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

- 1 3

- 325

- E May 01, 2013

Exemption No. 1075 8

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 3

- 0 343

Mr. Chris Webb

Complete Helicopters

889 1 Airport Road E13

Blaine, MN 55449

Dear M r

. Webb :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 1 0 , 2013 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of Complete Helicopters for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Complete Helicopters to cover its

safety

- s ensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program

.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any

delay in a cting on this petition would be detrimental to Complete Helicopters

.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA

fo und that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing

programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an eq uivalent level of

safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was

unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant

of Exemption No. 9703 ;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also

apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Complete Helicopters an exemption from 14 CFR part 120

to the ext ent necessary to allow Complete Helicopters to cover its safety

- sensitive employees

under one drug and alcohol testing program , subj ect to the conditions and limitations

described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Complete Helicopters are su bject to the drug and alcohol regulations

at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of

the Complete Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2015 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
```

[108th Congress Public Law 301]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ301.108]

[[Page 118 STAT. 1102]]

Public Law 108-301
108th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To preserve the ability of the Federal Housing Administration to insure 
      mortgages under sections 238 and 519 of the National Housing 
                Act. <<NOTE: Aug. 9, 2004 -  [S. 2712]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO GENERAL AND SPECIAL RISK PROGRAM ACCOUNT.

    Under the heading ``Federal Housing Administration--General and 
Special Risk Program Account'' in title II of Division G of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-
199), <<NOTE: Ante, p. 386.>> in the first proviso, strike 
``$25,000,000,000'' and insert ``$29,000,000,000''.

    Approved August 9, 2004.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 2712:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,
                                                        Vol. 150 (2004):
            July 22, considered and passed Senate and House.

                                  <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Florence Gross, Appellant, v Board of Education of the Elmsford Union Free School District et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, *inter alia,*to compel the respondent board of education to reinstate petitioner as a full-time tenured teacher in the Elmsford Union Free School District, *nunc pro tunc,*together with back salary, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 15, 1979, which dismissed the proceeding, upon the ground that petitioner had failed to file a notice of claim. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for a determination on the merits. *Matter of Tadken v Board of Educ.*(65 AD2d 820, mot for lv to app den 46 NY2d 711) is dispositive of the current issue. The board’s reliance on *Matter of Cordani v Board of Educ.*(66 AD2d 780) is misplaced since that case involved a probationary teacher and the public interest in tenure rights was not involved. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2391 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2391

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri as the ``Lance Corporal Phillip 
                         Vinnedge Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL PHILLIP D. VINNEDGE POST OFFICE.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any references in a law, map, regulation, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### § 29.2550 Sound.

Free of damage.

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
§ 202.2 Definitions. For the purposes of this part, the following terms shall be construed, respectively, to mean: ( a ) The term *Act* means the Federal Seed Act, approved August 9, 1939 (53 Stat. 1275, 7 U.S.C. 1551 *et seq.*) and any legislation amendatory thereof.
( b ) *Complaint* means any formal complaint and notice of hearing or other document by virtue of which a proceeding under the Act is instituted.
( c ) *Complainant* means the party upon whose complaint the proceeding is instituted.
( d ) *Decision and Order* includes the Secretary's findings, conclusions, order, and rulings on motions, exceptions, statements of objections, and proposed findings, conclusions and orders submitted by the parties not theretofore ruled upon.
( e ) *Director* means the Director of the Grain Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, or any officer or employee of the Department to whom authority is delegated to act in his stead.
( f ) *Administrative Law Judge* means an Administrative Law Judge in the Office of Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
( g ) *Administrative Law Judge Recommended Decision* means the Administrative Law Judge's report to the Secretary consisting of the proposed: ( 1 ) Findings of facts and conclusions with respect to all material issues of fact, law or discretion, as well as the reasons or basis for conclusions and
( 2 ) order.
( h ) The term *hearing* means that part of a proceeding which involves the submission of evidence and means either an oral or written hearing.
( i ) *Hearing Clerk* means the Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.
( j ) The term *person* includes any individual, partnership, corporation, company, society, association, receiver, or trustee.
( k ) The term *regulations* means the regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act (7 CFR part 201).
( l ) *Respondent* means the party proceeded against.
