alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67945-67946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25858]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--The Institute of Nuclear Materials Management

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993,

[[Page 67946]]

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The Institute of Nuclear 
Materials Management (``INMM'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of 
the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of 
its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: The Institute 
of Nuclear Materials Management, Northbrook, IL. The nature and scope 
of INMM's standards development activities are: Standards for the 
packaging and transportation of fissile and radioactive materials, and 
non-nuclear hazardous materials including waste and mixed waste; but 
not including movement or handling during processing and manufacturing 
operations; and standards for protection, control, and accounting of 
special nuclear materials in all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, 
including analytical procedures where necessary and special to this 
purpose, except that physical protection of special nuclear materials 
within a nuclear power plant is not included.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25858 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 25.23 Subpoena for attendance at hearing. ( a ) A party wishing to procure the appearance and testimony of any individual at the hearing may request that the ALJ issue a subpoena.
( b ) A subpoena requiring the attendance and testimony of an individual may also require the individual to produce documents at the hearing.
( c ) A party seeking a subpoena shall file a written request therefore not less than 15 days before the date fixed for the hearing unless otherwise allowed by the ALJ for good cause shown: Such request shall specify any documents to be produced and shall designate the witnesses and describe the address and location thereof with sufficient particularity to permit such witnesses to be found.
( d ) The subpoena shall specify the time and place at which the witness is to appear and any documents the witness is to produce.
( e ) The party seeking the subpoena shall serve it in the manner prescribed in § 25.8. A subpoena on a party or upon an individual under the control of a party may be served by first class mail.
( f ) A party or the individual to whom the subpoena is directed may file with the ALJ a motion to quash the subpoena within ten days after service or on or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance if it is less than ten days after service.
#### § 1110.400 Fees.

Fees sufficient to cover (but not to exceed) all costs to NTIS associated with evaluating Certification Forms and auditing, inspecting, and monitoring certified persons under the certification program established under this part, as well as appeals, will be published (as periodically reevaluated and updated by NTIS) and available at *https://dmf.ntis.gov.* NTIS will not set fees for attestations or audits by an Accredited Conformity Assessment Body.
### **CHAPTER 110—FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES**

Sec.
10401.
Short title; purpose.
10402.
Definitions.
10403.
Authorization of appropriations.
10404.
Authority of Secretary.
10405.
Allotment of funds.
10406.
Formula grants to States.
10407.
State application.
10408.
Subgrants and uses of funds.
10409.
Grants for Indian tribes.
10410.
National resource centers and training and technical assistance centers.
10411.
Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions.
10412.
Specialized services for abused parents and their children.
10413.
National domestic violence hotline grant.
10414.
Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA).
10415 to 10421. Repealed, Tranferred, or Omitted.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, comprising this chapter, was originally enacted by Pub. L. 98–457, title III, Oct. 9, 1984, 98 Stat. 1757, and amended by Pub. L. 100–294, title III, Apr. 25, 1988, 102 Stat. 124; Pub. L. 102–295, title III, §§302–309(a), 310–321, May 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 201–210; Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, §§40211, 40241, 40251, 40261, 40271, 40272, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1925, 1934–1937; Pub. L. 104–208, div. A, title I, §101(e) [title II, §213], Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–233, 3009–254; Pub. L. 104–235, title II, §§201–203, Oct. 3, 1996, 110 Stat. 3089; Pub. L. 105–392, title IV, §407(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3589; Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title II, §§1202–1204, title IV, §1403, Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1505–1507, 1514; Pub. L. 108–36, title IV, §§401–415, June 25, 2003, 117 Stat. 825–830; Pub. L. 109–162, title II, §206, Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3002. Such Act is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 111–320, title II, §201, Dec. 20, 2010, 124 Stat. 3484, without reference to such intervening amendments because of the extensive revision of the Act's provisions by Pub. L. 111–320.
OIL AND GAS WELL COMPLETION REPORT PAGE 1

Form05_OG_WellCompletionRpt_FI20150604.doc 6/4/2015 LV

STATE OF NEVADA

COMMISSION ON MINERAL RESOURCES

DIVISION OF MINERALS

400 W. King Street, Suite 106

Carson City, Nevada 89703

(775) 684-7040 | Fax (775) 684-7052

http://minerals.nv.gov

OIL AND GAS WELL COMPLETION REPORT

(To be filed not later than 15 days after well is completed/abandoned)

GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS

NAME TOP BOTTOM NAME TOP BOTTOM

1. 6.

2. 7.

3. 8.

4. 9.

5. 10.

GAS OR OIL SANDS AND OR ZONES

1. TOP BOTTOM 5. TOP BOTTOM

2. TOP BOTTOM 6. TOP BOTTOM

3. TOP BOTTOM 7. TOP BOTTOM

4. TOP BOTTOM 8. TOP BOTTOM

IMPORTANT WATER SANDS

Give data on rate of inflow and elevation to which water rose in hole. T.D.

