alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT

OF

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

1110 West Washington Street • Phoenix, Arizona 85007

(602) 771-2300 • www.azdeq.gov

September 6. 2013

Mr. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

Mail Code ORA-1

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

RE: Final Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision for the Nogales PM2.5Nonattainment Area

Dear Mr. Bitimenfeld:

Consistent with the provisions of Arizona Revised Statutes § 49-104, 49-106, 49-404, 49-406 and 49-

425 (Enclosurel) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40. § 5 1.102 through 5 1.104, the

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) hereby adopts and submits to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Ari:ona State Implementation Plan Revision fl.r the

Nogales Nonattainment Area as a revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP).

This SIP revision fulfills outstanding Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for the Nogales PM2.5

Nonattainment Area following the January 7, 2013 EPA clean data determination under the Clean Data

Policy (78 FR 887). The document includes a history of the Nogales PM2.5planning area, a description of

the area and Santa Cruz County, identification of Clean Air Act requirements for the area, an emissions

inventory and other elements included for federal review with this submittal.

ADEQ requests that EPA approve this revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan. Enclosure 2

contains the SIP Completeness Checklist; Enclosure 3 contains two hard copies and an electronic exact

duplicate of the hard copies on CD: Enclosure 4 includes public hearing documentation for this SIP

revision.

Sincerely.

Eric )ey, Director

Air Qtaity Division /

//

cg7 Colleen McKaughan. EPA Region IX. w/o enclosures

Arturo Garino, Mayor, City of Nogales, w/o enclosures

Manuel Ruiz, Chairman, Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. w/o enclosures

Southern Regional Office

400 West Congress Street • Suite 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 628—6733

Janice K. Brewer

Cove rn or

Henry R. Darwin

Director

Printed on recycled paper
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


Gamma Biologicals, Inc.:

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-44950 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-01147 on Form S-8 of
Gamma Biologicals, Inc. of our report dated May 28, 1997, incorporated by
reference in the 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gamma Biologicals, Inc.
for the year ended March 31, 1997.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Houston, Texas
June 27, 1997
#### 1252.301 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses (matrix).

The TAR matrix is not published in the CFR. It is available on the *Acquisition.gov* website at *https://www.acquisition.gov/TAR.*
#### PINE KNOLL ASSN. v. CARDON

No. 251P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 155

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 September 1997.
EXHIBIT 32.2
          Certification of the Principal Financial Officer pursuant to
           18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics  Corp. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  September  30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "report"),  I,
David O'Neil, Principal Financial 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 to my knowledge:

      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 this report fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

Date: November 11, 2009


                                       /s/David O'Neil
                                       -----------------------------
                                       David O'Neil
                                       Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer



                                       17
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I,
certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Mandalay Digital Group, Inc.; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |                                                     
|------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Date: July 29, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ Andrew Schleimer                                
|                    |  |  |  | Andrew Schleimer                                    
|                    |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                    |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### 1309.405-2 Restrictions on subcontracting.

The designee authorized to provide, in writing, compelling reasons for allowing Government consent to subcontracts with a contractor who is debarred, suspended or proposed for debarment is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
Mr. Byron K. Huffman December 8, 2015 Page Three
The State ofHawaii believes that the rebate and credit program is a permissible "a irport-related" use ofaviation fuel tax revenues and that it is in compliance with the Revenue Use Policy and the Revenue Use Policy Amendment. Ifthe FAA determines that the program is not a permissible use ofnon-exempt aviation fuel tax revenues, however, the State ofHawaii will promptly prepare an "action plan" to remedy any deficiencies. The Department of Transportation will fully cooperate with the FAA and provide it with any further information it requires to determine whether the program described above is compliant with the FAA's Revenue Use Policy. Ifyou should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. With warmest regards,

# ~ 

# -'d David Y . lge

# ~ Governor, State ofHawaii
c: Mr. James. T. Brown, Federal Aviation Administration
#### Joseph Finelli *v.*Victor Paluzzi et al.

*Francis X. Dineen,*in support of the petition.

*Roslyn Z. P. Montlick,*in opposition.

Submitted January 14

decided January 22, 1975

The defendants’ petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Court of Common Pleas is denied.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Baroque Fashions, Inc., Appellant, and Scotney Mills, Inc., Respondent.

