alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §7418. Petition and review of orders

#### (a) Petition

#### (1) In general

A person subject to an order issued under this subchapter may file with the Secretary a petition—

(A) stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order, is not established in accordance with law; and

(B) requesting a modification of the order or an exemption from the order.

#### (2) Hearing

The Secretary shall give the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing on the petition, in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.

#### (3) Ruling

After the hearing, the Secretary shall make a ruling on the petition. The ruling shall be final, subject to review as set forth in subsection (b).

#### (4) Limitation on petition

Any petition filed under this subsection challenging an order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order, shall be filed within 2 years after the effective date of the order, provision, or obligation subject to challenge in the petition.

#### (b) Review

#### (1) Commencement of action

The district court of the United States for any district in which a person who is a petitioner under subsection (a) resides or carries on business shall have jurisdiction to review the final ruling on the petition of the person, if a complaint for that purpose is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the final ruling by the Secretary under subsection (a)(3).

#### (2) Process

Service of process in a proceeding may be made on the Secretary by delivering a copy of the complaint to the Secretary.

#### (3) Remands

If the court determines that the ruling is not in accordance with law, the court shall remand the matter to the Secretary with directions—

(A) to make such ruling as the court determines to be in accordance with law; or

(B) to take such further action as, in the opinion of the court, the law requires.

#### (c) Effect on enforcement proceedings

The pendency of a petition filed under subsection (a) or an action commenced under subsection (b) shall not operate as a stay of any action authorized by section 7419 of this title to be taken to enforce this subchapter, including any rule, order, or penalty in effect under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title V, §519, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1044.)
#### In the Matter of Joyce F. Tobin, Respondent, v. Security Trust Company of Rochester, New York, as Committee of the Property of Frederick M. Tobin, Jr., an Incompetent Person, Appellant.

Order unanimously modified by reducing the sum to be paid to petitioner for her support and the support of her children to the amount of $15,000 a year and by reducing the allowance to petitioner’s attorneys to $1,000 and expenses, and as so modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: The allowance of $21,000 a year to the wife and children of the incompetent was excessive. Many rules enter into the determination of a matter such as this. One of them is a consideration of the manner in which the incompetent might have continued to support his wife and children if he had remained sane, but that is only one factor to be considered, and Special Term overemphasized it in arriving at a determination. Furthermore, Special Term’s presumption that the trustees and a majority of the incompetent’s sisters would modify or revoke in whole on in part the trust agreement from which the incompetent now receives only the income was unjustified. This is particularly so where, on the motion to rehear and reargue, each sister said in a positive and unequivocal way that she would not do anything to revoke the trust so that the principal could be depleted. Each said that she felt that the petitioner “is extremely extravagant and spends unnecessarily”. The amount of $2,500 allowed for attorneys’ fees is excessive and should be reduced to $1,000. (Appeal from order of Monroe Special Term directing respondent as committee to pay petitioner allowance for support and expenses.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Veechio, JJ.
### Executiv e Orde r 1286 6 an d Congressiona l Revie w Requirement s

Rulemakin g Documen t

Title : 

### RIN : y{OS ' /t^i O Wit hrespec t t o th e attache drulemakin g document(s) : 1 . E.0.12866 : Th e requirement s o f sectio n6(a)(3)(E ) o f

E.O . 1286 6 hav e bee nme t inaccordanc e withth e followin g [initia l appjgpriat e line] :

Th e rulemakin g document(s ) wa s no t reviewe dby th e Offic e o f Informatio n an d Regulatory Affair s (OIRA) . N o substantiv e change s wer e mad e t o th e document(s ) afte r i t wa s submitte dt o OIRA . Th e require dinformatio ni s attached . 2 . Congressiona l Review : Th e requirement s o f th e Smal l Busines s Regulatory Enforcemen t Fairnes s Ac t for th e submissio n o f

final rule s t o Congres s an dGA G(§801 ) hav e bee nme t inaccordanc e withth e followin g [initia l appropriat e line] :

Thi s documen t

i s no t afinal rule . Thi s documen t

i s no t arul e unde r

( § 804) . Th e documen t

ha s bee nsubmitte dt o C-5 0 for transmissio nt o Congres s an dGAO . Signatur e 1 d Nam e 