1. TOP BOTTOM REMARKS

2. TOP BOTTOM REMARKS

3. TOP BOTTOM REMARKS

4. TOP BOTTOM REMARKS

RECORD OF DRILL STEM TESTS AND SPECIAL TESTS

(Submit reports on separate sheet showing depths, dates, duration of tests, results and attach hereto)

CASING RECORD

Size Weight (lb) per 

foot Make Amount 

Set Shoe Perforated Amount

Pulled Purpose From To

1

2

3

4

5

6

WELL LOCATION

 Section

Locate well correctly.

Company Lease

Address

Well No. in 1/4 of 1/4 of Sec.

T. , R. M.D.B.&M. Field

UTM Northing N; UTM Easting E (NAD83 Datum)

County Permit Number

Drilling Commenced Completed

Drilling Contractor

Address

Total Depth of Well

Elevation above sea level in feet: Surface KB

Method determination

ORIGINAL – Company

DUPLICATE – Division

TRIPLICATE – NBM&G
OIL AND GAS WELL COMPLETION REPORT PAGE 2

Form05_OG_WellCompletionRpt_FI20150604.doc 6/4/2015 LV

CEMENTING RECORD

Size of hole Size of casing Where set No. sacks of 

cement Method used CMT. Density Yield Cement ft./sxs

1

2

3

4

RECORD OF SHOOTING OR CHEMICAL TREATMENT

Size Shell 

used

Explosive or 

chemical used Quantity Date Depth Treated Depth 

From To cleaned out

1

2

3

PRODUCTION

Put on production , 20 . Time: (a.m.) (p.m.)

FOR FLOWING WELL:

Flowing pressure on casing lbs/sq.in.

Flowing pressure on tubing lbs/sq.in.

Size of tubing No. feet run

Size of choke Make choke 

FOR PUMPING WELL:

Length of stroke used inches

Number strokes per minute 

Size of working barrel 

FOR OIL WELL:

Production of first 24 hours was barrels of fluid

Percent water 

Percent sediment 

Percent emulsion 

Gas-oil ratio this well (cu. ft. gas per barrel of oil)

FOR GAS WELL:

Cubic feet of gas first 24 hours 

Gallons of gasoline per MCF gas 

LOGS AND ADDITIONAL RECORDS

Type of Survey Top Bottom Date Company

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Attach to this record two (2) copies of all formational, electrical, radioactivity logs and deviation surveys.

I hereby certify that the information given herewith is a true, correct and complete record of this well and all work done 

on it so far as can be determined from the available records. 

Name Position

Company/Operator

Address City St. Zip Code

Date
### Part A—Determination of Benefits
#### Nacional Financiera, S. A., Respondent, *v.*Banco de Ponce, Appellant.

*828
      *Per Curiam.*

The complaint attempts to state three causes of action against the collecting bank of a letter of credit on the theory that the documents presented, though correct in form, contained an underlying false statement. This was not evident on the face of the papers. The payment as made by the agent bank, which issued the letter of credit, was proper and could not be recovered by it from the defendant. There is therefore no basis for holding that the principal in the matter, namely, the plaintiff, is in any better position to recover the payment made, in the absence of an allegation of damage resulting to it from the payment.

The first cause of action asks to recover back the whole amount paid. The second cause of action asks for the difference between the face amount of the letter of credit and the amount actually expended for moving a certain sugar mill from Puerto Rico to Mexico. The third cause of action demands the full amount paid on the theory that the defendant personally paid no part of the said expense of moving. It suffices to say that the letter of credit made no stipulations relating to amounts actually expended by defendant, and was in form a promise to pay the full amount on the presentation of certain described documents.

There is no basis supporting a recovery stated in any of the causes of action.

The order appealed from should be reversed and the motion to dismiss the amended complaint granted, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, with leave to plaintiff to replead.

Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Yoorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to dismiss the amended complaint granted, with leave to the plaintiff to replead. Settle order on notice.
### Part E—Demonstration Programs
AAM-12-062-E 

November 16, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10390 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1221 

Mr. J. B. Marshall 

Morristown Flying Services, Inc. 

2349 Valley Home Road 

Talbott, TN, 37877 

Dear Mr. Marshall: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated October28, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Morristown Flying Services, Inc. (MFS) for an exemption from part 120 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow MFS to cover 

its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts 

of the regulation. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to MFS. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Morristown Flying Services, Inc. an exemption from 

14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow MFS to cover its safety-sensitive employees 

under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to 

the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of MFS are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of 

the MFS part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on November 30, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25769]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on September 28, 2004, Orasure 
Technologies, Inc., Lehigh University, Seeley G. Mudd-Building 6, 
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015, made application by renewal to the Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alphamethadol (9605).......................  I
Benzoylecgonine (9180).....................  II
Morphine (9300)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk to manufacture other controlled substances.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 
1301.33(a).
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative, 
Office of Liaison and Policy (ODLR) and must be filed no later than 
January 21, 2005.