( m ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, or any officer or employee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to whom authority has heretofore been delegated, or to whom authority may hereafter be delegated, to act in his stead, including the Judicial Officer.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 70936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29181]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, 
as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 3306 Loop 197 North, 
Texas City, TX 77590, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test 
petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance 
with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing 
to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger 
services should request and receive written assurances from the entity 
that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. 
Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service 
this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The 
inquiry may also be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c7a4a5b7e9aba6a5afb687a3afb4e9a0a8b1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8dbdac896d4d9dad0c9f8dcd0cb96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web 
site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and 
accredited laboratories. 
http:[sol][sol]cbp.gov[sol]xp[sol]cgov[sol]import[sol]operations--
support[sol]labs--scientific--svcs[sol]commercial--gaugers[sol].

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America 
Corporation, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on 
March 30, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled 
for March 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: November 8, 2010.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2010-29181 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Amendment No.1 to Duke Energy Executive Savings Plan



 Exhibit 10-6.1 
  
 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 
 EXECUTIVE SAVINGS PLAN

 (As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2003) 
  

AMENDMENT 1 
  
 Pursuant to Article X of the Duke Energy Corporation Executive Savings Plan, as amended (“Plan”), Duke Energy Corporation
(“Corporation”) hereby amends the Plan, effective December 31, 2004, in the following respects: 
  
 “As part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Section 409A has been added to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Code Section 409A
imposes new requirements upon deferred compensation plans that must be satisfied in order that amounts deferred will not be currently included in taxable income. Code Section 409A, by its terms, does not apply to “amounts deferred” before
January 1, 2005, and earnings thereon, under a deferred compensation plan that is not “materially modified” after October 3, 2004. 
  
 Effective immediately before January 1, 2005, the Plan is divided into two separate deferred compensation plans, one of which shall be named Plan
“I” and the other shall be named Plan “II”. Plan I shall include only “amounts deferred” before January 1, 2005, and earnings thereon, and such deferred compensation shall be subject to the provisions of the Plan as in
effect on October 3, 2004, and as Plan I is subsequently amended or otherwise changed, except as would result in such deferred compensation becoming subject to Code Section 409A. 
  
 Plan II shall include only “amounts deferred” after December 31, 2004, and earnings thereon, and such deferred
compensation shall be subject to the provisions of the Plan as in effect after December 31, 2004, including subsequent amendments or other changes to Plan II as may be approved by the Duke Energy Director — Executive Compensation & Benefits
for the purpose of enabling Plan II deferred compensation to satisfy the requirements imposed by Code Section 409A. Such requirements include the following: restrictions as to when a new participant may make an initial deferral election;
restrictions as to the earliest date a participant may receive distribution; prohibition against acceleration of distribution; and restrictions on a participant’s ability to make a subsequent election that delays distribution or changes the
form of distribution. 
  
 This Amendment is intended to result in
Plan I deferred compensation not being subject to Code Section 409A and to result in Plan II deferred 

  









 
compensation satisfying the requirements imposed by Code Section 409A, and this Amendment shall be interpreted and implemented to carry out such intention.

  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment to the Plan is executed on
behalf of the Corporation this 27 day of October, 2004. 
  

			
	 DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION

		
	 By:
	 	/s/    CHRISTOPHER C.
ROLFE        
	 Its:
	 	Vice President
	 	 	Human Resources
§ 301.75-13 Compliance agreements. ( a ) *Eligibility.* Any person engaged in the business of growing or handling regulated articles for interstate movement may enter into a compliance agreement with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to facilitate the interstate movement of regulated articles in accordance with this subpart. Compliance agreements may be arranged by contacting a local office of Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (listed in local telephone directories), or by contacting the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Domestic and Emergency Operations, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1236.
( b ) *Cancellation.* Any compliance agreement may be cancelled orally or in writing by an inspector if the inspector finds that the person who entered into the compliance agreement has failed to comply with this subpart, or any term or condition of the compliance agreement itself. If the person is given notice of cancellation orally, written confirmation of the decision and the reasons for it must be provided as promptly as circumstances allow. Any person whose compliance agreement is cancelled may appeal the decision in writing to the Administrator within 10 days after receiving the written notification. The appeal must state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the compliance agreement was wrongfully cancelled. The Administrator must grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for the decision, as promptly as circumstances allow. If there is a conflict as to any material fact, a hearing will be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of practice concerning the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0363) [55 FR 37453, Sept. 11, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 67608, Dec. 30, 1994; 76 FR 23457, Apr. 27, 2011; 88 FR 85470, Dec. 8, 2023]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         674,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,846,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                    92,792