# c~vc ^ Titie/Offic e Dat e
#### Muriel Karasik v. Jack Mintzer.

Motion for a stay dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Eager, JJ.
### §3224. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–127, title VIII, §873, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1175; Pub. L. 105–185, title VI, §606(g), June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 604

Section, Pub. L. 99–198, title XIV, §1416, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1549; Pub. L. 101–624, title XVI, §1601(d)(1), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3704, provided for grants to upgrade 1890 land-grant college extension facilities.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 105–185, title VI, §606(g), June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 604, provided that the technical amendment made by section 606(g) to section 873 of Pub. L. 104–127, which repealed this section, is effective Apr. 6, 1996.
MARY A. LARAIA CHICAGO, ILLINOIS TESTIMONY

HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE FUEL ECONOMY AND GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS STANDARDS August 6, 2015

My name is Mary Laraia and I am from Chicago, Illinois. Thankyou very much for providing this opportunity to testify on the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy and Global Warming Emissions Standards. I am a private citizen who spent the greater part ofher career as a bank compliance officer and bank director and I appreciate the importance ofcreating and maintaining high-quality, effective and enforceable regulations. I also watched the effects ofclimate change as the Deputy Superintendentofthe Cook County Forest Preserves, one ofthe oldest and largest urban land reserves in the country.

I am here today because I love vehicles ofall kinds. I grew up in a happy truckfocused household. My father's first business was a filling station owned with his brothers, and he soon after ran his own aftermarket vehicle supply business out of our garage at home. He serviced, loaded, unloaded and drove vans and trucks every day of his working life. I was married to a man who worked on a racing car team. I have driven high performance vehicles my entire driving life,**a~d** only five months ago traded my lastone in- albeit reluctantly- for a hybrid. My friends and I haul materials, supplies, people and animals around in large trucks and trailers for our various vocations and avocations. I hope we will always have these opportunities in our futures.

But I know we need to improve how all these vehicles operate. I am deeply concerned about long-term energy independence. I fear for this nation's security. sometimes despair about the health problems ofour children and our elderly. On a more personal level, I have been an asthma sufferer for over forty years. And it is quite possible that my father's untimely death- when I was only 29- was due to his long and close exposure to petroleum products. Every one ofthese issues will be addressed upon implementation ofthese regulations.

### I 

### believe the proposed regulations are helpful and reasonable. I know from experience that these improvements will actually 

### save both oil and money in the long term. We are in the middle ofthe transportation industry here in Chicago, and I have watched -through my own lifetime -as our air and water have become cleaner through regulations like the ones being reviewed today. We are not finished with this work, and I hope you will approve, and even strengthen, the regulations proposed today. The technology already exists for significant powertrain and transmission improvements

. Analysis from the Union ofConcerned Scientists shows thatwith available improvementswe can cost-effectively reduce new truck fuel consumption 40 percent by 2025, compa red to 2010. I urgeyou to strength en the proposed regulations.

Than k you again for the opportunity to speak to you.
Highflightphoto

85 Conifer Court

Port Ludlow, Wash. 98365

Sept. 22, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11455 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Reform Act and 

Part II of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-1010.

Dear Madam, Sir,

Highflightphoto currently holds an Exemption numbered 11455 (hereinafter the Exemption) 

issued for the purpose of performing aerial imaging and data collection. Highflightphoto herby 

requests an amendment to that Exemption to include additional small unmanned aircraft systems 

(sUAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the Exemption to support client requests (public 

interest).

The requested system (to be used under the same terms and conditions contained in the original 

Exemption) to be added to our existing Exemption is cited below.

 senseFly - eXom

The eXom system has been previously approved for numerous entities through the 333 exemption 

process and manuals are on file. Highflightphoto states that no conditions or limitation from our 

original request have changed and all operations of the additional UAS will be in full compliance 

with the terms and condition of the Exemption.

Please contact Mike Porter, 360 301 0341, highflightphoto@gmail.com should you have any 

questions concerning this request for an amendment to the Exemption.

