alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
John E. Skvarla, III

Secretary

Pat McCrory

Governor

AVA

NCDENR

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Division of Air Quality

Sheila C. Holman

Director

May 1,2013

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming

Regional Administrator

USEPA, Region 4

Sam Nunn Federal Center

61 Forsyth Street, SW

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

Subject: State Implementation Plan (SIP) Approval Request for Amendments to Volatile

Organic Compound (VOC) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

Rules

Dear Ms. Fleming:

In their review of North Carolina's Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill area redesignation request and

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, your staff identified the need for an

adjustment of applicability of North Carolina's Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT) rules for all sources addressed by Control Technology

Guidelines (CTGs) in areas classified as moderate and above for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS

to meet the requirements of Section 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, the EPA

identified the need for North Carolina to address RACT applicability for sources in CTG.

categories with VOC emissions less than 100 tons per year. Based on monitoring data, North

Carolina is attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

and received a clean data determination for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill area on November

15, 2011. North Carolina has completed the process of revising its state rules to address the

requirements of Section 182(b)(2).

On March 14,2013 the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) amended 15A NCAC

02D .0902, .0903, .0909, .0951, .0961, and .0962 which were the subject of a public hearing held

January 15,2013. The rules were approved by the State Rules Review Commission (RRC) on

April 18,2013 and are effective May 1,2013.

Enclosed in the transmittal of this package to your staff noted below are a single hard copy and

an identical electronic copy on CD of the final rules and associated hearing record. Please

proceed to approve the aforementioned rules as part of the federally-approved State

Implementation Plan.

1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699·1641

217 West Jones Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

Phone: 919·707·8401/ Fax: 919·715·0718

Internet: www.ncair.org

An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - Made in part by Recycled Paper
Ms. Fleming

May 1,2013

Page 2 of2

We look forward to your review and approval of these amendments. Please feel free to contact

me or Joelle Burleson of my staff at (919) 707-8720 if you have any questions regarding this

matter.

Sincerely,

Sheila C. Holman

Enclosures

SCH/jbb

c: Beverly Banister

Scott Davis

Lynorae Benjamin

Nacosta Ward (hardcopy and CD)

Jane Spann

Michael Abraczinskas

Sushma Masemore
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Namon Kent

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−01411

Honorable Ronald A. Guzman

Chase Bank USA, N.A., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, April 11, 2013:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing and notices

of motions set for 4/12/2013 are stricken on Court's own motion. Motion by Chase Bank

USA, N.A. to substitute attorney [56] is granted. David T. Ballard is granted leave to

withdraw his appearance and Alison C. Conlon is granted leave to file her substitute

appearance. Status hearing and motion hearing as to motion by DEFENDANT CHASE

BANK USA, N.A.'S MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR IN

THE ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [57] are reset

to 4/16/2013 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, )

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: 1:12-cv-01411 Document #: 60 Filed: 04/11/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:540
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

                                RELEASE AGREEMENT

This Release Agreement ("Agreement") is in favor of American Building Control,
Inc. f/k/a Ultrak, Inc. ("Company") and executed by Karen Austin ("Employee")
(collectively the "parties"). The Effective Date for this Agreement is the date
it is executed by Employee.

In exchange for three annual payments by Company to Employee of $42,500 each in
2002, 2003 and 2004 (less any ordinary or required withholdings), Employee
agrees to the following warranties, waivers and releases:

         Employee hereby forever waives and releases any and all claims, rights,
         or remedies, known or unknown, that Employee may have against Company
         or Related Parties (as defined below) (a) based upon any change of
         control or alleged change of control of Company, or (b) based upon the
         application of the change of control provisions in Employee's
         Employment Agreement, as amended (the "Employment Agreement")
         (including, without limitation, any rights to compensation triggered by
         the change of control language in Sections 7 and 8 of the Employment
         Agreement) and any amendments or modifications thereto. Employee waives
         any claim that this Agreement was induced by fraud or duress. Employee
         agrees not to sue or otherwise pursue any legal action for a claim,
         right or remedy waived and/or released by this Agreement.

