alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 35.31 Determining the amount of penalties and assessments. ( a ) In determining an appropriate amount of civil penalties and assessments, the ALJ and the authority head, upon appeal, should evaluate any circumstances that mitigate or aggravate the violation and should articulate in their opinions the reasons that support the penalties and assessments they impose. Because of the intangible costs of fraud, the expense of investigating such conduct, and the need to deter others who might be similarly tempted, ordinarily double damages and a significant civil penalty should be imposed.
( b ) Although not exhaustive, the following factors are among those that may influence the ALJ and the authority head in determining the amount of penalties and assessments to impose with respect to the misconduct (*i.e.,* the false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements) charged in the complaint: ( 1 ) The number of false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or statements;
( 2 ) The time period over which such claims or statements were made;
( 3 ) The degree of the defendant's culpability with respect to the misconduct;
( 4 ) The amount of money or the value of the property, services, or benefit falsely claimed;
( 5 ) The value of the Government's actual loss as a result of the misconduct, including foreseeable consequential damages and the costs of investigation;
( 6 ) The relationship of the amount imposed as civil penalties to the amount of the Government's loss;
( 7 ) The potential or actual impact of the misconduct upon national defense, public health or safety, or public confidence in the management of government programs and operations, including particularly the impact on the intended beneficiaries of such programs;
( 8 ) Whether the defendant has engaged in a pattern of the same or similar misconduct;
( 9 ) Whether the defendant attempted to conceal the misconduct;
( 10 ) The degree to which the defendant has involved others in the misconduct or in concealing it;
( 11 ) Where the misconduct of employees or agents is imputed to the defendant, the extent to which the defendant's practices fostered or attempted to preclude such misconduct;
( 12 ) Whether the defendant cooperated in or obstructed an investigation of the misconduct;
( 13 ) Whether the defendant assisted in identifying and prosecuting other wrongdoers;
( 14 ) The complexity of the program or transaction, and the degree of the defendant's sophistication with respect to it, including the extent of the defendant's prior participation in the program or in similar transactions;
( 15 ) Whether the defendant has been found, in any criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding to have engaged in similar misconduct or to have dealt dishonestly with the Government of the United States or of a state, directly or indirectly; and
( 16 ) The need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in the same or similar misconduct.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ALJ or the authority head from considering any other factors that in any given case may mitigate or aggravate the offense for which penalties and assessments are imposed.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77230-77231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28132]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 102504E]


Endangered Species; File No. 1494

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that St. George's School, P.O. Box 
1910, Newport, RI 02840 has been issued a permit to take loggerhead 
(Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys 
imbricata) and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles for 
purposes of scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 
20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376;
    Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-
2298; phone (978)281-9200; fax (978)281-9371; and
    Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. 
Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5301; fax (727)570-5320.

[[Page 77231]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Opay or Jennifer Skidmore, 
(301)713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 20, 2004, notice was published in 
the Federal Register (69 FR 51637) that a request for a scientific 
research permit to take sea turtles had been submitted by the above-
named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the 
authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, 
importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 
parts 222-226).
    Permit No. 1494 is a five-year permit authorizing St. George's 
School to annually capture 50 loggerhead, 5 green, 5 hawksbill and 5 
Kemp's ridley sea turtles by hand or dip net. Animals will be weighed, 
measured, flipper tagged and released. The applicant will also collect 
tissue samples from the loggerhead, green and hawksbill species and 
import the samples to the U.S. The purpose of the research is to study 
habitat utilization and migratory behavior of these species.
    Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a 
finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will 
not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered and threatened 
species which are the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent 
with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Stephen L. Leathery,
Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of 
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 04-28132 Filed 12-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0001021010
<NAME>       Edge Petroleum Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S.Dollars

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               Sep-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         982,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,120,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                   250,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,061,414
<PP&E>                                      78,945,941
<DEPRECIATION>                              32,968,577
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,913,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,031,939
<BONDS>                                      5,450,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,631
<OTHER-SE>                                  44,090,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,913,799
<SALES>                                     10,787,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,787,549
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,194,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (449,740)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (449,740)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (449,740)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)