Mike Porter

President

Highflightphoto

Attach;
Exhibit 10.36

                      SALES CONTRACT OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
                                                                   NO.:
                                                               SIGNED AT: Tai'an
                                                             DATE: June 19, 2005

This  contract  is  made  and  entered  into  by  and  between   Shandong  Haize
Nanomaterials  Co.,  Ltd  (hereinafter  referred  to as the  Seller)  and Dalian
Jinyuan Building  Materials & Plastics Co., Ltd (hereinafter  referred to as the
Buyer);  whereby  the  Seller  agree  to sell  and the  Buyer  agree  to buy the
commodity  mentioned  in this  contract  subject  to the  terms  and  conditions
stipulated below:

Article 1: Object, Quantity, Price and Date of Delivery

NAME OF COMMODITY: Nanometre Calcium Carbonate

Trademark: Sheng Ke

Specification: 601

Manufacturer: Shandong Haize Nanomaterials

UNIT: ton

QUANTITY: 2,400

UNIT PRICE: RMB 3,770 yuan

TOTAL AMOUNT: RMB 9,048,000.00 (nine million, forty eight thousand) yuan

DATE OF DELIVERY: From June 2005 to June 2006, 200 tons each month

Article 2: QUALITY STANDARD

Be subject to the Q/VLT 2000 Enterprise Standard.

Article 3: PACKING  STANDARD AND THE PROVISION  AND RECOVERY OF PACKINGS:  Outer
packed with brown paper bag and inner packed with plastic bag.



<PAGE>

Article  4:  STANDARD  FOR  REASONABLE  WEAR AND TEAR AND  COMPUTING  MODE:  The
quantity  shall be based on the quantity  accepted and put in the storage by the
Buyer.

Article 5: MEANS AND PLACE OF DELIVERY: The Buyer's warehouse.

Article 6: MODE OF TRANSPORAT AND DESTINATION AND COST ALLOCATION:  By road; the
Seller shall pay the cost.

Article  7:  STANDARD,  METHOD,  and PLACE  AND TIME  LIMIT OF  INSPECTION:  The
inspection will be done in accordance with agreed standards, and if there is any
objection, it will be made clear to the other party within 15 days.

Article 8: METHOD, TIME AND PLACE OF PAYMENT: By bank draft

Article 9: TERMINATION OF THIS CONTRACT: In case of being unable to perform this
Contract under special circumstances.

Article 10: METHOD OF SETTLING THE DISPUTE OVER THE CONTRACT:

IN THE PERFORMING OF THIS CONTRACT, IF ANY DISPUTE ARISES, THE TWO PARTIES SHALL
SETTLE IT THROUGH FRIENDLY DISCUSSIONS;  THE DISPUTE CAN ALSO BE MEDIATED BY THE
LOCAL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERICAL ADMINISTRATION;  IF NO SETTLEMENT COMES FROM THE
DISCUSSIONS OR  MEDIATATIONS,  THE DISPUTE SHALL BE SETTLED BY LAWSUITS  THROUGH
THE PEOPLE'S COURT.

Article 11: THIS CONTRACT SHALL BECOME  EFFECTIVE  after having been  officially
signed by the two parities.

Article 12:  MISCELLANEOUS:  The contract period is one full year, starting from
June 19, 2005 and ending on June 19, 2006.


THE SELLER:                                  THE BUYER:
Shandong Haize Nanomaterials Co., Ltd        Dalian Jinyuan Building Materials &
Ltd                                          Plastics Co.,

/s/ Ma Zhaowei                                /s/ Wang Tao
-------------------------------------        -----------------------------------
AUTHORISED SIGNATURE                         AUTHORISED SIGNATURE
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John A. Borowski, an Infant, Respondent, v. Town of Clarence, New York, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, on the law and facts without costs of this appeal to either party and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: Failure of the 19-year-old infant to serve a notice of claim within the 90-day period specified in section 50-e of the General Municipal Law is not shown to have been due to his infancy. He alleges merely that, until he consulted an attorney after expiration of the statutory time, he did not understand the nature of the legal requirements for prosecuting a claim against the town by reason of his inexperience, lack of knowledge, misconception of his rights and unawareness of the problem of time in filing a claim. These allegations are insufficient to invoke the court’s discretionary power to enlarge the 90-day period on the ground of infancy because they show no cognizable relation between the fact of infancy and the failure to file a claim within the statutory time limitation. *(Schnee*v. *City of*
      *581
      *New York,*285 App. Div. 1130, affd. 1 N Y 2d 697; *Matter of Nori*v. *City of Yonkers,*274 App. Div. 545, affd. 300 N. Y. 632.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term, granting petitioner’s application to serve a notice of claim.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000764403
<NAME> E'TOWN CORPORATION & SUBSIDIARIES

