Illinois, to discuss the company’s long-term

plans for monitoring the safety culture of the staff and management at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power

Station.

The plant, located near Oak Harbor, Ohio, has been shut down since February of last year as the

result of corrosion damage to the reactor vessel head.

The company and the NRC have identified weaknesses in the plant’s safety culture as key

causes for FirstEnergy’s failure to prevent significant damage to the reactor vessel head.

The meeting will be at 12:30 p.m. CDT in the NRC’s Region III Office, 801 Warrenville Road,

Lisle. Visitors should first report to the Second Floor reception area. The public is invited to observe

the business portion of the meeting and will have an opportunity to make comments and ask questions

of the NRC staff before the meeting is adjourned.

Interested individuals, unable to attend, may listen to the meeting by telephone by calling 888-

769-8514. The pass code for this teleconference is “Davis-Besse.” One hundred telephone lines will

be available.

The meeting will also be available for viewing by videoconference at the NRC’s Headquarters

Office, Room 3B4, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

# # #
9 /2 2 / 1 3 D et a i l s : R e fr i g e r at o r s a n d W i n e C h i l l e r s | E n e r g y E f fi c i e n c y R at i n g s | O f

fi c e o f E n e r g y E f

fi c i e n c y

o e e

. n r c a n

. g c

. c a

/ p m l

- l m p / i n d e x

. c fm ? a c t i o n = a p p

. f

o r m H a n d l e r & o p e r at i o n = d et a i l s - d et a i l s & r e f = 4 4 2 8 5 5 5 & a p p l i a n c e = R E F R I G E R A T O R S & n r = 1 1 / 1 M o d e l B ra n d A n n u a l E n e r g y C o n s u m p t i o n

( k W h / y e a r ) E N E R G Y S T A R T y p e D e f r o s t M e c h a n i s m F r e e z e r L o c a t i o n T o t a l V o l u m e ( l i t r e s ) T o t a l V o l u m e ( f t 3 ) S i z e C a t e g o r

y o n E n e r G u i d e

L a b e l T h r o u g h t h e D o o r I c e S e r v i c e R e f r i g e r a t o r V o l u m e ( l i t r e s ) R e f r i g e r a t o r V o l u m e ( f t 3 ) F r e e z e r V o l u m e ( l i t r e s ) F r e e z e r V o l u m e ( f t 3 ) D i s c o n t i n u e d D a t e 3 0 3 6 B V W C U
- L i n e 4 4 5
N C o m p a c t r e f r i g e ra t o r A u t o m a t i c N o f r e e z e r 2 0 1

. 6 1 6 7

. 1 2 3
N o 2 0 1

. 6 1 6 7

. 1 2 0 0 D o w n l o a d M o d e l ( s ) 

# E n e r g y E f

f i c i e n c y R a t i n g s : D e t a i l s R e f r i g e r a t o r s a n d W i n e C h i l l e r s ( S e l e c t a N e w P r o d u c t )
R e m e m b e r t h a t t h e l o w e r t h e a n n u a l e n e r g y c o n s u m p t i o n ra t i n g , t h e l o w e r y o u r e l e c t r i c i t y b i l l s . E N E R G Y S T A R t e c h n i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s .
R e t u r n t o r e s u l t s

D a t e M o d i f i e d : 2 0 1 1
- 1 2

- 1 4 

# N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s C a n a d a
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11

FRANKLIN FINANCE CORPORATION
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE

Net income for income per share is computed by subtracting from the applicable
income the dividend requirements on preferred stock to arrive at income
applicable to common stock and dividing this amount by the weighted average
number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                                     For the period from
                                                          For the Years Ended        December 22,1997
                                                             December 31,            (inception) through
                                                          1999           1998        December 31,1997
                                                          -----------------------------------------------
     <S>                                                  <C>            <C>         <C>
     INCOME
     Net income                                            $ 2,467,247   $ 2,763,552    $         102,547
     Less: preferred stock dividend requirement              1,800,900     1,801,447               49,340
                                                          -----------------------------------------------
     Net income applicable to common stock                 $   666,347   $   962,105    $          53,207
                                                          ===============================================


     SHARES
     Weighted average number of common shares                   22,077        22,077               22,077

     NET INCOME PER SHARE                                  $     30.18   $     43.58    $            2.41

     </TABLE>
                                       16
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 9, 2009 

1215 

Order 

 

January 9, 2009 

137356 

DE ANNA R. ELLIS CHOPIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 137356 

 COA: 285625 

Berrien CC: 07-000124-CZ 

RIVERWOOD CENTER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 25, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 HATHAWAY, J., not participating.
### SUBCHAPTER II—RULES CONCERNING LIGHTS, ETC.
### §60j–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 60j–2 was editorially reclassified as section 4508 of this title.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 04-131 October 14, 2004

NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE TO MEET 

OCT. 19-21 IN ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste will hold a

public meeting Oct. 19-21, in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the June 2004

recommendations of the International Council on Radiation Protection, including how they compare to

NRC regulations and practices and what aspects may require further study.

