alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D

.C

. 20460

Ms. Marilyn Pfisterer City Council District 14 1001 Mt. Auburn Drive Indianapolis, IN 46224 Dear Ms. Pfisterer: November 25 , 2015 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

I am writing in response to your email ofNovember 23,2015, requesting an extension ofthe public comment period for the West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination site in Indianapolis, Indiana. This site was proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 30, 2015, with a 60-day public comment period scheduled to end on November 30, 2015. In your letter, you requested that EPA extend the comment period because you believe that the local residents have not been sufficiently informed ofEPA's proposal to add the site to the NPL. EPA makes every effort to ensure the involvement ofthe local community in site activities. A notice was published in the local newspaper as well as coverage from local media outlets to alert the community and local government officials ofthe proposed NPL listing. EPA believes that this process offers the public sufficient opportunity to participate in EPA's decision

-making process. Any member ofthe public may submit 'Nritten comments presenting facts and opinions germane to the listing ofthis site. It is EPA's general policy to extend the comment period only on a site-specific basis to address any procedural errors, such as incomplete or missing references in the public docket. This approach is consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. There were no procedural errors that have been identified in this case. All ofthe documentation supporting the proposed NPL listing was made available to the public at the time ofproposal, giving all interested parties ample time to review the infom1ation and prepare comments
. However, EPA has carefully considered your request and is giving you, and all other interested parties, an additional 14 days to submit comments related to the West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination site. All commenters have until December I4, 20I5 to submit comments. Please use Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0575 for submittal ofyour comments via www.regulations

.gov. 

# t4y,

# c .**a** Douglas A on, Chief Site Ass sment and Remedy Decisions Branch Office ofSuperfund Remediation & Technology Innovation
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1623 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1623

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the rate of 
 chronic absenteeism in American schools must urgently be reduced, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2024

Mr. Wenstrup submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
              the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the rate of 
 chronic absenteeism in American schools must urgently be reduced, and 
                          for other purposes.

Whereas chronic absenteeism is defined as absence on at least 10 percent of 
        school days for any reason;
Whereas there has been a sharp rise in the rate of chronic absenteeism in 
        primary and secondary students across the United States since the onset 
        of the coronavirus pandemic;
Whereas Congress is concerned that chronic absenteeism in American schools has a 
        critical impact on the well-being and future of our Nation, and that the 
        House of Representatives supports efforts by educators to address the 
        high rate of truancy;
Whereas chronic absenteeism has a proven negative impact on academic achievement 
        trajectories and leads to learning loss, higher dropout rates, poor 
        nutrition, delayed social development, and impaired health outcomes;
Whereas these issues are greatly exacerbated when the absences occur in earlier 
        grade levels;
Whereas the issue demands additional attention, with elevated truancy rates 
        remaining durable beyond the end of the coronavirus pandemic;
Whereas poor transportation, school culture, instability at home, and other 
        factors all deserve additional collaboration from families, schools, and 
        elected officials;
Whereas education professionals have developed and are implementing policy tools 
        to effectively deal with this epidemic in K-12 education; and
Whereas the House of Representatives sees fit to promote continued coordination, 
        and additional dialogue, investment, and attention to be paid to this 
        issue: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives encourages 
collaboration between State and local elected officials, educators, 
administrators, and other stakeholders to reduce--
            (1) the rate of chronic absenteeism in American schools; 
        and
            (2) the negative impact of chronic absenteeism on students 
        and communities across the United States.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO RESTATED  CREDIT AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
 nd
      minus




---



##### 



nd
 EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTCORPORATIONByRandall WhitePresidentCompany
 ARVEST BANKByDennis Colvard
     Senior Vice PresidentBank




---



##### 



REVOLVING CREDIT NOTE
 $5,000,000.00
    
    Tulsa, Oklahoma
September 2, 2005
  minus
 The
Wall Street Journal (Southwest Edition)




---



##### 



EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION, a Delaware corporationByRandall WhitePresidentMaker
 Due: June 30, 2006
EXHIBIT
32.2








CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I, Steven G. Larson, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(i)           the
Quarterly Report of LaserCard Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended
December 31, 2008 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and





(ii)          the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of LaserCard
Corporation.





Date:  February
10, 2009





/s/Steven G.
Larson


Steven G.
Larson


Chief
Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)
|For immediate release                                           
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|Mittal Canada completes acquisition
of three Stelco subsidiaries



February 1, 2006 - Contrecur - Mittal Canada Inc., a Canadian subsidiary of Mittal Steel Company N.V., the worlds leader in the steel industry, completes the acquisition of three Stelco Inc. subsidiaries.



The Norambar Inc. and Stelfil Ltée plants located in Quebec and the Stelwire Ltd. plant in Ontario were acquired at a cost of C$30 million. Mittal Canada has also assumed C$28 million in debt.