</TABLE>
### §7278. Availability of appropriations for Department of Energy for transportation, uniforms, security, and price support and loan guarantee programs; transfer of funds; acceptance of contributions

Appropriations for the Department of Energy under this title 1 in this and subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts, on and after October 2, 1992, shall be available for hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire, maintenance and operation of aircraft; purchase, repair and cleaning of uniforms; and reimbursement to the General Services Administration for security guard services. From these appropriations, transfers of sums may on and after October 2, 1992, be made to other agencies of the United States Government for the performance of work for which this appropriation is made. None of the funds made available to the Department of Energy under this Act or subsequent Energy and Water Development Appropriations Acts shall be used to implement or finance authorized price support or loan guarantee programs unless specific provision is made for such programs in an appropriation Act. The Secretary is authorized on and after October 2, 1992, to accept lands, buildings, equipment, and other contributions from public and private sources and to prosecute projects in cooperation with other agencies, Federal, State, private, or foreign.

(Pub. L. 102–377, title III, §301, Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1338.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This title, referred to in text, is title III of Pub. L. 102–377, Oct. 2, 1992, 106 Stat. 1332. For complete classification of title III to Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1993, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.

1 See References in Text note below.
#### § 1003.1 Applicability and scope.

The policies and procedures described in this part apply to grants to eligible applicants under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program for Indian tribes and Alaska native villages.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         163,780
<SECURITIES>                                   242,110
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,269
<ALLOWANCES>                                       430
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               437,320
<PP&E>                                          86,650
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 893,497
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,720
<BONDS>                                        231,064
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       813,963
<OTHER-SE>                                   (235,671)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   893,497
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,098
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,753
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,296
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,124)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,124)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,124)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY ELSTER,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT AYERS JR.,

Respondent. /

No. C 08-03279 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. 2254 filed by a state prisoner. The petition was

denied on its merits in an order dated June 12, 2009. Judgment was entered that day. Petitioner

now moves for a certificate of appealability (“COA”).

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without

first obtaining a certificate of appealability (formerly known as a certificate of probable cause to

appeal). See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A judge shall grant a certificate of

appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). The certificate must indicate which issues satisfy

this standard. “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the

showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604 (2000). For the reasons set out 

Case 3:08-cv-03279-WHA Document 33 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

in the ruling on the petition (Dkt. No. 19), jurists of reason would not find the result debatable

or wrong. The motion for a certificate of appealability (docket number 34) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-03279-WHA Document 33 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2
A AM

- 13

- 359

- E June 05, 2013

Exemption No. 9 914B

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 200 9

- 0545

Mr. Robert A. Anstatt

Director of Operations

Easton Aviation, LLC

3718 Marvel Drive

Trappe , MD 216 7 3

Dear Mr. Anstatt :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 9914

, as amended

. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions

and limitations

.

The Basis for Our Dec ision

By submission dated May 3 , 201 3 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

on behalf of Easton Aviation, LLC ( Easton Aviation ) for an e xtension of Exemption No

. 9914 , as amended . That exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Feder al Regulations

allows Easton Aviation, which is operating under separate parts of the regulation, to cover its

safety

- sensitive employees under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

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

in the Federal Register because the reques ted extension of the exem ption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Easton Aviation

.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of E xemption No. 9914 , as

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore,

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegat ed to me, I grant your petition, subject to the conditions and limitations listed

below.

Condition s and Limitations

1. Employees of Easton Aviation 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 testing program must be implemented under the auspices of

the Easton Av iation part 135 operation, not under part 91.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of E xemption No. 9914 , as amended, to August 31,

201 5 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

§ 40.2 Documentation of nationals. ( a ) *Nationals of the United States.* A national of the United States shall not be issued a visa or other documentation as an alien for entry into the United States.
( b ) *Former Nationals of the United States.* A former national of the United States who seeks to enter the United States must comply with the documentary requirements applicable to aliens under the INA.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 242 (Friday, December 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 75588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27691]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Amended Notice of Public Comment Period for Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (DEIS) for Proposed Relocation of the Panama City-Bay 
County International Airport to a New Site in Bay County, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. The U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers (USACE) is a cooperating federal agency, having 
jurisdiction by law because of the proposed federal action has the 
potential for significant wetland impacts.

