alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1132 

Prepped by Candice Davis 

Document Number: 

43) ll-F-7 

Docket Number: 

A-86-03 

Printed 4/18/2008 2:24:46 PM Sheet 43 of 122 
P.2 

M ' ' OMS FACSIMILE COVER SHEET 

TO: l\i / C^O A S" Qr/x IrC/CLs ; 

OFFICE: OPlB : /1/^rJ Jr_ 

TELEPHONE:_ 

7 

DATE: 

FROM: 

C* 

NUMBER OF PAGES: J-

) c-h'-i C 4'k <i *; J. £-2_ 

(Including this cover sheet) 

I-PA- ?<?>---?£, 97 

MESSAGE/INSTRUCTIONS : J l A rTA M^.^J^ 

Jj -f '-c 7 Jixz 

j 7 J-,--L f^i-^e Simla, 

l r; 

. " I 

SEP I 91989 

EPA AIR DOCKET 
F_3_ 

A-£(/ -03 

JE -P - "7 

QUESTION: Why does EPA plan to enforce the diesel fuel quality 

regulations at all points in the distribution chain 

since non-complying fuel will be dyed? 

ANSWER: The fuels regulations which are currently enforced by 

the Office of Mobile Sources are applicable at all points in the 

distribution chain. Current fuel regulations include the lead 

in gasoline and fuel volatility control regulations. Inspectors 

from EPA currently inspect facilities at all levels in the chain 

for compliance with these requirements. This includes the 

gathering of facility information and fuel samples. When diesel 

fuel controls are implemented, these same inspectors will 

collect samples of diesel fuel for analysis. Collection of 

these samples will impose no additional burden on the parties in 

the chain during routine inspections. 

It is expected that the dye will be added to the 

off-highway diesel fuel at the earliest possible point in the 

chain for fuel segregation purposes. This will normally be at 

the refinery or fuel import depot. Inspection at this point is 

necessary as it presents the earliest opportunity to detect and 

prevent noncomplying fuel from entering the distribution chain. 

Violations discovered at this point can hopefully be corrected 

before the fuel is introduced to the consumer. 

Fuel that has been moved through the chain by resellers, 

distributors, carriers, retail outlets, and wholesale purchaser 

consumers also needs to be checked for compliance. The fact 

that the dye has been added to the off-highway fuel will not be 

sufficient deterence to the industry to prevent intentional fuel 

blending or switching. The fuel user will not ordinarily be 

aware of the color of the fuel put into his vehicle and even if 

he were, there is no reason why it would be meaningful to the 

vehicle operator. The greatest reason for switching or blending 

is the opportunity to make money due to the cheaper off-highway 

fuel in terms of absolute cost and also the lack of highway user 

taxes which are not applicable to the off-highway fuel. 

Inspection at all of these points in the chain will be necessary 

to ensure that the fuel quality standards are met and that 

sufficient reasons are present for covered parties to implement 

oversight programs to prevent switching or blending. Samples of 

fuel would still need to be analyzed in order to determine that 

a violation existed even if the fuel contained dye. 

These factors all fit into the Agency's overall enforcement 

scheme for fuels control and will not create any new burdens on 

the industry.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.11


                         [C.J. QUEENAN, JR. LETTERHEAD]

                                August 19, 2003

Dear Robert:

        This letter is written to confirm that by reason of the action taken by
the Personnel and Compensation Committee on July 22, 2003, your "Base Salary"
for all purposes of the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of
April 25, 2001, with Teledyne Technologies Incorporated is $610,000 effective
September 1, 2003.

                                        Sincerely,

                                        C.J. QUEENAN, JR.


