alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 3.74 Notice requirements before offset. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, salary offset will not be made unless USDA first provides the employee with a minimum of 30 days written notice. This Notice of Intent to Offset Salary will state: ( a ) That USDA has reviewed the records relating to the debt and has determined that a debt is owed, the amount of the debt, and the facts giving rise to the debt;
( b ) USDA's intention to collect the debt by means of deduction from the employee's current disposable pay until the debt and all accumulated interest are paid in full;
( c ) The approximate beginning date, frequency, and amount of the intended deduction (stated as a fixed dollar amount or as a percentage of pay, not to exceed 15 percent of disposable pay), and the intention to continue the deductions until the debt is paid in full or otherwise resolved;
( d ) An explanation of USDA requirements concerning interest, penalties and administrative costs; unless such payments are waived in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717 and § 3.17;
( e ) The employee's right to inspect and copy USDA records relating to the debt;
( f ) The employee's right to enter into a written agreement with USDA for a repayment schedule differing from that proposed by USDA, so long as the terms of the repayment schedule proposed by the employee are agreeable to USDA;
( g ) The employee's right to a hearing conducted by a hearing official on USDA's determination of the debt, the amount of the debt, or percentage of disposable pay to be deducted each pay period, so long as a petition is filed by the employee as prescribed by USDA;
( h ) That the timely filing of a petition for hearing will stay the collection proceedings;
( i ) That a final decision on the hearing will be issued at the earliest practical date, but not later than 60 days after the filing of the petition requesting the hearing, unless the employee requests, and the hearing officer grants, a delay in the proceedings;
( j ) That any knowingly false or frivolous statements, representations, or evidence may subject the employee to: ( 1 ) Disciplinary procedures appropriate under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75, 5 CFR part 752, or any other applicable laws or regulations;
( 2 ) Penalties under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3731, or any other applicable statutory authority; or
( 3 ) Criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 286, 287, 1001, and 1002 or any other applicable statutory authority;
( k ) Any other rights and remedies available to the employee under laws or regulations governing the program for which the collection is being made;
( l ) That amounts paid on or deducted for the debt which are later waived or found not owed to the United States will be promptly refunded to the employee, unless there are applicable contractual or statutory provisions to the contrary;
( m ) The method and time period for requesting a hearing; and
( n ) The name and address of an official of USDA to whom communications must be directed.
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: "Beer, Richard G" <rbeer@rrienergy.com>

Date: 7/19/2010 12:00 PM

Subject: Re: Conemaugh Generating Station, Request for Extension

Attachments: pic28315.jpg

Greetings,

EPA has reviewed your extension request for the steam electric effluent

guidelines questionnaire for the Conemaugh Generating Station, Plant ID

02268. The deadline for your plant to submit Version 1 or Version 2 of

the completed questionnaire is extended to October 15, 2010. Please

note that the deadline for Part G, if applicable, is unchanged and

remains 120 days after receipt of the questionnaire. No extensions are

granted for Versions 3 or 4 of the questionnaire; the deadline for

plants receiving these questionnaires remains 90 days after receipt.

If you need assistance during the completion of the steam electric

questionnaire, please contact the steam electric helpline via e-mail at

steamhelp@erg.com or by phone at 1-877-353-7560.

Sincerely,

(Embedded image moved to file: pic28315.jpg)

 

 From: "Beer, Richard G" <rbeer@rrienergy.com> 

 To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Cc: "Balog, John A" <jbalog@rrienergy.com>, "Frank, Stephen" <SFrank@rrienergy.com>, "Smith, 

James R. (Randy)"

 <JRSmith@rrienergy.com> 

 

 Date: 06/23/2010 10:49 AM 

 Subject: Conemaugh Generatign Station, Request for Extension 

Please find attached a Request for Extension, Steam Electric ELG

Questionnaire, Conemaugh Generating Station, Plant ID 02268.