Order, entered on April 26, 1963, denying petitioner’s application to stay arbitration, unanimously reversed, on the law and the motion is granted to the extent of ordering a hearing to determine whether there was an agreement to arbitrate, with costs to abide the event. The respondent may not be compelled to arbitrate unless it has clearly agreed to do so *(Matter of Level Export Cory. [Wale, Aiken £■*Co.], 305 N. Y. *87482, 86; *Matter of Lehman*v. *Ostrovsky,*264 N. Y. 130, 132). While an order form containing an arbitration clause need not be signed by the buyer to bind him to arbitration, it must be shown that by conduct the buyer did so agree to be ■bound *(Matter of Helen Whiting, Ine. [Trojan Textile Corp.],*307 N. Y. 360, 368). The acceptance of goods delivered under an order containing a provision for arbitration could be considered an agreement on the part of the buyer to resolve disputes in the arbitral forum. The issue here to be resolved is whether the order forms containing the provision for arbitration were in fact delivered to the purchaser. The seller says they were — the buyer denies it. This conflict may only be resolved by a hearing. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
Exhibit
23(a)











Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in PPL Corporation’s Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-116478, 333-116478-01, 333-116478-02,
333-85716, 333-85716-01, 333-85716-02, 333-106200, 333-106200-01, 333-132574,
333-132574-01, 333-132574-02, and 333-132574-03), the Registration Statements on
Form S-3D (Nos. 333-128543 and 333-102845), and the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Nos. 333-02003, 333-112453, 333-110372, 333-95967 and 333-144047) of
our reports dated February 28, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of PPL Corporation and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of PPL Corporation, included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.











Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania


February
28, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,911,828
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,490,801
<ALLOWANCES>                                   141,648
<INVENTORY>                                  2,313,068
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,929,552
<PP&E>                                       8,192,580
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,003,005
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,543,608
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,217,399
<BONDS>                                      1,077,869
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       431,621
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,799,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,543,608
<SALES>                                      5,431,521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,431,521
<CGS>                                        3,134,768
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,134,768
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                600,287
<INCOME-TAX>                                   227,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            372,387
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   372,387
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3157-3158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00572]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended, and the Determination of the Director, Strategic 
Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, CDC, 
pursuant to Public Law 92-463. The grant applications and the 
discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial 
property such as patentable material, and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy.
    Name of Committee: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and 
Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP)--Notice of Funding Opportunity 
(NOFO) DP21-003, Reducing Inequities in Cancer Outcomes through 
Community-Based Interventions on Social Determinants of Health.
    Date: April 6, 2021-April 8, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., EDT.
    Place: Teleconference.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaya Raman Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Mailstop F80, Atlanta, Georgia 
30341, Telephone: (770) 488-6511, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9839ba8a4a8a789aaadaae7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b01192a262a250b282f28652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>.

[[Page 3158]]

    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-00572 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DORIO CRAIG MARCUS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-2202

[January 4, 2024]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 562018CF002008A. 

Dorio Craig Marcus, Monticello, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
##### 



Exhibit 10.2
 
 Executive Services Agreement
  
        1




---



##### 



By:
 Name:
 Title:
   2




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Terms and Conditions
 1. Relationship of the Parties.
 2. Payment Terms.
 
 3. Deposit.
 4. Termination.
     3




---



##### 



5. Hiring the Employee Outside of a Tatum Agreement.
 6. Warranties and Disclaimers.
 7. Limitation of Liability; Indemnity.
  8. Governing Law, Arbitration, and Witness Fees.
   4




