alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER 

CERTIFIED MAIL: 7003 1680 0004 2906 8141 

Return Receipt Requested

 June 2, 2011 

Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA Region 10 

1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900 (Mail Stop RA-140) 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Dear Mr. McLerran: 

On behalf of Governor Parnell, the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation provides the following recommendation for the initial designation of 

areas with respect to the “Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2); Final Rule”, as published in the Federal Register on June 

22, 2010 (75 FR 35520). The State of Alaska does not have recent State/Local 

Ambient Monitoring Station (SLAMS) SO2 data that could be used to determine 

compliance with the NAAQS. SO2 SLAMS Network was dismantled in the 1990s 

after measured concentrations indicated that no areas within the state would 

violate the annual SO2 NAAQS. 

Consequently, at this time the state recommends that all areas within the borders 

of the State of Alaska be designated as unclassifiable with respect to the 1-hour 

SO2 NAAQS. Please accept this letter as an initial designation recommendation in 

accordance with the requirements of Section 107(d) (1) (A) of the Clean Air Act. 

Alice Edwards is available to your staff to respond to questions or to otherwise 

assist. She can be phoned at (907) 465-5109. As always, I would be pleased to 

discuss any of this with you. 

 

 Sincerely, 

 

 

 

 Larry Hartig 

 Commissioner 

SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR 

410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303 

Post Office Box 111800 

Juneau, Alaska 99811-1800 

Phone: 907-465-5066 

Fax: 907-465-5070 

www.dec.state.ak.us 
Dennis McLerran 2 June 2, 2011

g:\comm\wp\2011\11.0139 so2 initial designation letter sjs june 3, 2011.docx

cc: Rick Albright, EPA Region 10 

 Debra Suzuki, EPA Region 10 

 Krishna Viswanathan, EPA Region 10 

 Alice Edwards, Director, Division of Air Quality, DEC 

Barbara Trost, Program Manager, Air Monitoring & Quality Assurance, DEC 

 Cindy Heil, Acting Program Manager, ANPM Source Program, DEC
#### MULLER, Respondent, v. WERTHEIMER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by Henry F. Muller against Louis Wertheimer, impleaded with others, defendants.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
**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 A Clean Slate, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Richard Astrom, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of A Clean Slate, Inc.,        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.  |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: May 23, 2011 |   | /s/ Richard Astrom                                      |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                |   | Richard Astrom                                               |   |
|                |   | Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer, Principal Financial |   |
|                |   | Officer and Principal Accounting Officer                |   |
#### Tamara Vid et al., Appellants, v Glenn J. Kaufman et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[834 NYS2d 291]—

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered January 27, 2006, which denied their motion to restore this action to the trial calendar, (2) a judgment of the same court dated February 10, 2006, which, upon the order, dismissed the action insofar as asserted against the defendants Glenn J. Kaufman and Ob-Gyn Associates of Long Island, EC., and (3) an order of the same court dated August 1, 2006, which denied their motion for leave to renew and reargue the motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered January 27, 2006 is dismissed; and it is further,

*741Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further, Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated August 1, 2006 as denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to reargue is dismissed, as no appeal lies from the denial of reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 1, 2006 is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents. The appeal from the order entered January 27, 2006 must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action *(see Matter ofAho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order entered January 27, 2006 are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Pursuant to CPLR 3404, this action was automatically dismissed one year after it was marked off the calendar. The court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ motion to restore because they failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their delay in seeking to restore, a lack of intent to abandon, a meritorious claim, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants *(see Krichmar v Queens Med. Imaging, PC., 26*AD3d 417, 418 [2006]; *Costigan v Bleifeld,*21 AD3d 871, 872 [2005]; *Sarot v Yusufov,*301 AD2d 512, 513 [2003]; *Haber v City of New York,*227 AD2d 378 [1996]).

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to renew their motion to restore because they failed to present “new facts” which were unavailable at the time of the original motion and which would change the prior determination (see *Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr.,*37 AD3d 594 [2007]; *Companion Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v All State Abstract Corp.,*35 AD3d 519, 522 [2006]; *Giovanni v Moran,*34 AD3d 733, 734 [2006]). Crane, J.P., Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 15.1**

[Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. Letterhead] 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated April 14, 2006, which appears in Hurray! Holding Co., Ltd.’s AnnualReport on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005, and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-125174) of Hurray! Holding Co., Ltd. 

**Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd.**

/s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. 

Beijing, China 

June 15, 2006
Order entered April 28, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00333
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF N .K.C., A CHILD On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 18
- 21825

ORDER Before the Court are appellant’s written verification that he has requested the reporter’s record and court reporter Janet Saavedra’s letter informing the Court the record was taken by LaToya Young

- M artinez

. Accordingly, w e ORDER Ms. Young

- Martinez to file the reporter’s record no later than May 18, 2020.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Saavedra; Ms. Young

- Martinez; and, the parties. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CH IEF JUSTICE
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 1, 2021

No. 04-20-00426-CV

IN RE THE ESTATE OF DONACIANO ALDRETE, JR.

