alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Honorable Ray LaHood United States Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary LaHood: On behalfofLear Corporation, I am writing to express our strong support for the application ofDeltaAir Lines for new nonstop service between Detroit and Haneda. Approval ofDelta's new service would be a major benefit for ourregion, where many corporations have strong trade and market presence with Japan. There are over 500 Japanese companies located in Michigan and hundreds more whose business models rely on access to Japan and it's market. The growth ofourbusiness ties with Japan has created demand for increased capacity to Tokyo. Our business travelers look to the convenience offlying into Tokyo's downtown Haneda airport. Detroit is a proven and successful gateway to Asia, and as an airportthat can supporttrans-pacific routes. This summerDelta is adding new service to Seoul and Hong Kong, fulfilling the commitment Delta made to DTW to make it the airlines gateway to Asia. The addition ofHaneda as a destination is a natural fit that would clearly benefit ourbusiness travelers. Thankyou for consideration ofthis request.
Table F4: Fuel Ethanol Consumption Estimates, 2012

State

Commercial Industrial Transportation Total Commercial a Industrial a Tra

Thousand Barrels Trillion Btu

Alabama 3 43 4,317 4,363 (s) 0.1 Alaska 11 19 728 758 (s) 0.1 Arizona 15 107 8,058 8,179 0.1 0.4 Arkansas 7 68 2,942 3,017 (s) 0.2 California 22 434 28,459 28,914 0.1 1.5 Colorado 3 65 3,608 3,677 (s) 0.2 Connecticut 4 48 3,757 3,808 (s) 0.2 Delaware 1 16 965 981 (s) 0.1 Dist. of Col. 1 2 182 185 (s) (s) Florida 37 184 18,593 18,815 0.1 0.6 Georgia 7 120 11,164 11,291 (s) 0.4 Hawaii 1 16 1,233 1,250 (s) 0.1 Idaho 3 47 1,203 1,253 (s) 0.2 Illinois 27 215 11,509 11,750 0.1 0.7 Indiana 63 115 6,974 7,151 0.2 0.4 Iowa 135 85 2,205 2,425 0.5 0.3 Kansas 9 57 2,714 2,780 (s) 0.2 Kentucky 4 68 4,829 4,901 (s) 0.2 Louisiana 4 95 5,240 5,339 (s) 0.3 Maine 2 36 1,761 1,799 (s) 0.1 Maryland 3 63 5,682 5,748 (s) 0.2 Massachusetts 4 81 6,540 6,625 (s) 0.3 Michigan 8 113 10,650 10,771 (s) 0.4 Minnesota 67 122 5,685 5,874 0.2 0.4 Mississippi 3 55 3,462 3,521 (s) 0.2 Missouri 4 64 5,085 5,152 (s) 0.2 Montana 1 30 1,138 1,170 (s) 0.1 Nebraska 5 47 1,399 1,451 (s) 0.2 Nevada 2 30 2,658 2,690 (s) 0.1 New Hampshire 5 14 1,388 1,406 (s) (s) New Jersey 7 111 10,743 10,862 (s) 0.4 New Mexico 2 30 1,696 1,727 (s) 0.1 New York 19 234 13,880 14,134 0.1 0.8 North Carolina 130 160 10,341 10,632 0.5 0.6 North Dakota 2 26 873 901 (s) 0.1 Ohio 10 140 11,941 12,092 (s) 0.5 Oklahoma 13 65 3,615 3,693 (s) 0.2 Oregon 4 81 4,066 4,151 (s) 0.3 Pennsylvania 7 153 9,387 9,547 (s) 0.5 Rhode Island 1 15 1,285 1,301 (s) 0.1 South Carolina 3 46 6,207 6,256 (s) 0.2 South Dakota 1 28 864 893 (s) 0.1 Tennessee 10 87 7,548 7,644 (s) 0.3 Texas 29 494 27,423 27,946 0.1 1.7 Utah 2 26 1,949 1,976 (s) 0.1 Vermont 1 17 852 870 (s) 0.1 Virginia 10 88 9,381 9,479 (s) 0.3 Washington 18 126 7,620 7,764 0.1 0.4 West Virginia 2 16 1,831 1,850 (s) 0.1 Wisconsin 5 87 5,227 5,320 (s) 0.3 Wyoming 27 14 585 627 0.1 (s) United States 765 4,504 301,443 306,711 2.7 15.6 