Conemaugh Station

PO Box K

1442 Power Plant Road

New Florence, PA 15944

Tel: 724-235-4596

Fax: 724-235-4511

 [attachment "20100623104147351.pdf" deleted by Jezebele

Alicea/DC/USEPA/US]
§ 1786.160 Subsequent closings. ( a ) Each subsequent prepayment after the initial closing shall be facilitated with the submission of an additional closing request by the borrower. Each closing request must request a closing date no less than 30 business days from the date of the request.
( b ) The Government will respond to each subsequent closing request by delivering a preclosing notice to the borrower not less than 10 business days prior to the date which the Government, after reviewing the borrower's closing request, selects as a closing date in each case.
**Exhibit15**

August 1, 2007

MWI Veterinary Supply,Inc.Meridian, Idaho

We have reviewed, inaccordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(United States), the unaudited interim financial information of MWI VeterinarySupply, Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, asindicated in our report dated July 30, 2007, because we did not perform anaudit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that ourreport referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the three-month period ended June 30, 2007, is incorporatedby reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-127879 and 333-127880 onForm S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-141078 on Form S-3.

We also are aware thatthe aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the SecuritiesAct of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statementprepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by anaccountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHELLP

Boise, Idaho

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                            539586
<SECURITIES>                                     1500650
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3811473
<ALLOWANCES>                                      227000
<INVENTORY>                                      7110888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13119483
<PP&E>                                          10360032
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2391247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30630664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4298118
<BONDS>                                          8029358
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           23513
<OTHER-SE>                                      18279675
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30630664
<SALES>                                         26136445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26136445
<CGS>                                           16707430
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4904859
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  817284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (9165)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                791840
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3706872
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1550000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2156872
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2156872
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .74




</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS 

EARPLUG PRODUCTS

Case No. 3:19md2885

LIABILITY LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

Michelle Blum, 7:20cv122

Judge M. Casey Rodgers

Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Michelle Blum’s Motion to 

Dismiss Without Prejudice, ECF No. 18. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion for 

dismissal without prejudice and argue that dismissal should be with prejudice, 

particularly in light of the late timing of the motion, and contingent on awarding 

Defendants taxable costs associated with six depositions unique to Plaintiff’s case 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920, totaling 

$22,025.20.1

 On July 8, 2021, Blum filed a timely reply, stating that she seeks 

dismissal with prejudice due to her inability to find alternate supervision for her 

special-needs son for the two weeks she would be attending trial. See ECF No. 22 

at 3. At the July 9, 2021 Case Management Conference, the Court informed Blum’s

1 Additionally, Defendants seek to replace Blum’s case with that of Plaintiff Brandon 

Adkins, the Group B alternate, for trial on October 18, 2021, and argue that Adkins’ case should 

not be consolidated with the first Group B trial in Plaintiff Joseph Taylor’s case in September. 

Case 7:20-cv-00122-MCR-GRJ Document 23 Filed 07/16/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

counsel that the Court could accommodate Blum’s childcare responsibilities by 

excusing Blum’s presence at trial and allowing her to appear by Zoom for the entire 

trial, or in person or by Zoom for only her examination.2

 See Case Management 

Order No. 20, ECF No. 1839. The instant motion was accordingly stayed pending 

Blum’s response to the Court’s proposed accommodation. See id. On July 16, 2021, 

Blum’s counsel informed the Court by email of Blum’s request to attend her trial by 

Zoom. Additionally, counsel advised that Blum would attempt to make 

arrangements to appear in person for portions of the trial, including her examination.

In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is 

DENIED AS MOOT. Blum is hereby excused from appearing in person for her 

trial and must appear by Zoom (or in person, if possible) for at least her introduction 

by the Court to the jury panel on Monday, October 18, 2021, her examination, as 

well as when the jury’s verdict is read. The Court strongly encourages Blum to 

appear by Zoom for as much of the remainder of trial as she is able to. 

SO ORDERED, on this 16th day of July, 2021.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Defendants agreed with the Court’s accommodation to Blum to appear for her trial remotely.

Case 7:20-cv-00122-MCR-GRJ Document 23 Filed 07/16/21 Page 2 of 2
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Garczynski, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Garczynski*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 108.]

