alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1





December 18, 2003

John Lowber, (907) 868-5628; jlowber@gci.com
Bruce Broquet, (907) 868-6660; bbroquet@gci.com
David Morris, (907) 265-5396; dmorris@gci.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


               GCI ANNOUNCES SERVICE CONTRACT WITH STATE OF ALASKA

ANCHORAGE, AK -- GCI (NASDAQ:GNCMA) today announced that it has been awarded an
agreement with the State of Alaska to provide a variety of telecommunication
services for the next 18 months. Services include: long-distance, IP Telephony,
voice and data network management and maintenance, Internet, audio and video
conferencing and Help Desk. The total value of services is approximately $10
million.

"We are pleased that the State of Alaska has chosen GCI for its
telecommunication needs," said Ron Duncan, GCI president. "We look forward to
providing this customer with the best service and technology available, and
anticipate future opportunities for additional services."

GCI is the largest Alaska-based and operated integrated telecommunications
provider and provides local, wireless, and long distance service, cable
television, Internet, data communication and telecommunications outsourcing
services throughout Alaska. More information about the company can be found at
www.gci.com.

The foregoing contains forward-looking statements regarding the company's
expected results that are based on management's expectations as well as on a
number of assumptions concerning future events. Actual results might differ
materially from those projected in the forward looking statements due to
uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside GCI's control.
Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to
differ materially from those in the forward looking statements is contained in
GCI's cautionary statement sections of Form 10-K and 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                      # # #
Fw: Urgent Request Lucinda Watson to: Carrie Thomas, Adina Wiley
" ··-···· ......... -Forwarded by Lucinda Watson/R6/USEPAIUS on 10/07/2010 02:20PMRe: Urgent Request Janis Hudson to: Lucinda Watson Cc· Lynde Schoellkopf, Suzanne Smith, "Amy Browning", "Stephanie
· Bergeron.. 10/07/2010 02:20PM

09/28/2010 05:42PM

TCEQ purposely did not withdraw those three rule subsections. This is because, at adoption, we discovered, thatin our effortto provide a clean slate ofpublicparticipationrules for your review (see discussion in the "Prior SIP Submissions" section ofthe rule adoption preamble, at page 5198 in the June 18, 2010 edition ofthe 

### Texas Register) , wediscovered that these threerule subsections were notincluded in the notice proposingthe rules for the SIP. Specifically, no rule text changes were proposed for any ofthese but they weren't reserved from earlier submissions, nor re-noticed as revisions to the SIP. In fact, we noticed them to bewithdrawn from EPA review. This can be tracked through the proposal and adoption notices, and is noted in the commission's adoption order and transmittal letterto EPA. Therefore, sincethere was no change to the text ofthese rules atthis rulemaking adoption in 2010 (note that 39.418(b)(4)was relocatedto (b)(3)), we chose to notwithdrawthemfrom EPA consideration. Since they are not severablefrom otherrules, and in fact, are integral parts ofthe entire publicparticipation submittal, EPA's review ofthese can occur at the sametime as the review ofthe rules submitted to you onJuly 2, 2010. Ifyou have any further questions about this, please don't hesitate to contact me.

»> <Watson.Lucinda@epamail.epa.gov> 9/28/10 2:16PM»> First, I hope you are not on leave. Second, do you rememberwhy TCEQ did not withdraw the following 3 public participation subparagraphs from action by EPA as a SIP revision? Ifyou remember, is there any way you can get the Commissioners to sign a letter witihdrawing these three non-withdrawn SIP revision submittals? And we get the letter next week? Or it is put on their agenda so that we receive the withdrawal letter within two weeks?Non-withdrawn SIP revision Submittals: 1. 39.411. Text of Public Notice. (a) Applicants shall use notice text provided and approved by the agency. The executive director may approve changes to noticetext before notice being given. 2. 39.418. Notice of Receipt ofApplication and Intent to Obtain Permit. (b) Not laterthan 30 days after the executive director declares an application administratively complete: (4) the notice must includethe applicable information required by $39.411 (b) ofthis title (relating to Text of Public Notice). 3. 55.152. Public Comment Period. (b) The public comment period shall automatically be extended to the close ofany public meeting.
### FOR PUBLICATION 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



#  D. K., by and through his Guardian ad Litem Andrea Kumetz-Coleman; A NDREA No. 06-55988 K UMETZ -C OLEMAN ; S TEVEN K UMETZ , D.C. No.

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

#  CV-05-00341-CJC v. ORDER H UNTINGTON B EACH U NION H IGH S CHOOL D ISTRICT ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted January 14, 2009—Pasadena, California
Filed January 30, 2009

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Stephen S. Trott and

Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.

COUNSEL
William Lee Buus, Buus Kim Kuo & Tran APC, NewportBeach, California, for plaintiff-appellee Andrea KumetzColeman, as Guardian ad Litem.
Andrea Kumetz-Coleman, Westminster, California, pro se.
Steven Kumetz, Los Angeles, California, pro se.