CJQjr/djw



Dr. Robert Mehrabian
5388 Baseline Avenue
Santa Ynez, CA 93460-9346
§ 841.204 Deemed application to protect survivors. ( a ) A former employee is deemed to have filed an application for annuity if the former employee— ( 1 ) Was not reemployed in a position subject to FERS under subpart A of part 842 of this chapter on the date of death;
( 2 ) Dies after separation from Federal service but before actually filing an application for benefits; and
( 3 ) At the time of separation from Federal service, was eligible for an immediate annuity under § 842.204(a)(1) and was eligible to elect to postpone the commencing date of that annuity under § 842.204(c) of this chapter.
( b ) For the purpose of determining entitlement to a survivor annuity, a former employee who is deemed to have filed an application under paragraph (a) of this section is considered to have died as a retiree.
( c ) For purposes of determining the amount of a survivor annuity, the annuity of a former employee who, under paragraph (a) of this section, is deemed to have filed an application is computed as though the commencing date were the first day of the month after the former employee's death.
[55 FR 994, Jan. 11, 1990, as amended at 55 FR 41179, Oct. 10, 1990]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Edward E. Sullivan, Respondent, against B & A Construction, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Motion for reargument, or in the alternative, for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, without costs. Present — Poster, P. J., Bergan, Coon, Halpern and Imrie, JJ. [See *ante, p.*788.]
Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alexander International, Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
Tsuida, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of March 2003.

/s/ Robert Tsuida
--------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
### §220107. Assistance by Department of Defense

The Secretary of Defense may make the resources of the Department of Defense, including access to General Services Administration supplies and services through the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration, available to the corporation to the extent compatible with the primary mission of the Department and in accordance with guidelines issued by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1461; Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title VIII, §820, Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2016.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 220107 | 36:1308. | Dec. 29, 1979, Pub. L. 96–165, §8, 93 Stat. 1271. |

Section

The words "Secretary of Defense" are substituted for "Department of Defense" the first time they appear because of 10:113(a). The words "in order to facilitate the accomplishment of the USO mission" are omitted as unnecessary.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–375 inserted ", including access to General Services Administration supplies and services through the Federal Supply Schedule of the General Services Administration," after "Department of Defense".
#### MAHONEY, Appellant, v. SMITH, Respondent.

(170 N. W. 140).

(File No. 4417.

Opinion filed December 31, 1918.

Rehearing denied March 12, 1919.)

¡1. Trespass — Trifling Damage by Animals — De Minimus Non Curat Hex — Rule—Statute.

In a suit to recover possession of hogs restrained damage feasant under the Trespass of Animals Act (Laws 1907, -Ch. 244), involving three separate trespasses, and the further question whether any of the hogs so restrained could be held under -a claim of lien thereon for trespass made prior to the one in question, the evidence tending to show that the controversy really involved only $2, held, that the rule de minimus non curat lex (-Civ. Code, Sec. 2432) should apply; that time of Supreme Court sould not be wasted in considering such triuing matters; and judgment appealed from is affirmed.

2 Appeals — Error—Assignments Merely Quoting Portions of Instructions, Futility of.

Where assignments of error merely quote -portions o-f instructions excepted to, without pointing out wherein they were erroneous, they merely assert, without pointing out, error.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hanson County. Hon. Frank B. Smith, Judge.

Action by Robert A. Mahoney, against Edward Smith, to -recover possession of animals taken -damage feasant. From a *279judgment for defendant, and1 from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*H. J. Mohr,*for Appellant.

*Laurits Miller,*for Respondent.

GATES, J.

Action for the recovery of possession of 18 hogs restrained <by defendant under the Trespass by Animals Act (chapter 244, Raws 1907). The evidence tended to show that these hogs damaged .defendant’s cornfield on the day they were taken up, and that they and others of plaintiff’s hogs, or that they or others of plaintiff’s hogs, did' similar damage on two previous occasions. The trial court instructed the jury that the defendant was entitled to recover'damages for, and to have a lien “upon the hogs which he took into his possession for, any damage which the plaintiff’s hogs had done to his crops at that time, or within 60 days before the commencement of the action.” From a judgment awarding defendant $8 «damages, besides costs and expenses, plaintiff appeals, assigning error upon the instructions.

[1] There was evidence tending to show that the damage done upon the third occasion amounted to $6. The sole question argued by appellant is whether defendant’s lien extends to and' covers the damage done on the two previous occasions, thus presenting a controversy involving the sum of $2. “De minimis non curat lex.” C. 'C. § 2432. The judgment appealed from is affirmed. The time of this court ought not to be wasted in considering such trifling matters. We decline to determine the question of law presented.