(No. 98-237

Submitted August 19, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*109
      *Wendell R. Jones,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of *State v. Rush*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 53, 697 N.E.2d 634.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Resnick, J., not participating.
*Thursday, October 29, 1998*

DISCIPLINARY DOCKET

98-1815.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Simakis.

On September 2,1998, movant, Disciplinary Counsel, filed an amended motion for order to appear and show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt for failing to obey this court’s July 2,1998 suspension order. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that the motion be, and is hereby, granted to the extent that respondent show cause by filing a written response with the Clerk of this court on or before twenty days from the date of this order why respondent should not be held in contempt.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, *sua sponte,*that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.

*1469IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, *sua sponte,*that service shall be deemed made on respondent by sending this order, and all other orders in this case, by certified mail to the most recent address respondent has given to the Attorney Registration Office.
#### In the Matter of Robert E. Smith et al., Respondents, v Robert J. McGuire, as Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 6, 1979, affirmed on the opinion of Stecher, J., at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Fein, Sandler and Carro, JJ.

Kupferman, J., dissents in a memorandum as follows:

I would reverse and remand to the commissioner for further consideration. In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, the court at Special Term annulled a determination of the police commissioner. The petitioners are police officers who are shareholders (one police officer has since disposed of his interest, and so as to him, the matter is moot) in a company which sells pretzels outside Yankee Stadium as a subconcessionaire of the New York Yankeees organization. The stadium is leased by the Yankees from New York City. The petitioners applied to the commissioner for leave, during their time off from police duty, to participate in the affairs of the corporation with respect to keeping accounting records and controlling inventory and purchasing, but excluding supervisory functions. The deputy commissioner for legal matters of the police department recommended rejection of the application on the ground that there was a violation of section 2604 (subd b, par [1]) of the New York City Charter in that no "employee of the city or any city agency: (1) shall be or become interested directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever except by operation of law in any business dealings with the city or any city agency.” I cannot fault the decision at Special Term, which finds that the charter provision does not cover the situation. On this record there is no basis for contending that they are doing business with the city. However, there is an alternative ground given by the deputy commissioner for legal matters, in which he states: "Moreover, I agree with the Bronx Area Commander, that the interests of the Department would not be served by public awareness that those police officers are operating Yankee Stadium concessions.” I believe that in an area of such high visibility as the Yankee Stadium and with the problems with street vendors, it could be considered improper for police officers to be engaged in such business transactions, and the commissioner would be warranted in refusing to grant permission for such activity. The commissioner has broad discretion "to assume responsibility and control of the internal workings of the department and * * * inherent power to promote integrity and, efficiency therein”. (See *McGuire v Krane,*48 NY2d 661, 662.) However, inasmuch as the actual basis for the rejection is the reference to the city charter provision, I believe the matter should be remanded to the commissioner for the exercise of his discretion.
(50 Misc. Rep. 483.)

#### In re WARD’S ESTATE.

(Surrogate’s Court, Kings County.

May, 1906.)

Administrators—Revocation of Appointment.

Where an administratrix had claimed to be the widow of the intestate, but her marriage to him was void because she had a husband living, and intestate, on discovering that fact, left her, and married another woman, the letters of administration will be revoked on the petition of the latter woman.

In the matter of the estate of Charles H. Ward, deceased. Motion to revoke letters of administration granted.

Howard O. Patterson, for petitioner.

Martin Byrnes, for respondent.

CHURCH, S.

-In the application to revoke letters of administration given to Jane Ward, who claimed to be the widow of the deceased, it appears that she was married a number of years ago to one Kings-bury, who subsequently became insane, and afterwards, in 1902, she intermarried with the deceased, notwithstanding that the said Kings-bury was still- living. Under these circumstances, her marriage to the deceased was an absolute nullity; and, upon the deceased being informed of this fact, he refused to live any longer with her and subsequently married the petitioner herein. Despite these facts, the said Jane Ward applied for letters of administration, concealing such facts from the court.