1077Andrew V. Arczynski, Fullerton, California, and Caroline Zuk, Long Beach, California, for the defendant-appellant.

ORDER
After we granted permission for this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Supreme Court held in Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist. , 127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007), that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., gives parents substantive rights that they mayvindicate pro se. Because the IDEA rights of parents and children are generally coterminous, see Blanchard v. Morton Sch. Dist. , 509 F.3d 934, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2007), the issue certified in this case, whether the parents may also represent their minor child’s IDEA rights pro se, is not ripe. Unless and until the rights or interests of the parents diverge from those of the child, a ruling on the issue would be advisory. We therefore vacate the order granting permission for this appeal. Nickert

v. Puget Sound Tug and Barge Co. , 480 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir. 1973). After Winkelman was decided, the continued burden, expense and delay from staying district court proceedings and pursuing this interlocutory appeal was wholly unwarranted.

DISMISSED. 1078 D. K. v. H UNTINGTON B EACH U NION H IGHPRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO
The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
PUBLIC LAW 115–8—FEB. 28, 2017 131 STAT. 15 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 40: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 163 (2017): 

Feb. 2, considered and passed House. 

Feb. 14, 15, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–8 

115th Congress 

Joint Resolution 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States 

Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to 

Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 

disapproves the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (published at 81 Fed. Reg. 91702 (December 

19, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Approved February 28, 2017. 

Feb. 28, 2017 

[H.J. Res. 40] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
W. Bracke, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


By        /s/ JAMES W. BRACKE
  ------------------------------------------
James W. Bracke, Ph.D.
President, Chief Executive Officer
(principal executive officer), Secretary and Director
May 12, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Lifecore Biomedical, Inc. and will be retained by Lifecore
Biomedical, Inc., and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 77.704-7 Protective equipment; inspection.

Each person shall visually inspect protective equipment and clothing provided him in connection with work on high-voltage surface lines before using such equipment and clothing, and any equipment or clothing containing any defect or damage shall be discarded and replaced with proper protective equipment or clothing prior to the performance of any electrical work on such lines.
#### § 71.600 Drinking water; general.

An adequate supply of potable water shall be provided for drinking purposes in each surface installation and at each surface worksite of the mine.
### §210. Penalties for unauthorized trading, etc.; jurisdiction of prosecutions

Every officer of the United States, civil, military, or naval, and every sutler, soldier, marine, or other person, who takes, or causes to be taken into a State declared to be in insurrection, or to any other point to be thence taken into such State, or who transports or sells, or otherwise disposes of therein, any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, except in pursuance of license and authority of the President, as provided in this chapter, or who makes any false statement or representation upon which license and authority is granted for such transportation, sale, or other disposition, or who, under any license or authority obtained, willfully and knowingly transports, sells, or otherwise disposes of any other goods, wares, or merchandise than such as are in good faith so licensed and authorized, or who willfully and knowingly transports, sells, or disposes of the same, or any portion thereof, in violation of the terms of such license or authority, or of any rule or regulation prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury concerning the same, or who is guilty of any act of embezzlement, of willful misappropriation of public or private money or property, of keeping false accounts, or of willfully making any false returns, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not more than $5,000, and imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than three years. Violations of this section shall be cognizable before any court, civil or military, competent to try the same.

(R.S. §5306.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §5306 derived from act July 2, 1864, ch. 225, §10, 13 Stat. 377.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Review of Monetary Policy in 1977

              																	United States. Congress. House. Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, 1977-1995					 and 	Ninety-Fifth Congress, 1977-1979. 						*Review of Monetary Policy in 1977 : Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-Fifth Congress, Second Session, January 30, 1978*,												Washington: 								U.S. Government Printing Office, 										January 30, 1978,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1019,			accessed on September 18, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
§ 581.20 Submission of bids. ( a ) If the bidder is an individual, a statement of citizenship shall accompany the bid.
( b ) If the bidder is an association (including a partnership), the bid shall be accompanied by a certified statement indicating the State in which it is registered and that the association is authorized to hold mineral leases on the OCS, or appropriate reference to statements or records previously submitted to a BOEM OCS office (including material submitted in compliance with prior regulations).
( c ) If the bidder is a corporation, the bid shall be accompanied by the following information: ( 1 ) Either a statement certified by the corporate Secretary or Assistant Secretary over the corporate seal showing the State in which it was incorporated and that it is authorized to hold mineral leases on the OCS or appropriate reference to statements or record previously submitted to a BOEM OCS office (including material submitted in compliance with prior regulations).
( 2 ) Evidence of authority of persons signing to bind the corporation. Such evidence may be in the form of a certified copy of either the minutes of the board of directors or of the bylaws indicating that the person signing has authority to do so, or a certificate to that effect signed by the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the corporation over the corporate seal, or appropriate reference to statements or records previously submitted to a BOEM OCS office (including material submitted in compliance with prior regulations). Bidders are advised to keep their filings current.
( 3 ) The bid shall be executed in conformance with corporate requirements.
( d ) Bidders should be aware of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1860, which prohibits unlawful combination or intimidation of bidders.
( e ) When sealed bidding is specified in the leasing notice, a separate sealed bid shall be submitted for each bid unit that is bid upon as described in the leasing notice. A bid may not be submitted for less than a bidding unit identified in the leasing notice.
( f ) When oral bidding is specified in the leasing notice, information which must accompany a bid pursuant to paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section, shall be presented to BOEM at the lease sale prior to the offering of an oral bid.
November 10, 2014 