---



##### 



9. Miscellaneous.
       5
### §444. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 444 was editorially reclassified as section 667f–2 of Title 16, Conservation.
#### Ernest Robinson, Appellant-Respondent, v. Max Klein et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Order, entered on May 7, 1962, granting defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict and directing a new trial and denying their motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendants. The Trial Judge set aside the verdict stating *“I*am firmly convinced that the tactics of plaintiff’s counsel during opening, examination and cross-examination of witnesses and summation prevented a fair trial and a dispassionate consideration of the evidence by the jury”. We find ample support for this holding in the record. On prior occasions we have directed new trials for misconduct of plaintiff’s trial counsel. *(Hoffman*v. *Greenberg,*19 A D 2d 806; *Tropp*v. *Jacobs,*273 App. Div. 274.) Further, we find the verdict to be against the weight of the credible evidence. “ Mindful as we are of the weight to be given a jury’s verdict where the facts are disputed and issues of credibility are presented, we are not required to give credence to a story so inherently improbable that we are morally certain it is not true.” *(Bottalico*v. *City of New York,*281 App. Div 339, 341.) In addition, we are of the opinion that the verdict is grossly excessive. Concur—Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
§ 720.7 Delivery of persons to Federal authorities. ( a ) *Authority to deliver.* When Federal law enforcement authorities display proper credentials and Federal warrants for the arrest of members, civilian employees, civilian contractors and their employees, or dependents residing at or located on a Department of the Navy installation, commanding officers are authorized to and should allow the arrest of the individual sought. The exceptions in § 720.9 may be applied to members. A judge advocate of the Navy or Marine Corps should be consulted before delivery is effected.
( b ) *Agreement not required of Federal authorities.* The agreement described in § 720.6 is not a condition to the delivery of members to Federal law enforcement authorities. Regardless of whether the member is convicted or acquitted, after final disposition of the case, the member will be returned to the Naval Service (provided that naval authorities desire his return) and the necessary expenses will be paid from an appropriation under the control of the Department of Justice.
#### In the Matter of Christopher B., Appellant, v Administration for Children’s Services et al., Respondents.

[833 NYS2d 507]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about March 23, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied and dismissed the petition brought pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, seeking sibling visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court’s finding that forced visitation would be contrary to the child’s best interests was supported by the record and is entitled to considerable deference *(Matter of Justin H.,*215 AD2d 180 [1995], *lv denied*86 NY2d 709 [1995]). The court properly considered that the 12-year-old child with whom visitation was sought did not want to be visited by, and was afraid of, petitioner, her 18-year-old brother. We note that the court-appointed psychologist recommended against the visitation, citing petitioner’s lack of maturity and self-control and the evident danger that he would attempt to disrupt the relationship between his sister and her foster family *(see Matter of Sherman v Hughes,*32 AD3d 959 [2006]). Under the circumstances, a period of trial visitation would not have been appropriate. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Williams and Catterson, JJ.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20111228_reg6.html#640580000300379

Applicant: 

Alcoa Inc 

201 Isabella St 

Pittsburgh, PA 15212 -5858 

Facility: 

Alcoa Massena Operations (West Plant) 

Park Ave E 

Massena, NY 13662 

Application ID: 

6-4058-00003/00379 

Permit(s) Applied for: 

Article 19 Air State Facility 

Project is Located: 

St Lawrence County 

Project Description: 

The Department has prepared a draft permit and has made a tentative determination to issue an 

Article 19 Air Pollution Control of the Environmental Conservation Law, an Air State Facility 

Permit, for the facility located at Alcoa Massena Operations West Plant, Park Avenue East, 

Massena, NY 13662. The Alcoa West Plant is subject to the provisions under 6 NYCRR Part 

249. The requirements under this regulation seeks to apply Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) to specific facilities on a case-by-case basis in order to reduce the regional haze 

associated with the emissions of Sulfur dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen and particulates with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 microns (PM-10). This permit contains the conditions with 

the associated emissions limits determined to be BART level for the effected sources for the 

above pollutants. This permit will be incorporated into Alcoa's Air Title V Facility permit within 

18 months. 

As required under Part 249, each BART determination such as the BART determination 

discussed in this Notice, will also be submitted to the USEPA for approval as a revision to the 

SIP. 

Availability of Application Documents: 
Filed application documents, and Department draft permits where applicable, are available for 

inspection during normal business hours at the address of the contact person. To ensure timely 

service at the time of inspection, it is recommended that an appointment be made with the 

contact person. 

State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Determination: 

Project is not subject to SEQR because it is a Type II action. 

SEQR Lead Agency: None Designated 

State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) Determination: 

The proposed activity is not subject to review in accordance with SHPA. The permit type is 

exempt or the activity is being reviewed in accordance with federal historic preservation 

regulations. 

Coastal Management: 

This project is not located in a Coastal Management area and is not subject to the Waterfront 

Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. 

Opportunity for Public Comment: 

Comments on this project must be submitted in writing to the Contact Person no later than Jan 

27, 2012. 

Contact: 

Lawrence R Ambeau 

NYSDEC Region 6 Headquarters 

State Office Building - 317 Washington St 

Watertown, NY 13601 

(315)785-2245 

r6dep@gw.dec.state.ny.us