alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
····018810 TRAVEL SERVICE (CANADA) Inc. • 

OM,';;; 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

United States Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

On behalf of Nissin Travel Service (Canada), Inc. , I am writing to express our 

strong support for the application of Delta Air Lines for new nonstop service between 

Detroit and Haneda. 

Approval of Delta's new service would be a major benefit for our region, where 

many corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are over 500 

Japanese companies located in Michigan and hundreds more whose business models rely 

on access to Japan and it's market. The growth of our business ties with Japan has created 

demand for increased capacity to Tokyo. Our business travelers look to the convenience 

offlying into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. 

Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airport that can 

support trans-pacific routes. This summer Delta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong 

Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW to make it the airlines gateway to 

Asia. The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural fit that would clearly benefit 

our business travelers. 

Thank you for consideration ofthis request. 

. ',: . 

5598 McADAM ROAD. MfSSISSAUGA, ONTARIO L4Z 1P1 • PH: (905) 361-0755 • FAX: (905) 361-~759 • (800) 563-2735
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.12f-2 Extending unlisted trading privileges to a security that is the subject of an initial public offering. ( a ) *General provision.* A national securities exchange may extend unlisted trading privileges to a subject security when at least one transaction in the subject security has been effected on the national securities exchange upon which the security is listed and the transaction has been reported pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan, as defined in § 242.600 of this chapter.
( b ) The extension of unlisted trading privileges pursuant to this section shall be subject to all the provisions set forth in Section 12(f) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78 l (f)), as amended, and any rule or regulation promulgated thereunder, or which may be promulgated thereunder while the extension is in effect.
( c ) *Definitions.* For the purposes of this section: ( 1 ) The term *subject security* shall mean a security that is the subject of an initial public offering, as that term is defined in section 12(f)(1)(G)(i) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78l(f)(1)(G)(i)), and
( 2 ) An *initial public offering commences* at such time as is described in section 12(f)(1)(G)(ii) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78l(f)(*1*)(G)(ii)).
[60 FR 20896, Apr. 28, 1995, as amended at 65 FR 53565, Sept. 5, 2000; 70 FR 37618, June 29, 2005]
No: III-16-019 July 7, 2016

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC to Hold Open House to Discuss Agency’s Assessment of 

Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold an open house on July 14 to discuss the agency’s 

annual review of safety performance at the Braidwood nuclear power plant. The two-unit plant is 

operated by Exelon Generation Company LLC, and is located in Braceville, Ill., about 20 miles 

southwest of Joliet.

The public will be able to talk with NRC staff members and ask questions about the plant’s 

2015 performance and the agency’s oversight of the facility. The open house, which will also include 

informational posters, is scheduled for 6-7 p.m. CDT at the Braidwood City Hall, 141 W. Main St. in 

Braidwood.

“NRC inspectors who work at the plant and NRC staff from our regional office in Lisle, Ill., are 

looking forward to speaking with members of the public about the performance of the Braidwood plant 

and other topics related to nuclear safety that are of interest to the community,” said NRC Region III 

Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. “We hold such meetings near the plant every year to discuss how 

we ensure the plant operates safely and foster an open dialogue with the public.”

The NRC concluded that, overall Braidwood operated safely in 2015. All performance 

indicators and inspection findings for the plant were “green.” As a result, the plant will continue to 

receive the NRC’s normal level of oversight during 2016.

The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear 

plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow,” or “red,” 

commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Performance indicators are statistical 

measurements of plant and equipment performance.

Normal inspections are performed by the two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to Braidwood. 

Reviews are also performed at the site by specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle and from the 

agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of performance to be inspected this year by 

NRC inspectors are activities associated with radiological safety, equipment designs, and emergency 

preparedness.