Heather McTeer Toney 

Regional Administrator 

US EPA Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center, 12th Floor 

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Re: EPA’s August 19, 2014, response to South Carolina’s designation recommendation for 

the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Dear Ms. Toney: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your response to our state’s designation 

recommendation. We support the EPA’s deferral of the PM2.5 designation for the Aiken-Augusta 

area in consideration of the monitoring data concerns. This is a proper use of the Clean Air 

Act’s deferral option and forestalls a final designation that would not show the area meeting the 

PM2.5 NAAQS. It is our expectation that the 2014 monitoring data will support an “attainment” 

designation when the data is certified in 2015. 

Please contact Robert J. Brown of my staff by telephone at (803) 898-4105 or by email at 

brownrj@dhec.sc.gov if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Myra C. Reece, Chief 

Bureau of Air Quality 

ec: Beverly Banister, U.S. EPA 

Keith Bentley, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection 

Division
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

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

                                    FORM 8-K

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

                                 CURRENT REPORT
                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE
                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

        Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): October 28, 2002

                           MSDW Structured Asset Corp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

          Delaware                  333-64879              13-4026700
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(State or Other Jurisdiction    (Commission File          (IRS Employer
      of Incorporation)              Number)           Identification No.)

1585 Broadway, New York, New York                                  10036
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (Address of Principal Executive Offices)                         (Zip Code)

        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 212-761-2520

                                 Not Applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)


<PAGE>


Item 7.  Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits

Exhibit 4.1       Trust Agreement


<PAGE>


                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereto duly authorized.

Date: November 6, 2002

                                                     MSDW STRUCTURED ASSET CORP.
                                                     (Registrant)


                                                     By: /s/ John Kehoe
                                                         -----------------
                                                     Name:  John Kehoe
                                                     Title: Vice President


<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT INDEX

Exhibit 4.1       Trust Agreement
#### LOOMIS v. LAKE SHORE & M. S. RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Ac*1134tion by Elsie Loomis against the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted. The form of the order to be settled by and before HISÓOÓK, J., on two days’ notice.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.1107-9 Dry chemical devices; capacity; minimum requirements.

(a) Dry chemical fire extinguishing systems used on underground equipment shall be of the multipurpose powder-type and shall include the following:

(1) The system including all hose and nozzles shall be protected against the entrance of moisture, dust, or dirt;

(2) The system shall be guarded against damage during operation of the equipment protected;

(3) Hose and pipe shall be as short as possible; the distance between the chemical container and furthest nozzle shall not exceed 50 feet;

(4) Hose, piping, and fittings between the actuator and the chemical container shall have a bursting pressure of 500 pounds per square inch (gage) or higher; the hose, piping, and fittings between the chemical container and the nozzles shall have a bursting pressure of 300 pounds per square inch (gage) or higher and

(5) The system shall discharge in 1 minute or less, for quantities less than 50 pounds (nominal)[1] and in less than 2 minutes for quantities more than 50 pounds;

(b) On unattended underground equipment, the number of pounds of dry chemical employed by the system shall be not less than 1 pound per square foot of top surface area of the equipment; however, the minimum amount in any system shall be 20 pounds (nominal). The discharge shall be directed into and on potentially hazardous locations of the equipment.

(c) On attended underground equipment, the number of pounds (nominal) employed by the system shall equal 5 times the total number of hazardous locations; however, the minimum amount in any system shall not be less than the following, except that systems on haulage vehicles installed prior to the effective date of this section may contain 20 pounds (nominal).

| Type of equipment | Dry chemical pounds (nominal) |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Cutting machines | 40 |
| (2) Continuous miners | 40 |
| (3) Haulage vehicles | 30 |
| (4) All other attended equipment | 20 |

(d) The amount of dry chemical discharged into the cable reel compartments of attended underground equipment shall be approximately 25 percent of the total amount required to be discharged by the system; however, the quantity discharged into cable reel compartments need not exceed 10 pounds.

[37 FR 15302, July 29, 1972]

###### Footnotes -
  75.1107-9

[1] Many dry chemical systems were originally designed for sodium bicarbonate before all-purpose chemical (ammonium phosphate) was shown to be more effective. Sodium bicarbonate is denser than ammonium phosphate; hence, for example, a 50-pound system designed for the sodium bicarbonate will hold slightly more by weight than all-purpose dry chemical (ammonium phosphate) by weight. The word “nominal” is used in § 75.1107-9 to express the approximate weight in pounds of all-purpose dry chemical.