alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
‘0 S 11

. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY X\IfL REGION IX L PRO 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105.3901 

## APR 0 r. aron

. ynn REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR Hunton and Williams, LLP 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 DearMr. Flynn: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received the petition you submitted on February 4, 2013 on behalfofSalt River ProjectAgricultural Improvement and PowerDistrict (SRP), seeking reconsideration and a stay ofeffectiveness ofcertain elements ofEPA’s final rule entitled “Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans” as it applies to the Coronado Generating Station (Coronado). 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012). As indicated in yourpetition, EPA proposed to set emissions limits fornitrogen oxides (NO) of0.050 lb/MMBtu and 0.080 lb/MMBtu (based on arolling 30-boiler-operating-day average) fbr Coronado Units 1 and 2 respectively. 77 FR42834, 42869 (July 20, 2012). th response to comments received during the public comment period, our final rule set a single plant-wide limit across the two Coronado units of0.065 lb/MMBtu. In addition, the final rule established a compliance determination methodthat ensures inclusion ofthirty boiler-operating days ofemissions data forboth units, even ifboth units are not operating. With respect to Coronado, we explained that, “during periods when only one unit operates, this method allows the one operating unitto average out short-term emission spikes by using the mostrecent thirtyboiler-operating-day value from the non-operating unit.” 77 FR 72527. SRP’s petition seeks reconsideration ofthis element ofour final rule pursuant to Clean Air Action section 307(d)(7)(B). In response to yourpetition, EPA is granting reconsideration ofthe compliance methodology forNO at Coronado. Accordingly, EPA plans to publish a notice ofproposed rulemaking seeking comment on an alternative compliance methodology forNOx at Coronado. In addition, because we initially proposed differentNOx emission limits for Coronado Units 1 and 2, we also intend to seek comment on the emission limits for each ofthose two units. At this time, EPA is not acting on any otherportion ofSRP’s petition, including SRP’s request for stay ofthe final rule. Ifyou have any questions regarding the reconsideration process, please contact Charlotte Withey at (415) 972-3915 or Lea Anderson at (202) 564-5571. We thank you foryour continued interest in this rule and look forward to hearing from you during the reconsideration process.

cc: See nextpage Printed on Recycled Papercc: Eric Massey, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Joseph P. Mikitish, Arizona Attorney General’s Office Michael Hiatt, Earthjustice Arizona Congressional Delegation Kelly Barr, Kara Montalvo and Karilee Ramaley, SRP
### §4405. Fees and charges

#### (a) Testing or inspection

Any organization designated by the Secretary of Agriculture to test or inspect equipment may establish reasonable fees to cover the costs of such testing or inspection. Such fees shall be payable directly to the organization by those seeking inspection or testing.

#### (b) Issuance of certificates of compliance

The Secretary of Agriculture may, effective October 1, 1982, fix and cause to be collected reasonable fees to cover, as nearly as practicable, the costs to the Department of Agriculture incurred in connection with the issuance of certificates of compliance as provided under section 4403(2) of this title. All fees collected shall be credited to the current appropriation account that incurs the cost and shall be available without fiscal year limitation to pay the expenses of the Secretary of Agriculture incident to the issuance of certificates of compliance under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 97–325, §6, Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1605.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 97–325, Oct. 15, 1982, 96 Stat. 1603, known as the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4401 of this title and Tables.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial  statements  of The  Titan  Corporation's  Report on Form 10-Q for the
three and six months  ended June 30,  1999,  and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000032258
<NAME>                        The Titan Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           5,135
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  129,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                     10,605
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               159,107
<PP&E>                                          72,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                  45,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 270,311
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,200
<BONDS>                                        115,767
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        695
<COMMON>                                           405
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   270,311
<SALES>                                        168,160
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               168,160
<CGS>                                          129,501
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  129,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,970
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,831
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,879
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,963
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,916
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,916
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
<FN>
<F1> Due to the use of condensed  financial  statements  for interim  reporting,
this information is not compiled on a quarterly basis.
</FN>


</TABLE>
### §2205. Duties of former Commissioner of Agriculture transferred to Secretary

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to perform all the duties named in all Acts of Congress in force on February 8, 1889, to be performed by the Commissioner of Agriculture.