The NRC’s 2015 assessment letter and current performance information for Unit 1 and Unit 2

are available on the NRC website.
### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROGRAM

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This subchapter is comprised of title I of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, Pub. L. 93–247. Title II of that Act is classified to subchapter III (§5116 et seq.) of this chapter.
§ 201.34 Eligibility of applicants. ( a ) To be eligible for an award of attorney fees and other expenses under the Act, the applicant must be a party to the adversary adjudication for which it seeks it seeks an award. The term *party* is defined in 5 U.S.C. 551(3). The applicant must show that it meets all conditions of eligibility set out in this subpart.
( b ) The types of eligible applicants are as follows: ( 1 ) An individual with a net worth of not more than $2 million;
( 2 ) The sole owner of an unincorporated business who has a net worth of not more than $7 million, including both personal and business interests, and not more than 500 employees;
( 3 ) A charitable or other tax-exempt organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) with not more than 500 employees;
( 4 ) A cooperative association as defined in section 15(a) of the Agricultural Marketing Act (12 U.S.C. 1141j(a)) with more than 500 employees; and
( 5 ) Any other partnership, corporation, association, unit of local government, or public or private organization with a new worth of not more than $7 million and not more than 500 employees.
( c ) For the purpose of eligibility, the net worth and number of employees of an applicant shall be determined as of the date the proceeding was initiated.
( d ) An applicant who owns an unincorporated business will be considered as an *individual* rather than a *sole owner of an unincorporated business* if the issues on which the applicant prevails are related primarily to personal interests rather than to business interests.
( e ) The employees of an applicant include all persons who regularly perform services for remuneration for the applicant, under the applicant's direction and control. Part-time employees shall be included on a proportional basis.
( f ) The net worth and number of employees of the applicant and all of its affiliates shall be aggregated to determine eligibility. Any individual, corporation or other entity that directly or indirectly controls or owns a majority of the voting shares or other interest of the applicant, or any corporation or entity of which the applicant directly or indirectly owns or controls a majority of the voting shares or other interest, will be considered an affiliate for purposes of this subpart, unless the administrative law judge determines that such treatment would be unjust and contrary to the purposes of the Act in light of the actual relationship between the affiliated entities. In addition, the administrative law judge may determine that financial relationships of the applicant other than those described in this paragraph constitute special circumstances that would make an award unjust.
( g ) An applicant that participates in a proceeding primarily on behalf of one or more other persons or entities that would be ineligible is not itself eligible for an award.
[47 FR 610, Jan. 6, 1982, as amended at 54 FR 53051, Dec. 27, 1989]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 26, 2016

NO. 03-16-00024-CV

Mary Margaret Blanchard, Appellant

v.

Grace Ann McNeill, as Successor Trustee of The Dixie Lee Hudlow Living Trust, as 

amended, and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Dixie Lee Hudlow, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on September 4, 2015. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that appellant has not prosecuted her appeal and did not 

comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for 

want of prosecution. Appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and 

the court below.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification of Periodic Financial Report**

 

HaroldG. Giomi and Jack B. Buchold hereby certify as follows:

 

1.               They are the Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer, respectively, of The Bank Holdings.

 

2.               The Form 10-QSB of The Bank Holdings for theQuarter Ended June 30, 2005 complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and theinformation contained in the report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TheBank Holdings.

 

 
| Date:  | August  5, 2005                        |   | /s/ Hal Giomi       |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|   | THE BANK HOLDINGS                      |
|   | Harold G. Giomi                        |
|   | Chairman & Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                   |
|   |                                   |
| Date:  | August  5, 2005                        |   | /s/ Jack B. Buchold |   |
|   | THE BANK HOLDINGS                      |
|   | Jack B. Buchold                        |
|   | Chief Financial Officer                |
|        |                                        |        |                     |        |  |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50080

ANNIE L. WHITLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CAPITAL METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, STARTRAN, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(A-97-CV-674-SC)

December 14, 1999

Before POLITZ, GARWOOD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Annie L. Whitley, a black female, challenges t he district

court’s order dismissing her Title VII action against her employer,

Capital Metropolitan Transit. Appellant argues that a factfinder

could infer from the summary judgment evidence presented that the

employer appli ed the "changeout" rule against her in a

discriminatory fashion. Our review of the record persuades us that

fact issues were presented as to whether the work rule at issue was

applied to Whitley in a discriminatory fashion and whether her

discharge was related to this application of the work rule.