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      638,250
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     84,017
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          68,779
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        32,312
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 823,358
<COMMON>                                       175,262
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      (3,845)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             57,884
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 229,301
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           12,000
<PREFERRED>                                        227
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           254,045
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              81,079
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       13,190
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       30
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 233,486
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  823,358
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       45,593
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             4,209
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      28,575
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      32,784
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         12,809
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 150
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  12,959
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,803
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,156
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        203
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    7,953
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        13,087
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,884
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          20,707
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91<F1>
<FN>
<F1>All amounts in thousands of dollars except per share amounts.
</FN>


</TABLE>
### §8128. Review of award

(a) The Secretary of Labor may review an award for or against payment of compensation at any time on his own motion or on application. The Secretary, in accordance with the facts found on review, may—

(1) end, decrease, or increase the compensation previously awarded; or

(2) award compensation previously refused or discontinued.

(b) The action of the Secretary or his designee in allowing or denying a payment under this subchapter is—

(1) final and conclusive for all purposes and with respect to all questions of law and fact; and

(2) not subject to review by another official of the United States or by a court by mandamus or otherwise.

Credit shall be allowed in the accounts of a certifying or disbursing official for payments in accordance with that action.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 545.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (a) | 5 U.S.C. 787. | Sept. 7, 1916, ch. 458, §37, 39 Stat. 749. |
| | | June 5, 1924, ch. 261, §1, 43 Stat. 389. |
| (b) | 5 U.S.C. 793 (penultimate sentence of 5th par.). | July 28, 1945, ch. 328, §4 (penultimate sentence), 59 Stat. 504. |

Statutes at Large

In subsection (a), the words "If the original claim for compensation has been made within the time specified in section 770 of this title" are omitted as surplusage. The words "an award for or against payment of compensation" are coextensive with and, for clarity and consistency with section 8124, substituted for "the award". The second sentence of former section 787 is omitted as included in the penultimate sentence of former section 793, which is carried into subsection (b). The last sentence of former section 787 is omitted as executed.

In subsection (b), the word "official" is substituted for "officer" because of the definition of "officer" in section 2104 which excludes a member of a uniformed service.

Administration of this subchapter was transferred to the Secretary of Labor by section 1 of 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 19, 64 Stat. 1271 (see section 8145).

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface of the report.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1

Eastern Division

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation,

et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−09308

Honorable James F.

Holderman

JW Marriott Chicago, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, September 27, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable James F. Holderman: The Memorandum

Opinion and Order setting forth the court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, reasoning,

and determination has been filed under seal for presentation to counsel on a temporary

basis using the Court's CM/ECF sealed function. Counsel are requested to review the

opinion for confidential information and jointly submit by no later than noon on October

8, 2013 through Judge Holderman's proposed order e−mail address,

Proposed_Order_Holderman@ilnd.uscourts.gov, a listing of the requested redactions

identifying the page and line (counting down from the first line of the page), and a

redacted copy of the opinion with the confidential information covered over in black with

the integrity of the pages and lines maintained. A redacted opinion will then be filed in the

public record after the court reviews the submission and rules on any issues. Notice

mailed by judge's staff (ntf, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 966 Filed: 09/27/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:38770
Negative Declaration 

Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings 

The District has reviewed its permit files and the emission inventory for its federal Clean Air 

Plan, as well as business listings and telephone yellow pages, and has determined that there 

are no stationary sources or emitting facilities for the following CTG category. The District also 

does not anticipate that any known businesses will propose constructing these sources in the 

future. 

GUIDANCE DOCUMENT TITLE DOCUMENT TYPE DOCUMENT 

NUMBER 

Control Techniques Guidelines for Automobile 

and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings 

CTG EPA-453/R-08-006
###### Editorial Note on Part 842

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

#### § 842.76 Scope of this subpart.

This subpart, promulgated under the authority of 28 CFR 14.11, governs claims against the United States for property damage, personal injury, or death, from the negligent or wrongful acts or omission of Air Force military or civilian personnel while acting within the scope of their employment.
EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Exhibit 32.2
Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
In connection with the Quarterly Report of Educational Development Corporation(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 31, 2004, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, W.Curtis Fossett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.     Date July 1, 2004 By /s/ W. Curtis Fossett     W. Curtis Fossett   Chief Financial Officer
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separatedocument. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.