a In estimating the Btu consumption of fuel ethanol, the Btu content of denaturant (petroleum

products added to ethanol to make it unsuitable for human consumption) is removed. This identifiesthe renewable portion of fuel ethanol and avoids double-counting when summing data across energysources.

Where shown, (s) = Physical unit value less than 0.5 or Btu value less than 0.05.

Notes: Fuel ethanol blended into motor gasoline, which shown separately in this table to display the use of renewof components due to independent rounding.Sources: Data sources, estimation procedures, and assNotes.

U.S. Energy Information Administration

State Energy Data System
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             30,024
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       7,393
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   37,417
<PP&E>                                            349,145
<DEPRECIATION>                                    214,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    172,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              89,962
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                           40,542
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                         1,340
<OTHER-SE>                                         40,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      172,297
<SALES>                                            82,019
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   82,919
<CGS>                                              48,595
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      48,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  3,661
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  ( 59,436)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              ( 59,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     ( 59,436)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (   .02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (   .02)
        

</TABLE>
§ 97.11 Procedures—expert or opinion testimony. ( a ) Personnel may not present expert or opinion testimony involving official information, except when: ( 1 ) The testimony is presented on behalf of the United States, a Federal agency, or any party represented by the Department of Justice.
( 2 ) The chief legal advisor of the DoD Component with primary equity has granted special written approval upon a showing of exceptional need or unique circumstances, but only if the anticipated testimony is not adverse to the interests of the DoD or the United States and is presented at no expense to the Government.
( b ) If a court orders the presentation of testimony disallowed by paragraph (a) of this section, personnel must respectfully decline to comply with the court's order unless the chief legal advisor directs otherwise.
1667 K Street NW, Suite 300 | Washington, DC 20006 | www.cspa.org | p.202

- 872

- 8110 f. 202

- 223

- 2636 

### Draft Agenda CAPHRA Meeting with EPA

Science Briefing Focus on Neurotoxicology and Pharmacodynamics November 7, 2013 EPA Headquarters, Crystal City, VA 1:30 pm

- 3 : 00 pm EDT

I. Introductions and purpose

– EPA

– 10’
II. CAPHRA and Tox21

– EPA

– 20 ’
III. CAPHRA C onceptual Framework

– CAPHRA

– 20’
IV. * Neurotoxicology of Pyrethroids

– 15

V. * Pharmacodynamic considerations for Pyrethroids

– 35 ’
VI. * Discussion

– 20’
VII. Future sessions

– topics and timing

*Drs. John Clark (University of Massachusets and Steve Symington (Salve Regina University), collaborators with CAPHRA will lead these discussions.
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Illinois

Gary Lobaton, individually and on behalf of all

others similarly situated

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 12 C 598

 CARNIVAL CORPORATION, a Corporation of

the Republic of Panama; CARNIVAL PLC, a

Corporation of The United Kingdom; COSTA

CROCIERE, S.p.A, a Corporation of the Republic

of Italy; and JOHN DOES 1-10,

Defendant

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that (check one):

 the plaintiff (name) recover from the

defendant (name) the amount of

dollars ($ ), which includes prejudgment

interest at the rate of %, plus postjudgment interest at the rate of %, along with costs.

 the plaintiff recover nothing, the action be dismissed on the merits, and the defendant (name)

recover costs from the plaintiff (name)

.

X

other:

Defendants’ motion to dismiss [25] is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against

plaintiff.

This action was (check one):

 tried by a jury with Judge presiding, and the jury has

rendered a verdict.

 tried by Judge without a jury and the above decision

was reached.

