alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Notes from Telephone Meeting notes on RMP Proposed Rule between Jim Belke, OEM/USEPA 

and Mark Dreux, Arent Fox PLLC, Washington, DC.

April 29, 2016

Mark Dreux: Why is EPA proposing to require that training requirements apply to supervisors? 

Jim Belke: I don’t have immediate access to the proposal and do not recall the Agency's 

rationale in enough detail to discuss it now, but I will be able to discuss this on Monday when 

back in the office with the proposal at hand. 

Mark Dreux: Concerning the requirement added to the PHA that facilities consider not only 

findings from incidents, but also other failure scenarios, why is EPA incorporating this into the 

PHA, which only requires it to be done once every five years? Why not require consideration of, 

for example, lessons learned from accidents at other facilities in the industry sector, in a more 

timely fashion? 

Jim Belke: This is an interesting idea and I recommend that you submit a related comment to 

EPA if you desire. 

Mark Dreux: Do the specified NAICS codes for the STAA provision refer to the overall NAICS 

for the facility, for the process, for any part of a process that falls in the NAICS, or what? 

Jim Belke: This is not an issue that I recall being considered by EPA and I encourage you to 

submit a comment on it if you have something to recommend.
#### 1317.104 General.

The designee authorized to modify requirements of FAR Subpart 17.1 and FAR 52.217-2 is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### Mercedes Gil, Respondent, v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Company et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellant. McGuire Service Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 455]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-party plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (David Schmidt, J.), dated June 9, 2005, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs, as the order was superseded by an order of the same court dated December 23, 2005, made upon reargument (see *Gil v Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.,*39 AD3d 703 [2007] [decided herewith]). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Carni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                       CORCOM INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE
           for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995, and 1994
            (Amounts in thousands except per share information)



                                         1996           1995             1994
Common and common equivalent
 shares:
 Average shares outstanding             3,785          3,686            3,570
 Additional shares assuming exercise
  of dilutive stock options, based
  on the treasury stock method using
  average market price                    172            181              150

Average number of common and common
 equivalent shares                      3,957          3,867            3,720

Net income                             $5,472         $2,786           $1,243

Net income per common and common
 equivalent share                     $  1.38        $  0.72          $  0.33


Net income per common and common
 equivalent share, assuming full
 dilution:
 Average shares outstanding             3,785          3,686           3,570
 Additional shares assuming exercise
  of dilutive stock options, based
  on the treasury stock method using
  the period-end price if higher than
  the average market price                172            209             152

Fully diluted average number of common
 and common equivalent shares           3,957          3,895           3,722

Net income                             $5,472         $2,786          $1,243

Net income per common and common
 equivalent share                     $  1.38        $  0.72         $  0.33
### §8793. Implementation

The Secretary shall make available to the Farm Service Agency to carry out this chapter $50,000,000.

(Pub. L. 110–234, title I, §1622, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1025; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title I, §1622, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1753.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title I of Pub. L. 110–246, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

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

#### Effective Date

Enactment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 8701 of this title.
### §9203. Evaluation and research plan

#### (a) In general

Not less frequently than biennially, the Secretary of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, shall—

(1) evaluate the work of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility;

(2) develop, biennially update, and publish a strategic plan for research at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility based on priority risk and threat assessments, including strategies to—

(A) develop veterinary countermeasures for emerging foreign animal diseases and animal transboundary diseases;

(B) provide advanced testing, diagnostic, and evaluation capabilities for threat detection, vulnerability assessments of animal and zoonotic diseases, and veterinary countermeasures for animal and zoonotic diseases;

(C) assist, as appropriate, with the development, and address vulnerability assessments, of the agriculture and food sectors;

(D) address gaps in the ongoing animal and zoonotic disease research efforts across the Federal Government, ensuring not to duplicate those ongoing efforts; and

(E) be used for such other purposes as the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of other appropriate Federal departments and agencies, determines to be appropriate; and

(3) submit to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, the strategic plan for research described in paragraph (2).

#### (b) Classified information

The strategic plan for research required under subsection (a)(2)—

(1) shall be published in an unclassified format that is publicly available;

(2) shall be submitted under subsection (a)(3) in unclassified form; and

(3) may include in the submission under subsection (a)(3) a classified annex for any sensitive or classified information, as necessary.

(Pub. L. 116–260, div. P, §4, Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2160.)
Case: 1:12-cv-00861 Document #: 10 Filed: 03/20/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:48
<PAGE>

                                                               Exhibit 13.(a)(1)

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                  AS ENACTED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Ricoh Company, Ltd. (the
"Company") for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shiro Kondo,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, 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
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date:  June 26, 2009

                                       By: /s/ Shiro Kondo
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Shiro Kondo
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
#### 1306.302-5 Authorized or required by statute.