<INVENTORY>                                     87,750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,226,090
<PP&E>                                       7,547,223
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,194,815
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,629,978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,226,175
<BONDS>                                      3,011,976
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        39,842
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,971,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,629,978
<SALES>                                     25,470,977
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,470,977
<CGS>                                        4,073,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,610,071
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,005,158
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             424,738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (891,323)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (242,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (649,323)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (649,323)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)


</TABLE>
#### § 29.3025 General color.

The color of tobacco considered in relation to the type as a whole. General color is distinguished from the restricted use of the term “color” within a group. It is basically related to body and other overall characteristics of the type.

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984]
#### The State of Ohio, Appellant, *v.*Stevens, Appellee.

[Cite as *State v. Stevens,*109 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2006-Ohio-2580.]

*1211(No. 2006-0102

Submitted April 25, 2006

Decided June 7, 2006.)

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and T. Allan Regas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of *State v. Saxon,*109 Ohio St.3d 176, 2006-Ohio-1245, 846 N.E.2d 824, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent therewith.

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MATHEW SELOVER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 3:20cv04698-TKW-HTC 

ESCAMBIA COUNTY BOARD 

OF COMMISSIONERS and 

RAYME EDLER, 

Defendants. 

___________________________/ 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Heather F. Crow gives notice that she is co-counsel for defendant Rayme Edler. 

/s/ Heather F. Crow 

Cecily L. Kaffer, pro hac vice 

The Kullman Firm 

A Professional Law Corporation 

Post Office Box 1287 

Mobile, Alabama 36633 

Telephone: (251) 432-1811 

clk@kullmanlaw.com 

Heather F. Crow, Fla. Bar No. 115437 

The Kullman Firm 

A Professional Law Corporation 

1100 Poydras Street 

Suite 1600 

New Orleans, LA 70160 

Telephone: (504) 596-4106 

hfc@kullmanlaw.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Rayme Edler 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 41 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on July 16, 2020 I electronically filed the foregoing with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such 

filing to the following: 

Katie Gudaitis 

Stephanie Pidermann 

Lydecker Diaz 

495 Grand Blvd. 

Miramar Beach, FL 32550 

Telephone: (305) 416-3180 

kg@lydeckerdiaz.com 

sp@lydeckerdiaz.com 

J.J. Talbott 

Travis P. Lambert 

Law Office of Jerimiah J. Talbott, P.A. 

900 East Moreno Street 

Pensacola, Florida 32503 

Telephone: (850) 437-9600 

jjtalbott@talbottlaw.com 

travis@talbottlaw.com 

/s/ Heather F. Crow 

Heather F. Crow 

Case 3:20-cv-04698-TKW-HTC Document 41 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 2
0.01.02.03.04.05.06.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Weighted Emissions ‐ g/hoRankingPelletHeaterWeightedAverageEmissionsDistribution:IncludesadditionalDataPointsfromICRWashingtonStateLimit(4.5g/hr)forNon‐CatalyticHeaters
OAO 247 (02/08) Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

United States of America )

)

)

)

)

)

v.

LARRY LEWIS Case No: 3:99cr30-05

USM No: 07317-003

Date of Previous Judgment: October 20, 1999 Chad Van Cleave

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Applicable) Defendant’s Attorney

Order Regarding Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

Upon motion of : the defendant 9 the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 9 the court under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in the term of imprisonment imposed based on a guideline sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered and made retroactive by the United States Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 994(u), and having considered such motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:

9 DENIED. : GRANTED and the defendant’s previously imposed sentence of imprisonment (as reflected in 

the last judgment issued) of 360 months is reduced to 324 months .

I. COURT DETERMINATION OF GUIDELINE RANGE (Prior to Any Departures)

Previous Offense Level: 42 Amended Offense Level: 40

Criminal History Category: II Criminal History Category: II

Previous Guideline Range:

 360

mos. to Life Amended Guideline Range: 324 to 405 months

II. SENTENCE RELATIVE TO AMENDED GUIDELINE RANGE

: The reduced sentence is within the amended guideline range.

9 The previous term of imprisonment imposed was less than the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time

of sentencing as a result of a departure or Rule 35 reduction, and the reduced sentence is comparably less than the

amended guideline range.

9 Other (explain):

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Except as provided above, all provisions of the judgment dated October 20, 1999 shall remain in effect.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Order Date: June 18, 2009 /s/ Roger Vinson

Judge’s signature

Effective Date: Roger Vinson, Senior United States District Judge

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

Case 3:99-cr-00030-RV Document 364 Filed 06/18/09 Page 1 of 1