(Mar. 2, 1889, ch. 373, 25 Stat. 840; July 14, 1890, ch. 707, 26 Stat. 288.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 515 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of all officers, agencies, and employees of Department of Agriculture transferred, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Agriculture by 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §1, eff. June 4, 1953, 18 F.R. 3219, 67 Stat. 633, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
Exhibit 12
Form 10KSB
SPM Group, Inc.
                          SPM GROUP, INC.
                              MINUTES
                      THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                          31 January 1992

A  meeting of the Board of Director of SPM Group, Inc. was held on
31  January  1992.  Present at the meeting was  Konrad  Ruckstuhl,
being  the  sole  remaining  director and  Robert  Wiegand  H  )by
telephone),  corporate  secretary, and J.E.  Santaularia,  invited
shareholder.

Mr.  Ruckstuhl  advised  that all other  directors  had  resigned,
either  at  the  meeting of 26 September 1991  or  thereafter.  To
accomplish  the  work  of  the  company,  he,  as  sole  remaining
director, appointed Mr. Wiegand and Mr. Santaularia to the Board.

The Board then adopted the following resolutions:

RESOLVED,  that  the Bylaws of the corporation be amended  by  the
repeal  and  replacement  of          Paragraph  3.2(a)  with  the
following:

     3.2(a)    The number of directors is to be fixed from time to
time by resolution of the Board.

RESOLVED,  that  the number of directors be fixed  at  three  (3),
provided that, should the number of
     directors  in office be reduced by resignation or  incapacity
     of  a  director, the number of directors is to be reduced  to
     the number actually in office, but not less than one (1).

At this time, the resignation of Mr. Wiegand was accepted.

The  remaining  directors  proceeded  with  the  business  of  the
corporation.

It  was  pointed out that the merger with EEC contemplated at  the
meeting of 26 September 1991 did not take place.

The Board elected the following officers:
     Konrad Ruckstuhl    President
     Robert Wiegand II   Secretary

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

                              Respectfully,

                              Robert Wiegand II, Secretary

                               E-44
<PAGE>
### §1609. Repeals

Sections 111 to 116 of this title are repealed on the one hundred and eightieth day after August 9, 1939: Provided, however, That the notices with respect to imported alfalfa and red clover seed promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture under the authority of sections 111 to 116 of this title, and in effect on August 9, 1939, shall remain with the same full force and effect as if promulgated under this chapter.

(Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 615, title IV, §419, 53 Stat. 1290.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

See section 1610 of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER X—CONSTRUCTION
### §411. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act May 11, 1922, ch. 185, 42 Stat. 532, which provided that powers conferred prior to May 11, 1922, and the duties imposed by law on the Bureau of Markets, Bureau of Markets and Crop Estimates, and the Office of Farm Management and Farms Economics of the Department of Agriculture shall be exercised and performed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, was omitted from the Code as executed and obsolete.

All functions of all officers, agencies and employees of the Department of Agriculture were transferred, with certain exceptions, to the Secretary of Agriculture by 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §1, eff. June 4, 1953, 18 F.R. 3219, 67 Stat. 633, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.

Functions of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics were transferred to other units of the Department of Agriculture by Secretary's memorandum of November 2, 1953.

Agricultural Statistics Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service and its functions, personnel, property, etc., transferred to Bureau of Agricultural Economics for duration of World War II, see Ex. Ord. No. 9069.

The functions, personnel and property of the Division of Farm Management and Costs of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics concerned primarily with the planning of current agricultural production were consolidated with other agencies into the Food Production Administration, which was consolidated into the War Food Administration, which was terminated and its functions transferred to the Secretary of Agriculture by Ex. Ord. No. 9577.
### §2218. Fee for administering or taking oaths, affirmations, and affidavits

No officer, agent, or employee of the Department of Agriculture shall demand or accept any fee or compensation whatsoever for administering or taking any oath, affirmation, or affidavit under the authority conferred by section 2217 of this title.

(Jan. 31, 1925, ch. 124, §2, 43 Stat. 803.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 522 of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Department of the Interior Personnel

Application to Department of the Interior employees, see note under section 2217 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of all officers, agencies, and employees of Department of Agriculture transferred, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of Agriculture by 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §1, eff. June 4, 1953, 18 F.R. 3219, 67 Stat. 633, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
#### § 243.7 Inapplicable provisions of law.