         Employee warrants and represents that the foregoing release covers all
         change-of-control related agreements and liabilities between Employee
         and Company or Related Parties, and warrants and represents that there
         is no agreement or other basis for a claim against Company or Related
         Parties that is nor covered by this Agreement. Employee warrants and
         represents that Employee has complete ownership of all rights released
         by this Agreement and Employee has not assigned, granted a lien
         against, or otherwise encumbered any claim or potential claim released
         through this Agreement. This Agreement may only be modified, waived, or
         amended through a writing signed by the parties.

         For purposes of this Agreement only, Related Parties means all
         officers, directors, shareholders, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
         partners, agents, and employees, past and present, of Company and its
         predecessors and successors in interest.

         Any payment amount set forth herein shall not be paid to Employee if
         Employee resigns prior to such payment being made or is terminated for
         cause prior to such payment being made, but any payment shall be paid
         if Employee is terminated without cause (as defined in the Employment
         Agreement), dies, or becomes disabled prior to such a payment being
         made.

Agreed to as of December 31, 2002



/s/ KAREN AUSTIN
----------------
Signature


Karen Austin
----------------
Printed Name
#### ROSENBLUM. Appellant, v. LONG ISLAND R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 13, 1903.)

Action by Jacob Rosenblum against the Long Island Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
### §53. Licensing classifiers; revocation and suspension of license

The Secretary of Agriculture may, upon presentation of satisfactory evidence of competency, issue to any person a license to grade or otherwise classify cotton and to certificate the grade or other class thereof in accordance with the official cotton standards of the United States. Any such license may be suspended or revoked by the Secretary of Agriculture whenever he is satisfied, after reasonable opportunity afforded to the licensee for a hearing, that such licensee is incompetent or has knowingly or carelessly classified cotton improperly, or has violated any provision of this chapter or the regulations thereunder so far as the same may relate to him, or has used his license or allowed it to be used for any improper purpose. Pending investigation the Secretary of Agriculture, whenever he deems necessary, may suspend a license temporarily without a hearing.

(Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 288, §3, 42 Stat. 1517.)
AO 450 (Rev. 01/09) Judgment in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

Northern District of Illinois

 KATHY TRAVIS )

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No. 11 C 7911

 TRITON COLLEGE, et al. 

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: 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 Elaine E. Bucklo on a motion for summary 

judgment.

.

Date: May 31, 2013 Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk of Court