[2] Furthermore, the assignments of. error merely quote the portions of the instructions excepted to, without pointing out wherein the instructions were erroneous. Such assignments merely assert error, but do not point out error. Hedlun v. Holy Terror Min. Co., 16 S. D. 261, 281, 92 N. W. 31, 36.
NRC ACCEPTS AREVA APPLICATION FOR 

URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITY IN IDAHO 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has accepted for formal review an application by 

Areva Enrichment Services LLC for a license to construct and operate a centrifuge uranium 

enrichment plant in Bonneville County, Idaho, and has made the application available on the 

agency’s Web site for public review. 

 Areva submitted the application Dec. 30. The NRC staff completed an initial acceptance 

review and determined that the application is sufficiently complete for the agency to begin its 

formal environmental and safety reviews. Acceptance of the application neither precludes future 

requests for additional information, nor indicates whether the Commission will issue a license. 

 The agency anticipates the formal reviews and adjudicatory hearings will take 

approximately 30 months. In the coming weeks, a notice of opportunity to request a hearing 

before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and a separate notice of intent to prepare 

an environmental impact statement, will be published in the Federal Register. 

 The Areva application, minus certain classified and sensitive portions (e.g., proprietary 

information), is available on the NRC Web site at this page: http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuelcycle-fac/arevanc.html. The application has been assigned docket number 70-7015. 

### 

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 09-058 March 24, 2009
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

EARLY HARRIS, III,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-792

TANYA MICHELLE HARRIS,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 29, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County,

Tonya B. Rainwater, Judge.

Angela Lynn Leiner, of The Law Office of 

Angela L. Leiner, P.A., St. Petersburg, for 

Appellant.

John J. Albert, of Albert & Donnelly, LLC, 

Melbourne, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Tramble v. Tramble, 193 So. 3d 1105, 1105 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) 

(holding that in absence of transcript or statement of evidence, appellate court’s review 

is limited to errors appearing on face of final judgment or in pleadings and other matters 

in record); Spreng v. Spreng, 162 So. 3d 168, 169 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (holding that 

although trial court’s order awarding wife attorney’s fees was deficient in its factual 
2

findings, error was not preserved for appeal because husband never filed motion for 

rehearing); Hedstrom v. Hedstrom, 123 So. 3d 150, 152 n.4 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) 

(reiterating that party cannot complain on appeal about inadequate findings unless 

alleged defect was brought to trial court’s attention in motion for rehearing). 

SAWAYA, EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
#### § 114.25 Replacement of carnets.

In the case of destruction, loss, or theft of an A.T.A. or TECRO/AIT carnet while the goods which it covers are in the Customs territory of the United States, the director of the port where such goods were imported may, upon request of the association which issued the carnet abroad, accept a replacement document, the validity of which expires on the same date as that of the carnet which it replaces, provided the port director determines that the description of merchandise in the replacement document fully corresponds to the description set forth in the importation voucher from the carnet to be replaced.

[T.D. 70-134, 35 FR 9261, June 13, 1970, as amended by T.D. 82-116, 47 FR 27262, June 24, 1982; T.D. 98-10, 63 FR 4168, Jan. 28, 1998]
No. I-08-024 

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 

 Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331 

April 11, 2008

NRC TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS WITH CHESAPEAKE, VA., COMPANY 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will meet with representatives of a 

Chesapeake, Va., firm on Thursday, April 17 to discuss two apparent violations of agency 

requirements. The apparent violations by IBS of America Corp., involve a failure to notify the 

NRC in writing within 60 days of a decision to permanently cease activities at a site and a failure 

to confine the use of nuclear gauges to a location authorized on the company’s NRC-issued 

license. 

The meeting, known as a predecisional enforcement conference, is scheduled to begin at 

1:30 p.m. at the NRC’s Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa. The session will take place in the 

office’s Public Meeting Room. It will be open to the public for observation and attendees will 

have an opportunity to ask questions of participating NRC staff members prior to the meeting’s 

adjournment. 

On Nov. 5, 2007, the NRC conducted an unannounced inspection at the Chesapeake 

offices of IBS, which is a service company to the paper-manufacturing industry. The inspectors 

determined that IBS had ceased principal activities at its facility on Cook Boulevard and was 

now based instead at a facility on Profit Way, even though the firm failed to notify the NRC of 

this change in writing within 60 days, as required. The company was also storing nuclear gauges 

at the Profit Way site when its license did not authorize it to do so at that location. 