The Norambar plant will complement Mittal Canadas facilities in Contrecur and Longueuil, boosting Mittal Canadas capacity by 625,000 tons of billets and 435,000 tons of bars and thereby strengthening its position as a major steel producer in Canada. Stelfil and Stelwire will add 250,000 tons of steel wire to the Companys annual production capacity, providing a wider product mix to better meet our customers needs.



Good news for partners



I am delighted with the positive outcome of this transaction after over a year of negotiations, said Richard Leblanc, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mittal Canada Inc. It is consistent with the Companys management philosophy of seizing favourable business opportunities. Also, synergies resulting from the integration of these three plants will further optimize our long-term viability and competitiveness, which in turn will clearly benefit our employees and communities.



Based in Quebec, Mittal Canada has an annual production capacity of 2.5 million tons of steel. The Company manufactures a wide range of high quality flat and long steel products, sold mainly in Canada and the USA to the automotive, engineering and other industries. It is a subsidiary of Mittal Steel, the worlds largest and only truly global steelmaker.







Page 1 of 2



---







About Mittal Steel



Mittal Steel Company is the worlds largest and most global steel company.  The company has operations in fourteen countries, on four continents.  Mittal Steel encompasses all aspects of modern steelmaking, to produce a comprehensive portfolio of both flat and long steel products to meet a wide range of customer needs.  It serves all the major steel consuming sectors, including automotive, appliance, machinery and construction.



For 2004, Mittal Steel had revenues of US$22.2 billion and steel shipments of 42.1 million tons.  The company trades on the New York Stock Exchange and the Euronext Amsterdam under the ticker symbol MT.





Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4989

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. STEFFEN V. WRIGHT, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00052-2)

Submitted: April 10, 2009 Decided: April 21, 2009

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Steffen V. Wright appeals his sentence to eleven months in prison and forty-eight months of supervised release imposed in the district court’s judgment revoking supervised release. On appeal, Wright does not challenge the district court’s finding that he violated the conditions of his supervised release, but he contends that his eleven-month prison sentence is plainly unreasonable because it does not further the purposes of supervised release. We affirm. We will affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release if it is within the prescribed statutory range and not plainly unreasonable. United States v. Crudup , 461 F.3d 433, 439-40 (4th Cir. 2006). We first consider whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Id. at 438. While a district court must consider the Chapter 7 policy statements, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7, Pt. B (2007), and the statutory requirements and factors applicable to revocation sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e) (2006), the district court ultimately has broad discretion to revoke the previous sentence and impose a term of imprisonment up to the statutory maximum. Id. at 438-39. Only if we find the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable, must we decide whether it is “plainly” unreasonable. Id. at 439.

23 We have reviewed the record and find Wright’s sentence is both procedurally and sub stantively reasonable, and within the prescribed statutory range. In imposing its sentence, the district court considered Wright’s policy statement range under USSG § 7B1.4 and the relevant statutory requirements and factors, and the court reasonably determined a prison sentence at the high end of the policy statement range, followed by a new supervised release term, was appropriate in this case. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      22,411,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,946,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   163,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,222,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,237,000
<PP&E>                                      21,237,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,147,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,659,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,042,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       145,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,419,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,659,000
<SALES>                                     30,559,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,559,000
<CGS>                                       15,857,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,857,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,052,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             494,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                772,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   193,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            579,000
<DISCONTINUED>                             (6,738,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,159,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.77)
        

</TABLE>
U.S. Deportment

of Transportation Office of the Secretory of Transportation Assistant Secretary New Jersey Aven ue. SE Washi ngton. DC 20590 

## I= ~; 3 MAY 3.0 

## 2014

The Honorable Laurie Gill Mayor of the City of Pierre 222 East Dakota Ave. P.O. Box 1253 Pierre, SD 57501-1253
DearMayor Gill: Thank you for your recent letter regarding Great Lakes Aviation's (Great Lakes) service at Pierre. In the letter, you urge the Department of Transportation (the Department) to issue a Request for Proposals for replacement service on the grounds that Great Lakes' service is unreliable and is not meeting your community's Essential Air Service (EAS) needs. We are aware of Great Lakes' operational problems that have been caused by a lack of pilots due in part to recent statutory and regulatory changes involving pilot training requirements and the carrier's implementation of the changes. You are right that Great Lakes' service problems are, not limited to Pierre; rather, the carrier's service has suffered system-wide.