In opposition to this proceeding, she attempts to assert that, at the time she was married to the deceased, she believed her previous husband (Kingsbury) to be dead. Her affidavit on this matter, however, merely states conclusions, and does not show that she ever made any honest attempt to ascertain whether he was dead or alive. She was living with him in Brooklyn and, when he became insane, he was incarcerated in the Flatbush asylum, but it is claimed he was afterward removed to Kings Park. It is not shown that she ever inquired from time to time as to his condition at the Flatbush asylum, nor is there any suggestion that she ever inquired as to whether he was living or dead. It appears rather, to the contrary, that upon his incarceration in such asylum she paid no further attention to the fact that he was her husband, but contracted her marriage with the deceased without any *635attempt to ascertain if she had any legal right to do so. While this conduct was reprehensible, yet, when the fact that her first husband was living had become definitely established, and the deceased had repudiated his marriage with her, her action in obtaining letters of administration by concealing such facts was a deliberate fraud upon the court, and upon the rights of the next of kin of the deceased. The application to revoke her letters is granted, with $50 costs, payable by the administratrix personally.

Application granted, with $50 costs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 3:99cr30-01/RV

RAMUL CELESTIN

REFERRAL AND ORDER

Referred to Senior Judge Roger Vinson on November 28, 2006

Motion/Pleadings: MOTION for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus pursuant to Title 28

U.S.C. Section 1361 

Filed by Defendant on 11/02/2006 Doc.# 297

RESPONSES:

 Government on12/1/06 Doc.# 300 

on Doc.#

Stipulated Joint Pldg.

 Unopposed Consented

WILLIAM M. McCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

 s/Jerry Marbut

Deputy Clerk: Jerry Marbut

ORDER

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 7th day of

 December , 2006, that:

(a) The relief requested is DENIED, for the reasons set out in the Government’s

response.

(b) 

 /s/ Roger Vinson

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cr-00030-RV Document 301 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 13.1

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection  with the annual report of North  American  Nickel Inc.  (formerly
Widescope  Resources  Inc.) (the  "Company")  on Form 20-F for the period ending
December 31, 2009 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Richard J. Mark, Chief Executive  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:

(1)  the  Report  containing  the  financial  statements  of the  Company  fully
     complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: April 27, 2010


/s/ Richard J. Mark
-----------------------------------
Richard J. Mark
Chief Executive Officer


* A signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SERVED MARCH 1, 2011 

-.:-•• ^RTMRMi OF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ; •• ' ^'^ H-I^UlOllS 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC ,,. ..r, -^ A 'v 3 ^ 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10SW0014 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2010-0981 

NOTICE OF HEARING DATES 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and 

considered on May 25,2011, inclusive, in the U.S. Tax Court, Room 7006, Casey U.S. 

Courthouse, 515 Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002. Hearings will commence at 

9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse 

on or before 5:00 p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the 

proper pleading(s) \ Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or 

postal service^. 

SO ORDERED. 

tichard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

' Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in security cases) are also available 

for viewing at http://www. regulations, sov. 

^ The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the Rules of Practice, as 

well as other materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at; 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquartersoffices/agc/pol_adjuclication/agc400/civil_penalty/; see 

also: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Titlel4/14tab_02.tpl. In 

addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions 

are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-FAA database). For additional 

information, see the Web site. 

1 
FAA Docket No. CP10SW0014 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430, 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Thomas Newton Boiling, Respondent's Counsel 

Managing Attorney, Regulatory Affairs 

Continental Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

1600 Smith Street, 15*^ Floor HQSLG 

Houston, TX 77002 

TEL; 713-324-5131 

FAX: 713-324-5160 

Tim Duff, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Regional Counsel, ASW-7 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Ft. Worth, TX 76193-0007 

TEL 817-222-5099 

FAX 817-222-5945/5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building, Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX; 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in perton or by ^^psi^ted courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence AwnuQ, S.W;, Wilbur Wri^t Building—Suite 2Wl(K)0, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention; Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
98-1525.

#### State ex rel. PPG Industries, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 97APD06-811. This cause is pending before the court as appeals from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.' Upon consideration of the application for dismissal by the Industrial Commission of Ohio,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal by the Industrial Commission of Ohio be, and hereby is, granted.

The appeal of Sam W. Snell remains pending.