alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

EXECUTIVE ORDER R-07-013

Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Statew ide Portable Equipment Registration Program (Statewide PERP) Regulation an d the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for diesel-fueled portable engines (Portabl e Engine ATCM)

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2007, the Air Resources Board (the Board or ARB) conducted a public consider adoption of amendments to the Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (Statewide PERP) Reg ulation and the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for diesel-fueled portable engines (Portable Engine ATCM), as set

forth in the Initial Statement of Reasons released to the public on February 2, 2007;

WHEREAS, following the public hearing on March 22, 2007, the Board adopted Resolution 07-9 in which the Board approved amendme nts to sections 2451, 2452, 2453, 2455, 2456, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461 and 2462, title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), as set forth in Attachment A the reto, and amendments to sections 93116, 93116.1, 93116.2 and 93116.3 and adoption of section 93116.3.1, title 17, CCR, as set forth in Appendix B, thereto, with the Staff ’s Suggested Modifications set forth in Attachment C thereto;

WHEREAS, Resolutions 07-9 directed the Executive Of ficer to take final action to adopt the regulatory amendments set forth in Attachments A, B and C to Resolution 07-9, with such other conforming modifications as may be appro priate, to make the modified regulatory language and any additional supporting d ocuments and information available to the public for a period of at least 15 days, to consider such written comments as may be submitted during this period, and to make such m odifications as may be appropriate in light of the comments received, or to present th e regulatory amendments to the Board

for further consideration if she determines that th is is warranted;

WHEREAS, on June 29, 2007, the modified regulations , reflecting the amendments approved by the Board and other changes made to bes t reflect the intent of the Board at the hearing, were made available for public comment for a period of 15-days, with the changes to the originally proposed text clearly ind icated, in accordance with the provisions of title 1, California Code of Regulatio ns, section 44; and

WHEREAS, written comments were received during the 15-day comment period and those comments have been considered by the Executiv e Officer.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the recitals and findings contained in Resolution 07-9 are incorporated by reference herei n.Executive Order R-07-013 -2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that amendments to sections 2 451, 2452, 2453, 2455, 2456, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461 and 2462, title 13, CC R, and amendments to sections 93116, 93116.1, 93116.2 and 93116.3 and adoption of section 93116.3.1, title 17, CCR, are adopted as set forth in Attachment 1 hereto.

Executed this 31 st day of July , 2007, at Sacramento, California.

__________________________ Tom Cackette Acting Executive Officer

Attachment
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Section 906 Certification**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), the undersigned officer ofCentennial Bank Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: November 11, 2005 

 

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

97- 1142.

#### Sutowski v. Eli Lilly & Co.

Certified State Law Question, No. 1:97CV1283. Reported at 82 Ohio St.3d 347, 696 N.E.2d 187. On motion for reconsideration. The motion fails for want of four votes on the following vote:

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., would deny.

Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., would grant.

Resnick, J., not participating.
#### In the Matter of Tamar Loper, Appellant, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.

[817 NYS2d 682]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Berke, J.), entered March 7, 2005 in Washington County, which, in a proceeding pursuant CPLR article 78, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition.

Petitioner, an inmate, was found guilty of violating numerous prison disciplinary rules by two separate determinations that were affirmed on administrative appeal on June 1, 2004 and June 14, 2004. Petitioner received notice of these determinations on June 2, 2004 and June 15, 2004, respectively. Petitioner thereafter attempted to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding by filing a petition with the Washington County Clerk of the Combined Courts on or about October 4, 2004. However, because petitioner did not include the required filing fee or an affidavit pursuant to CPLR 1101, his papers were returned. Petitioner subsequently cured the defect by filing the required papers on November 3, 2004, and he also requested an extension of time to serve them on respondents. Supreme Court granted his request and issued an amended order to show cause directing that the papers be served on each named respondent, as well as the Attorney General, by January 18, 2005. Petitioner, however, failed to serve the papers on respondent Gary Greene, Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Thereafter, respondents moved to dismiss the proceeding as barred by the statute of limitations and for lack of proper service upon Greene. Supreme Court granted the motion and petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. We agree with Supreme Court that the proceeding is untimely due to petitioner’s failure to file a complete set of papers, including the filing fee, until more than four months after he received notice of the determinations at issue *(see*CPLR 217 [1], 304; *Matter of Loper v Selsky,*26 AD3d 653, 654 [2006]). Likewise, petitioner’s failure to comply with the service require*1184ments of the amended order to show cause renders the proceeding jurisdictionally defective as he has not demonstrated an inability to satisfy the service requirements due to his incarceration *(see Matter of Robinson v Goord,*21 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2005]). Consequently, we find that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition;

Cardona, P.J., Crew III, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
#### §§ 1773.46-1773.48 [Reserved]
# L_2021361EN.01005201.xml

| 12.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 361/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 361/52

---

COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/1800

of 11 October 2021

amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 14 October 2019, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 (1), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 14 October 2019, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 (1), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua.

| (2) | Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 applies until 15 October 2021. On the basis of a review of that Decision, the restrictive measures set out therein should be extended until 15 October 2022. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 applies until 15 October 2021. On the basis of a review of that Decision, the restrictive measures set out therein should be extended until 15 October 2022.

| (3) | Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 9 of Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 9

This Decision shall apply until 15 October 2022 and shall be kept under constant review. It shall be renewed, or amended as appropriate, if the Council deems that its objectives have not been met.’.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 11 October 2021.

For the Council

The President

J. PODGORŠEK

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1720 of 14 October 2019 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Nicaragua (OJ L 262, 15.10.2019, p. 58).