. . In response to the severe pilot shortage, which is not limited to Great Lakes, the carrier has taken some rather drastic measures. DUling the first quarter 0[2014, it suspended or terminated service at 13 subsidized EAS communities and an additional number of non-EAS communities

. In addition, as of April 1 , Great Lakes began to operate Beech 1900 aircraft that have been reconfigured for 9 seats in order to more effectively utilize the pilots it has on staff. The reconfigured aircraft are intended to more quickly utilize new pilots that it has hired as a result of the increased attrition that hampered its ability to operate a full schedule in the first quarter of 2014. Great Lakes has indicated to us that it is working well and the carrier has expanded the reconfiguration to more aircraft in its fleet. I, along with the EAS program staff, met with Great Lakes in Washington, D

.C. in late March in an attempt to gather more information on their current operations and what the carrier intends to do moving forward to improve its operation. The Department will be monitoring Great Lakes' service over the next few weeks and if we do not see improvement, we will consider taking steps that may be necessary to ameliorate the

### -2-



### effects of their service reductions, cancellations, and hardship on the community, including the possibility of issuing a Request for Proposals as you recommend. A copy of this letter will be placed in Pierre' docket (Docket DOT-OST-2011-0138) on www.regulations.gov. Sincerely,



# -~»~ ~/tL Susan L. Kurland A istant Secretary for Aviati n and International Affairs
§ 1701.8 Requests to amend or correct records. ( a ) *How to request.* Unless the record is not subject to amendment or correction (see paragraph (b) of this section), individuals (or guardians or representatives acting on their behalf) may make a written amendment or correction request to the D/IMO, as directed in § 1701.3 of this subpart, or to the contact designated in a specific Privacy Act System of Records. Requesters seeking amendment or correction should identify the particular record or portion subject to the request, explain why an amendment or correction is necessary, and provide the desired replacement language. Requesters may submit documentation supporting the request to amend or correct. Requests for amendment or correction will lapse (but may be re-initiated with a new request) if all necessary information is not submitted within forty-five (45) days of the date of the original request. The identity verification procedures of paragraphs (d) and (e) of § 1701.7 of this subpart apply to amendment requests.
( b ) . ( 1 ) Records which are determinations of fact or evidence received (e.g., transcripts of testimony given under oath or written statements made under oath; transcripts of grand jury proceedings, judicial proceedings, or quasi-judicial proceedings, which are the official record of those proceedings; pre-sentence records that originated with the courts) and
( 2 ) Records in ODNI systems of records that ODNI or another agency has exempted from amendment and correction under Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j) or (k) by notice published in the Federal Register.
### §2150. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–279, §14, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 421

Section, Pub. L. 89–544, §20, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 353; Pub. L. 91–579, §21, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1565, provided for issuance of cease and desist orders if Secretary had reason to believe that any research facility had violated any provision of this chapter, provided for a civil penalty, and provided appeal mechanism by which aggrieved person may have judicial review of such final order by Secretary. See section 2149 of this title.
#### § 1907.04 Suggestions and complaints.

The Agency welcomes suggestions or complaints with regard to its administration of the Executive Order. Letters of suggestion or complaint should identify the specific purpose and the issues for consideration. The Agency will respond to all substantive communications and take such actions as determined feasible and appropriate.
<PAGE>
      Subsidiaries of International Comfort Products Corporation<F1>

                                                   State or other Jurisdiction
                                                      of Incorporation or    
            Name                                          Organization
---------------------------------------------      --------------------------
International Comfort Products Holdings, Inc.       Delaware, USA
ICP Property and Casualty Corporation               British Columbia, Canada
International Comfort Products
      Corporation (Canada)                          Canada
ICP International Holdings, Inc.                    Cayman Islands, B.W.I.
International Comfort Products
      Corporation (USA)<F2>                         Delaware, USA
M.T.R. Controls Ltd.<F3>                            British Columbia, Canada
G.C. McDonald Supply Limited<F3>                    Ontario, Canada
M.T.R. Controls (Manitoba) Ltd.<F3>                 Manitoba, Canada
HAVE Wholesale Ltd.<F3>                             Canada
Fast Parts de Mexico S.A. de C.V.<F4>               Mexico
United Electric Company<F5>                         Delaware, USA
ICP Petroleum, Inc.<F5>                             Delaware, USA
A-1 Components Corp.<F5>                            Delaware, USA
Tempstar Distributing, Inc.<F5>                     Delaware, USA
Industrias HVH, S.A.<F5>                            Spain
Fast Parts do Brasil Ltda<F5>                       Brazil
International Comfort Products Foreign Sales
      Corporation<F5>                               Barbados
Inter-City Products Partner Corporation<F5>         Delaware, USA
Frigoram Commerciale, S.p.A.<F6>                    Italy
Continental VAV, Inc.<F7>                           Texas
United Electric Company, L.P.<F8>                   Texas
Inter-City Products Receivables Company, L.P.<F9>   Tennessee, USA

[FN]
<F1>
All subsidiaries are wholly-owned unless otherwise indicated.
<F2>
Subsidiary of International Comfort Products Holdings, Inc.
<F3>
Subsidiary of International Comfort Products Corporation (Canada).
<F4>
Subsidiary of ICP International Holdings, Inc.
<F5>
Subsidiary of International Comfort Products Corporation (USA).
<F6>
80% subsidiary of International Comfort Products Corporation (USA).
<F7>
Subsidiary of United Electric Company.
<F8>
General Partner is Continental VAV, Inc.; limited partner is
United Electric Company.
<F9>
General Partner is Inter-City Products Partner Corporation;
limited partner is International Comfort Products Corporation (USA).
</FN>