ACTION: Amended notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing this 
amended notice to advise the public that the public comment period for 
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)--Proposed Relocation of 
the Panama City--Bay County International Airport, has been extended 
from January 21, 2005, to January 28, 2005, due to requests from the 
public. Original notices of availability of the DEIS was published in 
the Federal Register by USEPA on November 26, 2004 [68 FR 68899] and by 
FAA on December 3, 2004 [69 FR 70302]. Written requests for the DEIS 
and written comments on the DEIS can be submitted to the individual 
listed in the section For Further Information Contact.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Virginia Lane, Environmental 
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Orlando Airports District 
Office, Suite 400, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Orlando, Florida 
32822. Ms. Lane can be contacted at (407) 812-6331 (voice), (407) 812-
6978 (facsimile).

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 13, 2004.
Ralph Thompson,
Manager, Community and Environmental Needs Division, Office of Airport 
Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 04-27691 Filed 12-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Process Diagram for NCS NCS refers to New Chemical Substance All units in kg/batch

Total Charge to Reactor 272 kg Acetaldehyde 3957 kg Cuminaldehyde 27 kg NaOH 379 kg Water 30 kg Carbon Dioxide

Release Point #1 - Waste Water Treatment 481.0 kg Water 51.4 kg Sodium Salts 1.6 kg PICA 7.8 kg Cuminaldehyde .2 kg Misc. Organics

Lights Cut #1 Release Point #2 - Waste Water Treatment 9.8 kg Water 72.0 kg Misc. Organics Cuminaldeyde Cut #2 Recycle to Storage Tank 32.4 kg PICA 3203.3 kg Cuminaldehyde Purif Cut #3 Recycle to Distillation .2 kg PICA 16.2 kg Cuminaldehyde Product Cut #4 55 Gallon Drums, ISO Containers 634.2 kg PICA 8.4 kg Misc Organics Bottoms Remainder Release Point #3 - On-Site Incineration 10.7 kg PICA 123.5 kg Tars 

## Storage Tank Cuminaldehyde 55 Gallon D rums 5000 Gallon ISO Containers Acetaldehyde 30,000 Gallon Rail Cars



## Blending Tank



## Batch Reactor 

## Storage Tank

Reactor Crude Storage Tank

Batch Distillation 

## Blending Tank

Waste Water Storage Tank NaOH, 

### Water

Carbon Dioxide



## Storage Tank

Storage Tank



## Storage Tank

Storage Tank

Tank Truck

Release Point #4

- Process Sampling On

- Site Incineration The material from process sampling is collected and sent to
an on
- site incinerator. Release Point #5

- Process Cleanup Waste Water Treatment Process cleaning is expected to occur three times per year for years approaching the maximum estimated production rate. Process cleaning will be performed using steam and hot water. Process cleaning will send 125kg of PICA to on

- site Waste Water Treatment. Release Point #6

- Filtration Wastes Off

- Site Incineration Used sock filters are purged in

- place with nitrogen then removed from the process and placed in "Chemically

- Contaminated Waste" drums for off

- site incineration. At maximum production this will occur six times per year and contain approximately 0.7 kg of PICA per instance for a total of 4 kg per year. Release Point #7

- Process Maintenance Waste Water Treatment

Process maintenance activities will release varied amounts of PICA depending on the equipment involved. Equipment must be cleaned before maintenance activities in which personnel will be exposed. Cleaning will occur with steam and hot water and will typically release to Waste Water Treatment up to 4 kg of PICA (on average) per
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

ORDER RE HEARING

FOR PLAINTIFF’S

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

The further meet-and-confer set for Wednesday, January 20, 2010, from 8:00–10:30 a.m.

shall be held as scheduled in the Court’s jury room on the 19th floor. At 10:30 a.m., the Court

shall hold a discovery hearing. Counsel are reminded that only those who participate in the

further meet-and-confer may argue at the hearing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 338 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 1