    Dated: November 8, 2004.
William J. Walker,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-25769 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Christiaan L. Meijer, Jr., Respondent-Appellant, v. General Cigar Co., Inc., Appellant-Respondent.

Order, so far as appealed from by the defendant, unanimously reversed and the motion to strike out the second, fourth and fifth affirmative defenses and the ninth partial defense in the answer as insufficient in law, and to strike out the paragraphs of the answer numbered 9, 10, 11, 19 and 38 and the words “ by virtue of said Netherlands Royal Decree of May 24, 1940 ” contained in paragraph 13 of said answer and the exhibits A and B, annexed thereto, denied. The sufficiency of the defenses may depend on the development of the facts adduced at the trial. Order, so far as appealed from by the plaintiff, unanimously affirmed. As so modified the order, so far as appealed from, is unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendant. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
----

----

**UNITEDSTATES****SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

----

**FORM8-K**

CURRENTREPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date ofReport (Date of Earliest Event Reported): **August 12,2003**

Commissionfile number:**1-07151**

THE CLOROXCOMPANY(Exact name of registrant as specified in itscharter)

| **Delaware**                   |
|--------------------------------|
| (State orother jurisdiction of |
| incorporation or organization) |
|                                |

****

| **1-07151**             | **31-0595760**                      |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| (CommissionFile Number) | (I.R.S.Employer Idenfification No.) |
|                         |                                     |

****

**1221Broadway****,****Oakland, California****94612-1888******(Address of principal executiveoffices)    (Zip code)

**(510) 271-7000******(Registrant's telephone number, includingarea code)

----

```
ITEM 12. RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION
```

```

```

```
         On August 12, 2003, The Clorox Company (the "Company") issued a news release with respect to earnings for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003. 
```

```

```

```

```

```
Exhibit
```

```

```

```
99. News Release by The Clorox Company dated August 12, 2003.
```

```

```

```

```

```

```

```
                                     
```

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to therequirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registranthas duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by theundersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                                                                       THE CLOROX COMPANY

Date:  August 12,2003                                     By:  /s/ PETER D. BEWLEY

                                                                              Peter D. Bewley

                                                                              Senior Vice President –General Counsel

                                                                              and Secretary

----
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 on Form 10-Q of Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Brenda G. Gujral, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Steven P. Grimes, as Principal Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her 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 results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralChief Executive OfficerDate:November 3, 2006/s/ Steven P. GrimesName:Steven P. GrimesPrincipal Financial OfficerDate:November 3, 2006
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO LEANOS; OLGA LEANOS,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK FA,

 Defendant,

 And

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA;

CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE

COMPANY,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-56383

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-07541-JAK-SS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 22, 2014** 

Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

FILED

AUG 01 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Mario and Olga Leanos appeal pro se from the district court’s order

dismissing their action against their mortgage lender and other private parties

alleging constitutional violations and various federal and state law claims. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a

dismissal for failure to comply with an order to amend the complaint. McHenry v.

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ action

for failure to comply with the court’s order to file an amended complaint because

plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint, despite being afforded ample time to

do so and being warned that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of their

action. See id. at 1177-78; see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43

(9th Cir. 2002) (discussing factors relevant to dismissal for failure to comply with

a court order). 

AFFIRMED.

2 12-56383
§ 900.406 Compliance information. ( a ) *Cooperation and assistance.* OPM, to the fullest extent practicable, shall seek the cooperation of recipients in obtaining compliance with this subpart and shall provide assistance and guidance to recipients to help them comply voluntarily with this subpart.
( b ) *Compliance reports.* Each recipient shall keep records and submit to OPM timely, complete, and accurate compliance reports at the times, and in the form and containing the information OPM may determine necessary to enable it to ascertain whether the recipient has complied or is complying with this subpart. In the case of a program under which a primary recipient extends Federal financial assistance to other recipients, the other recipients shall also submit compliance reports to the primary recipient as may be necessary to enable the primary recipient to carry out its obligations under this subpart.
( c ) *Access to sources of information.* Each recipient shall permit access by OPM during normal business hours to its books, records, accounts, and other sources of information, and its facilities as may be pertinent to ascertain compliance with this subpart. When information required of a recipient is in the exclusive possession of another agency, institution, or person and this agency, institution, or person fails or refuses to furnish this information, the recipient shall so certify in its report and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information.
( d ) *Information to beneficiaries and participants.* Each recipient shall make available to participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons the information regarding the provisions of this subpart and its applicability to the program under which the recipient received Federal financial assistance, and make this information available to them in the manner, as OPM finds necessary, to apprise the persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by title VI and this subpart.