An airlift services contract for which the rate of payment is determined in accordance with subsection (a) of 10 U.S.C. 9511a shall not be subject to the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2306a, or to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of 41 U.S.C. 1502. Specifically, contracts establishing rates for services provided by air carriers who are participants in the CRAF program are not subject to the cost or pricing data provision of the Truth in Negotiations Act (10 U.S.C. 2306a) or the Cost Accounting Standards (41 U.S.C. 1502). CRAF carriers will, however, continue to submit data in accordance with the MOU and the DOT, Form 41.
#### STATE v. BLACK

No. 492P97

Case below: 127 N.CApp. 397

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1997.
#### Anthony W. Lederer et al., Appellants, v Bankers Trust Company, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered December 21, 1977, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of striking Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 14, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This action had its genesis in proceedings post judgment against certain judgment debtors not parties herein, defendant-respondent herein being the creditor, *678in which plaintiffs-appellants herein were improperly restrained, to their detriment as it developed, from transferring certain assets theretofore received from the debtor. Defendant’s interrogatories addressed to plaintiffs’ claims, 84 in number, being objected to on this motion, were reduced by Special Term’s order striking seven of them, and plaintiff seeks on this appeal to have another nine stricken. We find seven of these to be relevant, and not overbroad or burdensome. As to the other two, however, we find that they are completely irrelevant by the very terms of the interrogatory, each calling for production of certain tax returns only if the answer to the immediately prior question was affirmative. Interrogatory No. 9 received a negative answer; accordingly, Interrogatory No. 10 did not require response. Interrogatory No. 13 received no answer, objection thereto having been sustained; obviously the question following was to be ignored. ConcurSilverman, J. P., Fein, Markewich, Lynch and Sullivan, JJ.
No. 418.

#### Prudential Insurance Company of America *v.*Robert T. Cheek.

Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

Motion to dismiss submitted March 1, 1920.

Decided March 8, 1920.

*Mr. Samuel W. Fordyce, Jr.,*and *Mr. Thomas W. White*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Frederick H. Bacon*for defendant in error.

*Per Curiam.*

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of *Schlosser*v. *Hemphill,*198 U. S. 173, 175; *Louisiana Navigation Co.*v. *Oyster Commission of Louisiana,*226 U. S. 99, 101; *Grays Harbor Co.*v. *Coats-Fordney Co.,*243 U. S. 251, 255; *Bruce*v. *Tobin,*245 U. S. 18, 19.
§ 241.12 Reporting requirements. ( a ) For each of fiscal years 2010 through 2018, the Secretary of Defense shall submit annual reports to the congressional defense committees, not later than 1 month after the end of the fiscal year involved, a report on any activities carried out during such fiscal year, including the following information: ( 1 ) Respective organizations to and from which an employee is assigned;
( 2 ) Positions those employees held while they were so assigned;
( 3 ) Description of the tasks they performed while they were so assigned; and
( 4 ) Discussion of any actions that might be taken to improve the effectiveness of the Pilot program, including any proposed changes in the law.
( b ) These reports will be prepared and submitted by DoD CIO in coordination with DoD Components participating in the Pilot, to the appropriate congressional committees.
[77 FR 36917, June 20, 2012, as amended at 79 FR 27488, May 14, 2014]
§ 536.94 Settlement authority for claims under the Non-Scope Claims Act. ( a ) *Settlement authority.* The following are delegated authority to pay up to $1,000 in settlement of each claim arising out of one incident and to disapprove a claim presented in any amount under this subpart: ( 1 ) The Judge Advocate General (TJAG);
( 2 ) The Assistant Judge Advocate General (TAJAG);
( 3 ) The Commander USARCS;
( 4 ) The Judge Advocate (JA) or Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) or chief of a command claims service; and
( 5 ) The head of an area claims office (ACO).
( b ) *Approval authority.* The head of a claims processing office (CPO) with approval authority is delegated authority to approve and pay, in full or in part, claims presented for $1,000 or less and to compromise and pay, regardless of amount claimed, an agreed award of $1,000 or less.
( c ) *Further guidance.* Authority to further delegate payment authority is set forth in § 536.3(g)(1) of this part. For further discussions also related to approval, settlement and payment authority, see also paragraphs 2-69 and 2-71 of DA Pam 27-162.
1002.101 Definitions. *Bureau* means any one of the following Treasury organizations: ( 1 ) Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB);
( 2 ) Bureau of Engraving & Printing (BEP);
( 3 ) Bureau of the Fiscal Service (formerly Bureau of Public Debt and Financial Management Service);
( 4 ) Departmental Offices (DO);
( 5 ) Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN);
( 6 ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG);
( 7 ) Internal Revenue Service (IRS);
( 8 ) Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC);
( 9 ) Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP);
( 10 ) Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA); or
( 11 ) United States Mint.
[80 FR 11595, Mar. 4, 2015]
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-13515