The meeting will run from 8:30 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. on Tuesday, from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on

Wednesday and from 8:30 a.m. to noon on Thursday. On Tuesday, the meeting will be held in Two

White Flint North Auditorium; on Wednesday and Thursday the meeting will be held in 

Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint North Building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. 

A complete agenda will be available on the NRC’s Web site at this address:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2004/ . For additional information,

please contact Howard Larson at 301-415-6805.

###
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BLANCA MARTINEZ

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 26 7

- C R

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 2

of El Paso , Texas

(TC# 20190C0339 5 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third m otion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until April 15

, 20 20

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE APPEL L ANT ’ S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Justo Fernandez

- Gonzalez , the Appellant’s attorney,

prepare the Appellant ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before April 15 , 20 20

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of March , 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT JULY 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 08- 10088 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 1 0 4 - CR- O RL- 2 2 K RS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M E R C U T I O S T O K E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 30, 2008) B efo re B A R K E T T , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T r a vi s W i l l i a m s , appoi nt e d c ouns e l f orM e r c ut i o S t oke s , ha s f i l e d am ot i on2

t o w i thdr a w on appe a l s upport e d by abr i e f pr e pa r e d pur s ua ntt o A nde r s v. C a l i f orni a , 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O uri nde pe nde nt r e vi e w of

the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tc ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof th e ap p e a l is c o rr e c t. B e c au s e in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r d r e v e a ls n o i ssu es o f arg u ab l e m eri t , co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED a nd S t ok es ’ s c on vi ct i on s and se nt ence s are A FFI R M ED .
#### Donald STROM *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 03-743

147 S.W.3d 689

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered February 19, 2004

*Kathy Hall,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Donald Strom, by his attorney, Kathy Hall, has filed a motion to file a belated brief on his Rule 37 claim. The record was timely lodged in this case and briefing was commenced on June 27, 2003. Appellant’s brief was originally due on August 6, 2003. Appellant’s counsel asked for and was granted two 60-day extensions, making the brief due on December 4, 2003. ■Appellant’s brief was tendered on February 6, 2004.

In the pending motion, Ms. Hall accepts full responsibility for having failed to timely file the appellant’s brief. We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. *In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265*Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

A copy of this per curiam will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. *In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964.
§ 1330.401 Purpose. ( a ) This subpart implements 5 U.S.C. 5307(d), as added by section 1322 of the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002 (Title XIII of Public Law 107-296, the Homeland Security Act of 2002; November 25, 2002), which provides a higher aggregate limitation on pay for certain members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) under 5 U.S.C. 5382 and 5383 and employees in senior-level (SL) and scientific or professional (ST) positions paid under 5 U.S.C. 5376. In addition, this subpart is necessary to administer rates of basic pay for members of the SES under 5 U.S.C. 5382, as amended by section 1125 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The regulations in this subpart strengthen the application of pay-for-performance principles to senior executives and senior professionals. Specifically, the statutory provisions authorize an agency to apply a higher maximum rate of basic pay for senior executives (consistent with 5 CFR part 534, subpart D, when effective) and apply a higher aggregate limitation on pay (consistent with 5 CFR part 530, subpart B) to its senior employees, but only after OPM, with OMB concurrence, has certified that the design and application of the agency's appraisal systems for these employees make meaningful distinctions based on relative performance. This subpart establishes the certification criteria and procedures that OPM will apply in considering agency requests for such certification.
( b ) Senior executives generally may receive an annual rate of basic pay up to the rate for level III of the Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5382 and 5 CFR part 534, subpart D, when effective. Senior employees generally may receive total compensation in a calendar year up to the rate for level I of the Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5307(a) and 5 CFR 530.203(a). Only employees covered by an appraisal system that OPM, with OMB concurrence, certifies under this subpart are eligible for a maximum annual rate of basic pay for senior executives up to the rate for level II of the Executive Schedule (consistent with 5 U.S.C. 5382 and 5 CFR part 534, subpart D, when effective) and a higher aggregate pay limitation equivalent to the total annual compensation payable to the Vice President (consistent with 5 U.S.C. 5307(d) and 5 CFR 530.203(b)).