Because fact issues are presented, the district court erred in2

granting summary judgment. The order of the district court is

therefore vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.
Docket No. FAA-2013-0424

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 1/2/13

Regional Airline Association 1/2/13

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 1/2/13

ATA Joe White 1/2/13
Exhibit
      10.1

    January
      13, 2006

    


    PHH
      Mortgage Corporation

    3000
      Leadenhall Road

    Mt.
      Laurel, NJ 08054

    


    
      	
              Re:

            	
              PHH
                Mortgage Corporation / Sheffield $500,000,000 Mortgage Warehouse
                Facility

            


    

    


    


    Ladies
      and Gentlemen: 

     

    Reference
      is hereby made to the Fourth Amended and Restated Mortgage Loan Repurchase
      and
      Servicing Agreement dated as of June 30, 2005 (the “Repurchase Agreement”) among
      Sheffield Receivables Corporation, as Purchaser ("the Purchaser"), Barclays
      Bank
      PLC, as Administrative Agent (the "Administrative Agent"), PHH Mortgage
      Corporation, as Seller and Servicer (the "Seller") and PHH Corporation, as
      Guarantor. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have
      the meanings ascribed to them in the Repurchase Agreement.

     

    The
      Purchaser hereby requests that pursuant to clause (i) of the definition of
      Expiration Date, the new Expiration Date of the Repurchase Agreement will be
      January 12, 2007 in respect of such clause.

     

    If
      you
      agree to such change please indicate in the signature space provided below.
      We
      look forward to our continued business relationship.

     

    
      	 	
              Very
                truly yours,

               

            
	 	 	 
	 	
              SHEFFIELD
                RECEIVABLES CORPORATION

            
	 	
              By:
                Barclays Bank PLC, as attorney-in-fact

            
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
              /s/
                Janette Lieu

            
	 	
              By:

            	
              Janette
                Lieu

            
	 	
              Title:

            	
              Director

            
	 	 	 


    

    


    ACCEPTED
      AND AGREED:

    


    PHH
      MORTGAGE CORPORATION, 

    As
      Seller
 

    


    
      	
              /s/
                Mark Johnson

            
	
              By:

            	
              Mark
                Johnson

            
	
              Title:

            	
              Vice
                President and Treasurer

            


    

    


    



    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    


    


    PHH
      CORPORATION,

    As
      Guarantor

    


    /s/
      Neil J. Cashen

    
      	
              By:

            	
              Neil
                J. Cashen

            
	
              Title:

            	
              CFO

            


    

    


    


    


    BARCLAYS
      BANK PLC,

    As
      Administrative Agent

    


    /s/
      Jeffrey Goldberg

    
      	
              By:

            	
              Jeffrey
                Goldberg

            
	
              Title:

            	
              Associate
                Director
No: IV-16-013 June 10, 2016 

CONTACT: Victor Dricks, 817-200-1128

NRC Will Hold an Open House on Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant Performance

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold an open house June 27 to discuss the 

agency’s assessment of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant’s 2015 safety performance. The plant 

is located in Glen Rose, Texas.

NRC staff will be on hand from 5-7 p.m. at the Hood County Library, 222 N. Travis St., in 

Granbury. While there are no formal presentations during the open house, the public will have an 

opportunity to ask about NRC’s assessment of the plant’s performance in 2015 and the agency’s 

oversight plans for 2016. Among the NRC staff in attendance will be the resident inspectors assigned to 

the plant on a full-time basis.

NRC assesses plant performance through the use of inspection findings and other indicators that 

can trigger additional regulatory oversight if needed. Overall, Comanche Peak operated safely during 

2015, and will receive rigorous baseline inspection for the remainder of 2016.

“The NRC continually reviews the performance of Comanche Peak and the nation’s other 

commercial nuclear power plants,” NRC Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas said. “The open house 

will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with local 

officials and residents who live near the plant.”