X decided by Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on a motion to dismiss.

Date: 9/11/2013 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

/s/ Robbie T. Hunt

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:12-cv-00598 Document #: 38 Filed: 09/11/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:460
§ 775.9 Documentation and analysis. ( a ) Environmental documentation and analyses required by this rule should be integrated as much as practicable with any environmental studies, surveys and impact analyses required by other environmental review laws and executive orders (40 CFR 1502.25). When a cost-benefit analysis has been prepared in conjunction with an action which also requires a NEPA analysis, the cost-benefit analysis shall be integrated into the environmental documentation.
( b ) CEQ regulations encourage the use of tiering whenever appropriate to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for discussion at each level of environmental review (40 CFR 1502.20). Tiering is accomplished through the preparation of a broad programmatic environmental impact statement discussing the impacts of a wide ranging or long term stepped program followed by narrower statements or environmental assessments concentrating solely on issues specific to the analysis subsequently prepared (40 CFR 1508.28). ( 1 ) *Appropriate use of tiering:* Tiering is appropriate when it helps the lead agency to focus on issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe. (40 CFR 1508.28(b).) The sequence of statements or analyses is: ( i ) From a broad program, plan, or policy environmental impact statement (not necessarily site specific) to a subordinate/smaller scope program, plan, or policy statement or analysis (usually site specific) (40 CFR 1508.28 (a)).
( ii ) From an environmental impact statement on a specific action at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a supplement (which is preferred) or a subsequent statement or analysis at a later stage (such as environmental mitigation) (40 CFR 1508.28(b)).
( iii ) In addition to the discussion required by these regulations for inclusion in environmental impact statements, the programmatic environmental impact statement shall also discuss: ( A ) A description of the subsequent stages or sites that may ultimately be proposed in as much detail as presently possible;
( B ) All of the implementing factors of the program that can be ascertained at the time of impact statement preparation;
( C ) All of the environmental impacts that will result from establishment of the overall program itself that will be similar for subsequent stages or sites as further implementation plans are proposed; and
( D ) All of the appropriate mitigation measures that will be similarly proposed for subsequent stages or sites.
( iv ) The analytical document used for stage or site specific analysis subsequent to the programmatic environmental impact statement shall also be an environmental impact statement when the subsequent tier itself may have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment or when an impact statement is otherwise required. Otherwise, it is appropriate to document the tiered analysis with an environmental assessment to fully assess the need for further documentation or whether a FONSI would be appropriate.
( 2 ) [Reserved]
#### Minnie Greenberg, Individually and as Stockholder of Nusbaum’s Department Store, Inc., Suing on Behalf of Herself and for the Benefit of Said Corporation and Other Stockholders Similarly Situated, Respondent-Appellant, v. Nusbaum’s Department Store, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Order unanimously modified in accordance with the memo-*742random and as modified affirmed, with costs to plaintiff. Memorandum: The plaintiff claims among other things that the intermingling of goods among the corporate defendants caused damage to the stockholders of Nusbaum’s Department Store, Inc., of which she is one. Therefore she is entitled to profit and loss statements in addition to those for the years 1958-1961 which admittedly have been furnished for each of the fiscal years ending subsequent to May 18, 1954 (the date of the formation of the defendant corporation Cole’s *Department Store,*Inc.). (Cross appeals from order of Monroe Special Term modifying a notice of examination before trial.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Hemy, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
### Geology and energy resources of the Sand Butte Rim NW Quadrangle, Sweetwater County, Wyoming

By: Henry W. Roehler

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1065A

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Superseded Publications:
                                        Geology and energy resources of the Sand Butte Rim NW Quadrangle, Sweetwater County, Wyoming(1976)                                    

- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
EXHIBIT 14(a)(2)

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No.
33-34233, Registration No. 33-46861, Registration No. 33-87614, Registration No. 33-97622,
Registration No. 33-97624 and Registration No. 33-39364) of Scailex Corporation Ltd., of
our Report dated February 26, 2006, with respect to the financial statements of Jemtex Ink
Jet Printing Ltd. as of December 31, 2005.