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:18-cr-00042-SPC-CM-1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

LUIS ROBERT MARTINEZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

____________________

(April 22, 2019)

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal 

waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert, 

997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence-appeal waiver will be enforced 

Case: 18-13515 Date Filed: 04/22/2019 Page: 1 of 2 
2

if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. DiFalco, 837 F.3d 

1207, 1213, 1220-21 (11th Cir. 2016) (holding the district court’s explanation 

sufficient where it explained the appeal rights the defendant would ordinarily have, 

the appeal rights being waived, and the exceptions to the waiver during the plea 

colloquy).

Case: 18-13515 Date Filed: 04/22/2019 Page: 2 of 2
### §1449. Determination of price support level

In determining the level of price support for any nonbasic agricultural commodity under sections 1447 to 1449 of this title, particular consideration shall be given to the levels at which the prices of competing agricultural commodities are being supported.

(Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title III, §303, 63 Stat. 1053.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Inapplicability of Section

Section inapplicable to 2014 through 2018 crops of covered commodities, cotton, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning Feb. 7, 2014, through Dec. 31, 2018, see section 9092(b)(9) of this title.

Section inapplicable to 2008 through 2012 crops of covered commodities, peanuts, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning June 18, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2012, see section 8782(b)(9) of this title.

Section inapplicable to 2002 through 2007 crops of covered commodities, peanuts, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning May 13, 2002, through Dec. 31, 2007, see section 7992(b)(9) of this title.

Section inapplicable to 1996 through 2002 crops of loan commodities, peanuts, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning Apr. 4, 1996, and ending Dec. 31, 2002, see section 7301(b)(1)(I) of this title.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 11-2296

___________________________

Derrick D. Howard

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Bank of America, N.A. as successor by merger to Lasalle Bank National

Association, as Trustee for Certificate Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed

Securities 1 LLC, Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2005-HE3 c/o EMC Mortgage

Corporation

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: December 11, 2012

Filed: December 14, 2012

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Derrick Howard appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil complaint. 

1

Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Howard’s

complaint was barred by resjudicata, based on a judgment rendered in Missouri court

in a prior legal proceeding between the same parties, and involving the same matter

that was the subject of the instant complaint. See C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v.

Lobrano, 695 F.3d 758, 764 (8th Cir. 2012) (law of forum that rendered first

judgment controlsresjudicata analysis); Niere v. St. Louis Cnty., Mo., 305 F.3d 834,

837 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (elements of res judicata under Missouri law); Vogt

v. Emmons, 158 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (resjudicata rendersjudgment

conclusive between same parties as to all issues that might have been litigated).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-
#### GEOFFREY PAGE v. MARSHALL OIL CO., INC.

No. 455A97

(Filed 6 March 1998)

Appeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 127 N.C. App. 396, 490 S.E.2d 256 (1997), affirming in part, reversing in part and remanding a judgment entered by Cashwell, J., on 10 May 1996, in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 February 1998.

*Glover & Petersen, P.A., by James R. Glover, for plaintiff - appellee.*

*Davis, Sturges & Tomlinson, by Charles M. Davis and John W. Davis, for defendant-appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

As to the issue on direct appeal based on the dissenting opinion of Walker, J., we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and we remand this case to that court for further remand to the Superior Court, Wake County, for reinstatement of its summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs unlawful eviction claim.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.