Ms. Jacquelyn H. Collier

Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Andrew P. Blocher, the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Federal Realty Investment Trust (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                                                                                                          
|---------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|October 29, 2008 |  | /s/ ANDREW P. BLOCHER                                                                                    
|                 |  | Andrew P. Blocher,                                                                                       
|                 |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer)
#### James Nash et al., Appellants, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 38503.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: While an abutting owner may not be deprived without compensation from all access to a highway *(Egerer*v. *New York Cent. & H. R. R. R. Co.,*130 N. Y. 108, 112) what may be a suitable means of access is a question of fact and mere inconvenience does not stamp such access as unsuitable *(Holmes*v. *State of New York,*279 App. Div. 489, 491). Concededly, claimants present means of access is less convenient than before the construction of the elevated highway in front of their premises but the finding of the trial court on the issue is not contrary to the evidence. The complaints of claimants largely center upon conditions during the Winter months when snow accumulates on the access road. It is not clear from the record whether the legal responsibility for the plowing or removal of the snow from this access road is upon the municipality or the abutting owners. In any event the claim herein is not based on the failure of the State to remove the snow. We recognize the inequities presented in claims, such as this one, based on a change of grade of a highway and have written “ that the result is harsh and is discriminating as to property located in a town [but] [t]he remedy lies with the Legislature.” *(Bennett*v. *State of New York,*284 App. Div. 828, 829; *Raymond*v. *State of New York,*4 A D 2d 62, 64, affd. 4 N Y 2d 961.) (Appeal from judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing the claim for easement damage, upon the merits.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Veechio, JJ.
#### Mariana Merida, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Adolph Merida, Absentee, Respondent, v. 200 West 96th Street, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment and order, dated December 6, 1963, and order, dated November 18, 1963, both entered December 10, 1963, granting plaintiff’s motion to amend caption and enter judgment on stipulation of settlement and denying the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, unanimously modified, on the law, with costs to defendant-appellant, by eliminating the second and third ordering paragraphs of the December 6 judgment and order directing the enforcement of the stipulation and the entry of judgment, and so much of the November 18 order as grants entry of judgment, and that portion of plaintiff’s motion seeking entry of judgment is denied, with costs to defendant-appellant, and the judgment and orders insofar as appealed from are otherwise affirmed. The recorded stipulation of settlement in open court was conditioned on signing of a general release and stipulation of discontinuance by the then plaintiff personally, to the express exclusion of any personal representative. Signature by the subsequently appointed administratrix did not constitute performance. Since the condition was not fulfilled, the stipulation may not be enforced (see, e.g., *General Payment Co.*v. *Elliot,*7 A D 2d 919; *Kawata*v. *Barry,*237 App. Div. 608; 15 C. J. S., Compromise and Settlement, §§ 44, 45). Defendant has not appealed from the portions of the judgment and orders that amend the caption. While defendant appeals from the denial of its cross motion to dismiss, it now states contradictorily that the action has been dismissed pursuant to rule 302 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Consequently, there is no occasion for considering the denial of its cross motion to dismiss. Settle order on notice. Concur—Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.61 Delegations of authority. ( a ) *Overseas settlement authority.* Staff Judge Advocates of the Air Force component commands of the U.S. geographic combatant commands will, within their combatant command AORs, fulfill U.S. obligations concerning claims abroad subject to 10 U.S.C. 2734a for which the Air Force has settlement authority. Consistent with 10 U.S.C. 2734a and the international agreement, they may reimburse or pay the pro rata share of a claim as agreed, or if inconsistent with the IACA or the international agreement, they may object to a bill presented,
( b ) *Settlement authority.* The Secretary of the Air Force, The Judge Advocate General, the Deputy Judge Advocate General, The Director of Civil Law and Chief of the Claims and Tort Litigation Division may also exercise settlement authority under 10 U.S.C. 2734a.
( c ) *Redelegation of authority.* A settlement authority may redelegate his or her authority to a subordinate judge advocate or civilian attorney in writing.
( d ) *Authority to reduce, withdraw, and restore settlement authority.* Any superior settlement authority may reduce, withdraw, or restore delegated authority.
[81 FR 83694, Nov. 22, 2016]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 28, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00152

- CR

Vincent MACRI

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1997CR3321 Honorable Raymond Angelini , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On April 21, 2021, the Bexar County District Clerk erroneously filed a clerk’s record in this court, which contained a pro se pleading entitled “Motion for New Trial Out of Time Appeal.” This pleading was filed by the pro se in trial court cause number 97 CR3321. The pleading requests relief from the trial court and not the court of appeals. However, before this court determined the nature of the filing, we inadvertently assigned an appellate number to the “Motion for New Trial Out of Time Appeal.” We the refore ORDER appeal number 04

- 21

- 00152

- CR be treated as a closed case for administrative purposes and ORDER the clerk of this court to administratively close appeal number 04

- 21

- 00152

- CR. The clerk of this court is also directed to inform the Bexar County District Clerk of the erroneous filing

.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

IN WITNESS WH EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of April, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
### §601. Declaration of conditions

It is declared that the disruption of the orderly exchange of commodities in interstate commerce impairs the purchasing power of farmers and destroys the value of agricultural assets which support the national credit structure and that these conditions affect transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public interest, and burden and obstruct the normal channels of interstate commerce.

(May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title I, §1, 48 Stat. 31; June 3, 1937, ch. 296, §§1, 2(a), 50 Stat. 246.)

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

#### Short Title of 2006 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–215, §1, Apr. 11, 2006, 120 Stat. 328, provided that: "This Act [amending section 608c of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 608c of this title] may be cited as the 'Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005'."

#### Short Title

Act June 16, 1933, ch. 90, title I, §8(a), 48 Stat. 199, provided in part that title I of act May 12, 1933, which is classified to this chapter, may for all purposes be referred to as the "Agricultural Adjustment Act."