In addition to those apparent violations, the agency also identified a failure by the 

company to perform leak tests at the required 6-month interval. However, that last violation is 

not being considered for escalated enforcement and therefore will not be discussed during the 

April 17th conference. 

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

has made a final determination that a violation or violations did occur or that enforcement action, 

such as a monetary fine, will be taken. Rather, the purpose of the meeting is to discuss the 

apparent violations, their causes and safety significance. In addition, it will allow the company 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov
an opportunity to point out any errors that may have been made in the NRC inspection report and 

to discuss its corrective actions. 

No decision on the apparent violations or any enforcement action will be made at this 

conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a later time. 

 ###
§ 3101.105 Additional rules for Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau employees. The following rules apply to the employees of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau and are in addition to §§ 3101.101 through 3101.104. ( a ) *Prohibited financial interests.* Except as provided in this section, no employee of TTB, or spouse or minor child of a TTB employee, shall have, directly or indirectly, any financial interest, including compensated employment, in the alcohol, tobacco, firearms or explosives industries. The term financial interest is defined in § 2635.403(c) of this title.
( b ) *Waiver.* An agency designee, with the advice and legal clearance of the DAEO or Office of the Chief Counsel, may grant a written waiver of the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section on a determination that the financial interest is not prohibited by 26 U.S.C. 7214(b) and that, in the mind of a reasonable person with knowledge of the particular circumstances, the financial interest will not create an appearance of misuse of position or loss of impartiality, or call into question the impartiality and objectivity with which TTB's programs are administered. A waiver under this paragraph may require appropriate conditions, such as execution of a written disqualification.
[79 FR 65877, Nov. 6, 2014]
§ 575.507 What is the maximum extended assignment incentive that may be paid for a period of service? ( a ) The total amount of extended assignment incentive payments that may be paid for a service period may not exceed the greater of— ( 1 ) An amount equal to 25 percent of the annual rate of basic pay of the employee at the beginning of the service period times the number of years (including fractions of a year) in the service period; or
( 2 ) $15,000 per year (including fractions of a year) in the service period.
( b ) For hourly rate employees who do not have a scheduled annual rate of basic pay, the annual rate in paragraph (a) of this section is computed by multiplying the applicable hourly rate in effect at the beginning of the service period by 2,087 hours.
( c ) The number of years in the service period is computed by dividing the total number of calendar days in the service period (as established under § 575.510(a)) by 365 and rounding the result to two decimal places. For example, a service period covering 39 biweekly pay periods equals 546 days, and 546 days divided by 365 days equals 1.50 years.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 16

- 00197

- CR

GABRIELA ORTIZ, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 30272

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R Court reporter Julie Vrooman recorded the trial court proceedings in appellate cause
number 06

- 1 6

- 00197

- CR, styled Gabriela Ortiz v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number 30272 in the 354th Judicial District Court of Hunt County, Texas. The reporter’s record was originally due in this matter December 15, 2016. That deadline was extended twic e by this Court on Vrooman’s request, resulting in the most recent due date of February 16, 2017. Although we warned Vrooman that additional requests to extend the deadline would not be looked upon with favor, she has nonetheless filed a third request to extend the filing deadline in this matter. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establish that “trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.3(c). The Rules further instruct that an “appellate court may enter any order necessary to ensure the timely filing of the appellate record.” Id. In furtherance of our responsibilities established by the Rules, we find we must take steps to ensure t hat the record in this case is filed in a reasonable amount of
time. Therefore, we order Vrooman to file the reporter’s record in cause number 06

- 16

- 00197

- CR, styled Gabriela Ortiz v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number 30272 in the 354th
Judicia l District Court of Hunt County, Texas, to be received no later than the close of business on Friday, March 3, 2017.
If the reporter’s record is not received on or before March 3, we warn Vrooman that we may begin contempt proceedings and order her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of this Cour t for failing to obey its order

.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT
Date: February 22, 2017
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jetblack Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2011 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nigel
Farnsworth, the Treasurer and Director (Principal Financial 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, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

Dated: July 20, 2011

Nigel Farnsworth

/s/ Nigel Farnsworth(Principal Executive
Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

---