/s/ Ziv Haft
Ziv Haft
Certified Public Accountants
BDO member firm
Tel Aviv Israel
June 27, 2006



---

---
### §447. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 447 was editorially reclassified as section 667g of Title 16, Conservation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles Park
Communities, Ltd. 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317969
<NAME> ANGELES PARK COMMUNITIES, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             347
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                           5,872
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,546)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,953
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                          4,914
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,198)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,953
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,003
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (79)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (79)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (79)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.18)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of W. Earle Costello, an Attorney, Respondent. Steuben County Bar Association, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

June 25, 1964.

*Joseph J. Nasser*for petitioner.

*W. Earle Costello,*respondent in person.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to the Bar by this court on July 2, 1917. On April 13, 1964 he entered a plea of nolo contendere in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York to an information charging in six counts violation of section 7203 of title 26 of the United States Code. More specifically the several counts of the information alleged that respondent‘ ‘ wilfully and knowingly ’ ’ failed to file Federal income tax returns for the years 1957 to 1962, inclusive. On April 27, 1964 respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of $500 on each count but payment was remitted as to three specified counts.

Some years ago we had occasion to pass upon charges against several attorneys who had been convicted of identical crimes. *(Matter of Mahon,*15 A D 2d 232.) Therein we wrote (p. 234) that “ it is scarcely necessary to comment that an attorney, as a respected member of his community, should assiduously comply with statutory mandates and particularly those, so fundamental to our form of Government, relating to the filing of income tax returns and the payment of the determined tax. ’ ’

We then believed that our action would serve to warn other members of the Bar of the gravity with which we viewed such professional misconduct. The facts herein show that the warn*365ing then sounded has been ignored. Respondent in substance has admitted that, not for a single year, as in the earlier cases, but for six consecutive years he failed to file a Federal return or pay a tax upon a substantial income received in each year.

Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct and should be suspended from the practice of law for six months and thereafter until the further order of the court.

Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ., concur.

Order entered suspending respondent for six months and until the further order of the court.
#### 1204.103 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at FAR 52.204-1, Approval of Contract, filled in as appropriate, in solicitations and contracts when approval to award the resulting contract must be obtained from an official at a level above the contracting officer.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 69620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28782]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Date and Time:  Friday, November 19, 2010, 11 a.m.

Place:  Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., 
Washington, DC 20237.

Subject:  Notice of Meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
SUMMARY: The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will be meeting at 
the time and location listed above. The BBG will be considering 
protection of BBG journalists, a resolution regarding the Agency's 
Ethics Program, a report from the Board's Governance Committee, a 
status report from the International Broadcasting Bureau Coordinating 
Committee, and research presentations by InterMedia and Gallup. The 
meeting is open to the public--but due to space limitations via Webcast 
only--and will be streamed live on the BBG's public Web site at http://www.bbg.gov. The meeting will also be made available on the BBG's 
public Web site for on-demand viewing.

Contact Person for More Information:  Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Paul Kollmer-Dorsey at (202) 203-4545.

Paul Kollmer-Dorsey,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-28782 Filed 11-10-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHELLE MERRITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 11 C 9071

Magistrate Judge Denlow

COMMISSIONER’S MOTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Defendant, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, by Patrick J. Fitzgerald,

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, moves pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),

for judgment to be entered affirming the Commissioner’s decision.

A memorandum in support is filed with this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

PATRICK J. FITZGERALD

United States Attorney

By: s/ Zachary D. Clopton

 ZACHARY D. CLOPTON

 Assistant United States Attorney

 219 South Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

 (312) 353-6630

 zachary.clopton@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:11-cv-09071 Document #: 12 Filed: 05/07/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:581
### SUBCHAPTER I—ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL BENEFITS
May 6, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BYRON KEITH HARMON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 12

- 00713

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________ ________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision c ertified below for observance.