Inspections are performed by two NRC resident inspectors assigned to the plant and by 

specialist inspectors from the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant officials addresses the performance of the 

plant during 2015. Current performance information for Comanche Peak Unit 1 and Unit 2 can be 

found on the NRC website.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 17, 2014. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 17, 2014 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A14D0427. COURTNEY HARRIS et al. v. MINNESOTA LAWYERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2007CV131053
1835.016-70 Foreign participation under broad agency announcements (BAAs).       (a) *Policy.*          (1)  			NASA seeks the broadest participation in response to broad agency announcements, including foreign proposals or proposals including foreign participation. NASA's policy is to conduct research with foreign entities on a cooperative, no-exchange-of-funds basis (see NPD 1360.2, Initiation and Development of International Cooperation in Space and Aeronautics Programs). NASA does not normally fund foreign research proposals or foreign research efforts that are part of U.S. research proposals. Rather, cooperative research efforts are implemented via international agreements between NASA and the sponsoring foreign agency or funding/sponsoring institution under which the parties agree to each bear the cost of discharging their respective responsibilities.          (2) In accordance with the National Space Transportation Policy, use of a non-U.S. manufactured launch vehicle is permitted only on a no-exchange-of-funds basis.          (3) NASA funding may not be used for subcontracted foreign research efforts. The direct purchase of supplies and/or services, which do not constitute research, from non-U.S. sources by U.S. award recipients is permitted.    **Parent topic:** PART 1835—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00243-CV

Christus Spohn Health System Corporation d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital 

Corpus Christi–South

v.

Cheryl Williams and Ronald Williams

On appeal from the

94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016DCV-4437-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERED in accordance 

with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellees.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 6, 2020
§ 204.54 Commission action as a result of consideration of evidence submitted in response to the notice of intent. ( a ) *Consideration of evidence.* If, as a result of the Notice of Intent, the Commission receives notice that the debtor will submit additional evidence or receives additional evidence from the debtor within the prescribed time period, tax refund offset will be stayed until the Commission can: ( 1 ) Consider the evidence presented by the debtor; and
( 2 ) Determine whether or not all or a portion of the debt is still past due and legally enforceable; and
( 3 ) Notify the debtor of its determination.
( b ) *Commission action on the debt.* ( 1 ) The Commission will notify the debtor of its intent to refer the debt to the IRS for offset against the debtor's Federal income tax refund if it sustains its decision that the debt is past-due and legally enforceable. The Commission will also notify the debtor whether the amount of the debt remains the same or is modified; and
( 2 ) The Commission will not refer the debt to the IRS for offset against the debtor's Federal income tax refund if it reverses its decision that the debt is past due and legally enforceable.
[58 FR 64372, Dec. 7, 1993, as amended at 66 FR 54132, Oct. 26, 2001]
§ 1407.2 Definitions. ( a ) The definitions in section 3 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052) apply to this part 1407.
( b ) A portable generator is an internal combustion engine-driven electric generator rated no higher than 15 kilowatts and 250 volts that is intended to be moved for temporary use at a location where utility-supplied electric power is not available. It has receptacle outlets for the alternating-current (AC) output circuits, and may have alternating- or direct-current (DC) sections for supplying energy to battery charging circuits.
§ 12.307 Amended and supplemental pleadings. ( a ) *Amendments to pleadings.* At any time before the parties have concluded their submissions of proof, the Administrative Law Judge may allow amendments of the pleadings either upon written consent of the parties or for good cause shown. Any party may file a response to a motion to amend the pleadings within ten (10) days after the date of service upon that party of the motion.
( b ) *Supplemental pleadings.* At any time before the parties have concluded their submissions of proof, and upon such terms as are just, an Administrative Law Judge may, upon motion by a party, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth transactions, occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleadings sought to be supplemented and which are relevant to the issues in the proceeding. Any party may file a response to a motion to supplement the pleadings within ten (10) days after the date of service upon that party of the motion.
( c ) *Pleadings to conform to the evidence.* When issues not raised by the pleadings but reasonably within the scope of a formal decisional proceeding are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.
[49 FR 6621, Feb. 22, 1984, as amended at 86 FR 64359, Nov. 18, 2021]