In accordance with Executive Order 13457, a sole source acquisition may not be justified on the basis of any earmark included in any non-statutory source, except when otherwise required by law or when an earmark meets the criteria for funding set out in Executive Order 13457.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Synthetic Blood International, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Larsen, President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief 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 the best of 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                  
|----------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|December 17, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert J. Larsen                                             
|                  |  |  |  | Robert J. Larsen                                                 
|                  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Synthetic Blood
International, Inc. and will be retained by Synthetic Blood International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### J *&*K Builders, Inc. *v.*Planning Board of the City of Stamford

*Gerald M. Fox, Jr.,*in support of the petition.

*Theodore Godlin,*assistant corporation counsel, in opposition.

Submitted November 1

decided November 12, 1974

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford is denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 11313]

Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(a)(ii)(B) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 2003, and Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, I hereby determine that the person known as Muhammad Abbatay, also known as Mohamed Abbatay, also known as Abd al-Rahman al-Maghrebi, also known as Abdul Rahman al-Maghrebi, is a foreign person who is a leader of al-Qa'ida, a group whose property and interests in property are concurrently blocked pursuant to a determination by the Secretary of State pursuant to Executive Order 13224.

Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 13224 that prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously, I determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the measures authorized in the Order.

                    This notice shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: January 6, 2021.

Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-00633 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P
(May 6, 1964)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Beatrice E. Douglass, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

This is an appeal by claimant from a nonunanimous decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board dated September 26, 1962 granting her application for a reopening and reconsideration of its decision dated November 30, 1961 affirming the decision of a Referee disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits upon the ground that she had voluntarily left her employment without good cause Upon which reopening the board took additional proof and thereafter adhered to the earlier decision. Claimant’s employment as a *“*long-lines ” operator was terminated on May 29, 1961. The controversy involving her eligibility to receive unemployment insurance benefits was centered in the issue wnether her acts and statements expressive of a voluntary relinquishment of her position constituted in the circumstances which. surrounded them a resignation which her employer was entitled to recognize and accept. Its *701resolution was dependent upon a choice of conflicting inferences as to intent and an evaluation of the credibility of interested witnesses. Since there is substantial evidence to support the board’s factual finding we are required to accept it as final and conclusive. (Unemployment Insurance Law [Labor Law, art 18], § 623; *Matter of Glielmi*v. *Netherland Dairy Co.,*254 N. Y. 60, 64; *Matter of Morton,*284 N. Y. 167, 170; *Matter of lanni*[Catherwood], 14 A D 2d 469.) Decision affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, J. P., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-2601

___________ Keith Brown, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Larry G. Scott; Michael * District Court for the Bowersox; Donald Roper; Fred * Eastern District of Missouri. Johnson; Maggie Pashea; Debbie * Hollman; Stephen Jennings; * [UNPUBLISHED] Leland Mills, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: January 18, 1996 Filed: January 23, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Keith Brown El, a Missouri inmate, appeals the district court's 1 grant of summary judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the parties' submissions, we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### §426a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Mar. 2, 1931, ch. 370, §2, 46 Stat. 1469, authorized $1,000,000 per year for fiscal years 1932 to 1941, inclusive.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000032312
<NAME> EMCEE BROADCAST PRODUCTS INC
       
   <S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         556,687
<SECURITIES>                                 1,673,008
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,390,559
<ALLOWANCES>                                   140,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,851,033
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,961,423
<PP&E>                                       2,819,741
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,771,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,163,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,343,110
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        72,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,916,058
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,163,550
<SALES>                                     10,641,090
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,641,090
<CGS>                                        6,500,101
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,011,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               132,650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                53,177
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,761,909
<INCOME-TAX>                                   436,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,325,509
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,325,509
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
1405.404-1 Release procedures. ( a ) The authority to release acquisition requirements anticipated in the coming year is delegated to the OSDBU and the HCA with redelegation limited to the BPC. The Government cost estimate shall not be revealed. The expected dollar values shall be advertised as falling within dollar ranges rather than specific dollar amounts.
( b ) Classified information shall only be released in accordance with the procedures in 442 DM.
#### Howe Sound Company, Respondent, v. Greg-Gary Corporation, Appellant.