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Jim Hogg County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC-18-70

Honorable Baldemar Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due February 18, 2020, thirty days after the reporter's record was 

filed. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed. We 

therefore order Appellant to file, by March 11, 2021, appellant’s brief and a written response 

reasonably explaining his failure to timely file the brief. If appellant fails to file a brief and the 

written response by the date ordered, the appeal may be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a). 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of March, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.355 Submission acceptance. ( a ) A party whose submission is determined by the Department to be adequate shall be granted provisional acceptance until December 15, 1976, or for a six month period from the date of such determination, whichever is later.
( b ) Final acceptance of a party to act as a primary inspection agency will be contingent upon adequate performance during the period of provisional acceptance as determined through monitoring carried out under subpart J and upon satisfactory acceptance under § 3282.361(e) or § 3282.362(e). Final acceptance shall be withheld if performance is inadequate.
( c ) Continued acceptance as a primary inspection agency shall be contingent upon continued adequacy of performance as determined through monitoring carried out under subpart J. If the Secretary determines that a primary inspection agency that has been granted final acceptance is performing inadequately, the Secretary shall suspend the acceptance, and the primary inspection agency shall be entitled to a Formal or Informal Presentation of Views as set out in subpart D of this part.
[41 FR 19852, May 13, 1976, as amended at 51 FR 34468, Sept. 29, 1986; 61 FR 10861, Mar. 15, 1996]
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

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT STIPULATION TO TAKE CROSS MOTIONS OFF CALENDAR 1

ERSKINE & TULLEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

MICHAEL J. CARROLL (St. Bar #50246)

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 303

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 392-5431

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AUTOMOTIVE

INDUSTRIES PENSION FUND,

Plaintiffs, 

 

vs. 

 

EDGREN MOTOR COMPANY, etc., 

 

Defendant. 

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. C 09 1330 CRB

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

STIPULATION TO TAKE

CROSS MOTIONS OFF

CALENDAR 

The parties have met and conferred and settled this case.

There are cross motions for summary judgment pending, with briefs due

June 25, 2010 and July 2, 2010, and a hearing date of July 16, 2010.

The settlement will require preparation of paperwork and other steps.

We expect to complete the settlement before July 16, 2010, but cannot

be sure.

IT IS HERE BY STIPULATED to take the briefing and hearing

date off calendar, and to convert the July 16, 2010 date to a case

management conference.

ORDER

Case 3:09-cv-01330-CRB Document 35 Filed 06/24/10 Page 1 of 2
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

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT STIPULATION TO TAKE CROSS MOTIONS OFF CALENDAR 2

DATED: June 23, 2010 ERSKINE & TULLEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

 

By: /s/Michael J. Carroll

 Michael J. Carroll

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DATED: June 23, 2010 FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP

By: /s/John D. McLachlan 

 John D. McLachlan

Attorneys for Defendant 

O R D E R

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JUDGE CHARLES R. BREYER

June 24, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Charles R. Breyer

Case 3:09-cv-01330-CRB Document 35 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Lawrence Segrete, Respondent, v. Home Insurance Company of New York, Appellant.

Order entered on July 21, 1960, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for insufficiency, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion to dismiss is granted, with $10 costs. In the attempt to state a cause of action for the reformation of a $10,000 fire insurance policy to show a change of interest from the vendor of a building to the vendee, before a fire occurred on the premises, plaintiff alleges that at the time of delivery of title the vendor assigned the fire insurance contract to plaintiff, that there was an adjustment of insur*605anee premiums, and that a licensed insurance broker was instructed to procure an indorsement showing the change of interest to plaintiff. It is further alleged that the broker-—-who is not asserted to have been an employee or representative of the insurer — inadvertently sent the request for a change to one who was believed to be a proper party and plaintiff was led to believe that a change of interest had been effected. Finally, it is alleged that defendant had knowledge of the transfer of title to the insured property and the assignment by the vendor to plaintiff of the insurance policy. From all this it appears clearly that defendant never gave its written consent to the assignment of the policy as was required by the terms of the policy and the Insurance Law (Insurance Law, § 168). Reformation could be obtained here if there was a mutual mistake. However, defendant is not charged with any mistake or having done any act which estops it from denying liability. The mistake, if any, was that of plaintiff and the broker who sent the notice to one not authorized by defendant to consent to the assignment. The broker was no agent of defendant, and his knowledge and actions are not imputable to the insurer. Concur— Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
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

JOHN A. W. HALLEY

Attorney at Law, SBN 111682

620 Jefferson Avenue

Redwood City, CA 94063

Tel: (650) 366-6789

Fax: (650) 365-5386

Attorney for Petitioner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

CORY MOSBY, Case No. 3:09-cv-01667-MMC

Petitioner

ORDER

v.