#### Validity of Certain Sections Affirmed

Act June 3, 1937, ch. 296, §§1, 2, 50 Stat. 246, provided as follows: "The following provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, not having been intended for the control of the production of agricultural commodities, and having been intended to be effective irrespective of the validity of any other provision of that Act are expressly affirmed and validated, and are reenacted without change except as provided in section 2:

"(a) Section 1 (relating to the declaration of emergency [this section]):

"(b) Section 2 (relating to declaration of policy [section 602 of this title]):

"(c) Section 8a(5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) (relating to violations and enforcement [section 608a(5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) of this title]);

"(d) Section 8b (relating to marketing agreements [section 608b of this title]);

"(e) Section 8c (relating to orders [section 608c of this title]);

"(f) Section 8d (relating to books and records [section 608d of this title]);

"(g) Section 8e (relating to determination of base period [former section 608e of this title]);

"(h) Section 10(a), (b)(2), (c), (f), (g), (h), and (i) (miscellaneous provisions [section 610(a), (b)(2), (c), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of this title]);

"(i) Section 12(a) and (c) (relating to appropriation and expenses [section 612(a) and (c) of this title]);

"(j) Section 14 (relating to separability [section 614 of this title]);

"(k) Section 22 (relating to imports [section 624 of this title]).

"Sec. 2. The following provisions, reenacted in section I of this act, are amended as follows: * * * [sections 601, 602(1), 608a(6), 608c(5)(B)(d), (6)(B), (6)(B)(18), (19), 610(c), (f), 612(a) of this title]."

Section 2 of act June 3, 1937, also added subsec. (j) to section 610.

Section 2 of act June 3, 1937, was amended by act Aug. 5, 1937, ch. 567, 50 Stat. 563, which amending act provided for amendments to subsecs. (2) and (6) of section 608c of this title.
#### In the Matter of City Title Insurance Company, Appellant, v. Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, Respondent.

Order entered on October 13, 1961 unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur —- Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
11.104 Use of brand name or equal purchase descriptions. ( a ) While the use of performance specifications is preferred to encourage offerors to propose innovative solutions, the use of brand name or equal purchase descriptions may be advantageous under certain circumstances.
( b ) Brand name or equal purchase descriptions must include, in addition to the brand name, a general description of those salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics of the brand name item that an “equal” item must meet to be acceptable for award. Use brand name or equal descriptions when the salient characteristics are firm requirements.
[64 FR 32742, June 17, 1999]
#### § 93.4 Policy.

Official information that is not classified, privileged, or otherwise protected from public disclosure, should generally be made reasonably available for use in Federal and State courts and by other governmental bodies.
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)

______________________________________________________________________________

GLENN L. UDELL, CASE NO. 1:12-cv-000454

Plaintiff,

Judge Edmond. E. Chang

vs.

TRANS UNION, LLC,

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Glenn L. Udell, by counsel, and Defendant Trans Union, LLC, by counsel, 

having filed their Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice Between Plaintiff And Defendant 

Trans Union, LLC, AND THE COURT, having been duly advised, NOW FINDS that the same 

should be granted.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that all claims of Plaintiff Glenn L. Udell against 

Defendant Trans Union, LLC are dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiff Glenn L. Udell and 

Defendant Trans Union, LLC shall each bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Date: ________________________ ____________________________________

JUDGE, United States District Court, 

Northern District of Illinois

DISTRIBUTION TO:

David M. Marco, Esq.

dmarco@smithlaw.us

Larry P. Smith, Esq.

lsmith@smithlaw.us

Ashley S. Decker, Esq.

adecker@smithlaw.us

Michael J. Sreenan, Esq.

msreenan@sreenanpc.com

Laura K. Rang, Esq.

lrang@schuckitlaw.com

Christa J. Jewsbury, Esq.

cjewsbury@schuckitlaw.com

 

Case: 1:12-cv-00454 Document #: 15-1 Filed: 03/16/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:46
### §8754. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–79, title I, §1102(a), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 658

Section, Pub. L. 110–234, title I, §1304, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 971; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title I, §1304, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1699, related to availability of counter-cyclical payments for peanuts for 2008 through 2012 crop years.

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

#### Continued Application for 2013 Crop Year

For continued application of this section, as in effect on the day before Feb. 7, 2014, through the 2013 crop year, see section 1102(b) of Pub. L. 113–79, set out as a note under section 8714 of this title.