Order, entered September 30, 1960, with respect to defendant’s motion to modify, vacate or suspend the operation of the temporary injunction restraining it from taking action with respect to an irrevocable letter of credit, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of reducing to the amount of $75,000 the undertaking to be filed by defendant as a condition to suspending the operation of said restraining order and, as so modified, the said order is affirmed, without costs. The undertaking, if furnished by defendant, is to be duly approved and filed no later than 4:00 P.M., Friday, October 28, 1960, and notice of the filing thereof filed with this court no later than Monday, October 31,1960 at 10:00 a.m.; otherwise the order appealed from is affirmed, without costs. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### Linda Shapiro et al., Appellants, v Uni-Royal, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 30, 1977, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Stecher, J., at Special Term. Respondents shall recover of appellant one bill of $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Appellant’s time within which to comply with Special Term’s permission to serve an acceptable bill of particulars is extended to 10 days after service of a copy of this court’s order with notice of entry. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
**AMENDMENT
TO SECURED SUBORDINATED**
 **PROMISSORY
NOTES AND WARRANTS**
 
 DCAP
GROUP, INC.
 1158
Broadway
 Hewlett,
New York 11558
 
 May 25,
2005
 
 Jack
Seibald as representative and
 attorney-in-fact
for the holders of
 the
Secured Subordinated Promissory
 Notes of
DCAP Group, Inc., dated
 July 10,
2003, in the outstanding aggregate
 principal
amount of $1,500,000
 1336
Boxwood Drive West
 Hewlett
Harbor, NY 11557
 
 Dear
Jack:
 
 Reference
is made to the Secured Subordinated Promissory Notes of DCAP Group, Inc. (the
“Company”), dated July 10, 2003, in the outstanding aggregate principal amount
of $1,500,000 (collectively, the “Notes”) and held by the persons and entities
set forth on Schedule A attached hereto (collectively, the
“Noteholders”).
 
 Reference
is also made to the Warrants issued by the Company, dated July 10, 2003, to the
Noteholders for the purchase of an aggregate of 97,500 shares of Common Stock of
the Company (collectively, the “Warrants”).
 
 All
capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
thereto in the Notes.
 
 The
parties agree that, in consideration of the extension hereby of the outside date
by which the Warrants may be exercised from 5:00 P.M., Eastern Time, on January
10, 2006 to 5:00 P.M., Eastern Time, on September 30, 2007, the Maturity Date
for each of the Notes is hereby extended from January 10, 2006 to September 30,
2007. Except as amended hereby, the Notes and the Warrants shall continue in
full force and effect in accordance with their respective terms.
 
 Very
truly yours,
 
 **DCAP
GROUP, INC**.
 
 By: /s/ Barry B. Goldstein
 Barry B.
Goldstein
 **Agreed:**
 
 /s/
Jack Seibald
 Jack
Seibald, as representative and attorney-
 in-fact
for the holders of the Secured Subordinated
 Promissory
Notes of DCAP Group, Inc., dated
 July 10,
2003, in the outstanding aggregate principal amount
 of
$1,500,000
 
 
   **SCHEDULE
A**
 
 
 
 **Name**
    **Outstanding
      Principal**
      **Amount
      of Note**
    **Number
      of Shares**
      **of
      Common Stock**
      **Subject
      to Warrant**IRA
      FBO Stewart R. Spector,
      Pershing
      LLC Custodian
    $461,538.49
    30,000IRA
      FBO Jack D. Seibald,
      Pershing
      LLC Custodian
    $288,461.54
    18,750J.M.J
      Realty Company
    $230,769.23
    15,000Sanders
      Opportunity Fund (Inst.), LP
    $166,153.85
    10,800Take-Two
      Capital LP
    $115,384.61
    7,500Citco
      Trustees (B.V.I.) Limited as  Trustee
      of
      the MS DeferredIncome
      Trust
    $115,384.61
    7,500Sanders
      Opportunity Fund, LP
    $64,615.39
    4,200Michael
      Rosen and Catherine Rosen
    $57,692.31
    3,750
1.201-2 FAR Secretariat. ( a ) The General Services Administration is responsible for establishing and operating the FAR Secretariat to publish and distribute the FAR through the Code of Federal Regulations system (including a separate online edition with periodic updates).
( b ) Additionally, the FAR Secretariat shall provide the two councils with centralized services for— ( 1 ) Keeping a synopsis of current FAR cases and their status;
( 2 ) Maintaining official files;
( 3 ) Assisting parties interested in reviewing the files on completed cases; and
( 4 ) Performing miscellaneous administrative tasks pertaining to the maintenance of the FAR.
[48 FR 42103, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 40236, July 25, 1997; 85 FR 67614, Oct. 23, 2020]