JAMES YATES, Warden,

Respondent

_________________________________/

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ordered that Petitioner may have until

April 28, 2010 to file his traverse to the answer of respondent.

Dated: __________ _______________________________

MAXINE CHESNEY

JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

April 5, 2010

Case 3:09-cv-01667-MMC Document 19 Filed 04/05/10 Page 1 of 1
§ 311.600 Semi-annual compilation. ( a ) The head of each agency shall collect and compile the disclosure reports (see appendix B) and, on May 31 and November 30 of each year, submit to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives a report containing a compilation of the information contained in the disclosure reports received during the six-month period ending on March 31 or September 30, respectively, of that year.
( b ) The report, including the compilation, shall be available for public inspection 30 days after receipt of the report by the Secretary and the Clerk.
( c ) Information that involves intelligence matters shall be reported only to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, and the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with procedures agreed to by such committees. Such information shall not be available for public inspection.
( d ) Information that is classified under Executive Order 12356 or any successor order shall be reported only to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives or the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives (whichever such committees have jurisdiction of matters involving such information) and to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with procedures agreed to by such committees. Such information shall not be available for public inspection.
( e ) The first semi-annual compilation shall be submitted on May 31, 1990, and shall contain a compilation of the disclosure reports received from December 23, 1989 to March 31, 1990.
( f ) Major agencies, designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), are required to provide machine-readable compilations to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives no later than with the compilations due on May 31, 1991. OMB shall provide detailed specifications in a memorandum to these agencies.
( g ) Non-major agencies are requested to provide machine-readable compilations to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
( h ) Agencies shall keep the originals of all disclosure reports in the official files of the agency.
§ 291.545 Financing purchase of the home. ( a ) *Purchase using conventional financing.* If the law enforcement officer, teacher, or firefighter/emergency medical technician uses conventional financing to purchase a home under the GNND Sales Program, the amount of the mortgage may not exceed the discounted sales price of the home.
( b ) *Purchase with FHA-insured mortgage.* ( 1 ) A law enforcement officer, teacher, or firefighter/emergency medical technician using an FHA-insured mortgage to finance purchase of the home may finance reasonable and customary closing costs with the FHA-insured mortgage.
( 2 ) The amount of the FHA-insured mortgage may not exceed the discounted sales price of the home plus: ( i ) The closing costs; and
( ii ) The costs of rehabilitating and/or improving the home, where purchase of the home is being financed with an FHA-insured 203(k) rehabilitation loan (see 24 CFR part 203).
( c ) *Closing costs and selling broker's commissions.* In no event will HUD pay a buyer's closing costs on the purchase of a property or a selling broker's commission through the GNND Sales Program.
#### COLEMAN et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. Co., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.*

January 26, 1905.)

Action by Eugene J. Coleman and another against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

McLENNAN, P. J.

Order of reversal heretofore entered (90 N. Y. Supp. 264) amended so as to read: “Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event, upon questions of law and of fact.”

SPRING and HISCOCK, JJ., dissent,
§ 207.253a Termination of insurance contract. ( a ) *Reason for termination.* The happening of any of the following events shall constitute an additional reason for terminating the contract of insurance in cases where the mortgagee has elected to convey the property to the Commissioner: ( 1 ) The acquisition by the mortgagee of the mortgaged property without conveying it to the Commissioner.
( 2 ) The acquisition of the property at the foreclosure sale by a party other than the mortgagee.
( 3 ) The redemption of the property after foreclosure.
( 4 ) Notice given by the mortgagee after the foreclosure and during the redemption period that it will not tender the property to the Commissioner.
( b ) *Notice of termination.* No contract of insurance shall be terminated until the mortgagee has given written notice thereof to the Commissioner within 30 days from the happening of any one of the events set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) *Effective termination date.* The Commissioner shall notify the mortgagee that the contract of insurance has been terminated and the effective termination date. The termination shall be effective as of the date any one of the events set forth in paragraph (a) of this section occur.
( d ) *Effect of termination.* Upon termination of the contract of insurance the obligation to pay any subsequent MIP shall cease and all rights of the mortgagor and mortgagee shall be terminated.
[36 FR 24537, Dec. 22, 1971, as amended at 37 FR 8662, Apr. 29, 1972]
### §1600i. Reports to Congress

Within one year after October 8, 1986, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committees a report regarding the Colorado River Floodway, the task force's report, and the Secretary's recommendations with respect to the objectives outlined in section 1600b(b) of this title. In making his report, the Secretary shall analyze the effects of this chapter on the economic development of the Indian tribes whose lands are located within the Floodway.

(Pub. L. 99–450, §11, Oct. 8, 1986, 100 Stat. 1134.)