1

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

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


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Nova Resources Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended May 31,  2006 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  July 24, 2006

/s/ Alexander Craven
---------------------------------------------
Alexander Craven, Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned Principal Executive Officer of Enable IPC Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 9, 2007



/s/ David A. Walker

David A. Walker

Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 10.1


 


Compensation for Independent
Directors


 


	
  Annual Retainer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  25,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Retainer
  – Chair of Audit Committee

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  10,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Retainer
  – Chair of Other Committees

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  7,500

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Retainer
  – Member of Committees

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  5,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Attendance Fee
  for Each In-Person Board Meeting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,500

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Attendance Fee
  for Each Telephonic Board Meeting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  750

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Attendance Fee
  for Each In-Person Committee Meeting Not Held on the Same Day as a Board
  Meeting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,500

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Attendance Fee
  for Each Telephonic Committee Meeting Not Held on the Same Day as a Board
  Meeting

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  750

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Equity
  Award: Restricted Share Units in First Year of Service

  	
   

  	
  2,000

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Annual Equity
  Award: Restricted Share Units in Subsequent Years of Service

  	
   

  	
  1,000
§ 3560.61 Loan security. ( a ) *General.* Each loan made by the Agency will be secured in a manner that adequately protects the financial interest of the Federal Government throughout the period of the loan.
( b ) *Lien position.* ( 1 ) The Agency will seek a first or parity lien position on Agency-financed property in all instances. The Agency may accept a junior lien position if the Federal Government's interests are adequately secured.
( 2 ) The Agency will seek a first or parity lien on revenue from rent; Agency, HUD, state or private rental subsidy payments; chattels; assignments; and operating and reserve accounts. The Agency will accept a junior lien position if the Federal Government's interests are adequately secured.
( c ) *Liability.* Personal liability will be required of all individual borrowers. Personal liability will not be required for the members or stockholders of any corporation or trust or any partners in a limited partnership.
( d ) *Housing and land ownership.* Applicants must own the MFH and related land for which the loan is being requested, or become the owner when the loan is closed or have a leasehold interest in the land. If an applicant is not the owner of the housing and the related land, the following conditions must be met prior to or at loan closing. ( 1 ) A recorded mortgage on the improvements is given as collateral.
( 2 ) The amount of the loan against the collateral does not exceed its estimated security value.
( 3 ) The unexpired term of the lease on the date of loan closing is at least 50 percent longer than the term of the loan and rent charged for the lease does not exceed the rate being paid for similar leases in the area.
( 4 ) The applicant's leasehold interest is not subject to summary foreclosure or cancellation.
( 5 ) The lease permits: ( i ) The Agency to foreclose the mortgage and to transfer the lease;
( ii ) The Agency to bid at a foreclosure sale or to accept voluntary conveyance of the security in lieu of foreclosure;
( iii ) The Agency to occupy the property, sublet the property, or sell the leasehold for cash or credit if the leasehold is acquired through foreclosure, if the Agency accepts voluntary conveyance in lieu of foreclosure, or if the borrower abandons the property; and
( iv ) The applicant, in the event of default or inability to continue with the lease and the loan, to transfer the leasehold subject to the mortgage to a transferee that will assume the property ownership obligations.
#### MARK v. ROCHESTER & E. R. RY. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by Angelo Mark, as, etc., against the Rochester & Eastern Rapid Railway Company.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal of Salvatore Vella dismissed, with costs, including $10 costs of motion, unless within 10 days said appellant pay to the plaintiff’s attorney on this motion $10 costs, and serve and file printed papers on appeal, as required by the rules of practice, within 30 days from date of service of a copy of this order, together with notice of entry thereof, and be prepared to argue said appeal during the first week of the next regular term of this court; such service to be made on plaintiff’s substituted attorney.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsTrajectory optimization and guidance for an aerospace planeThe first step in the approach to developing guidance laws for a horizontal take-off, air breathing single-stage-to-orbit vehicle is to characterize the minimum-fuel ascent trajectories. The capability to generate constrained, minimum fuel ascent trajectories for a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle was developed. A key component of this capability is the general purpose trajectory optimization program OTIS. The pre-production version, OTIS 0.96 was installed and run on a Convex C-1. A propulsion model was developed covering the entire flight envelope of a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle. Three separate propulsion modes, corresponding to an after burning turbojet, a ramjet and a scramjet, are used in the air breathing propulsion phase. The Generic Hypersonic Aerodynamic Model Example aerodynamic model of a hypersonic air breathing single-stage-to-orbit vehicle was obtained and implemented. Preliminary results pertaining to the effects of variations in acceleration constraints, available thrust level and fuel specific impulse on the shape of the minimum-fuel ascent trajectories were obtained. The results show that, if the air breathing engines are sized for acceleration to orbital velocity, it is the acceleration constraint rather than the dynamic pressure constraint that is active during ascent.Document ID19900004053Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMease, Kenneth D.*(Princeton Univ. NJ, United States)*Vanburen, Mark A.*(Princeton Univ. NJ, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateSeptember 1, 1989Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-185884NAS 1.26:185884Accession Number90N13369Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-907Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900004053.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
September 25, 2014 

To: expartecommunication@hq.doe.gov (sent via email) 

Re: Corrected Memorandum Summarizing Ex Parte Communication 

 

This memorandum is submitted to revise and correct our earlier memorandum submitted on September 

23rd. 

On September 12, 2014, representatives of the American Gas Association (AGA) met with staff of the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to share and discuss the results of a national survey of builders and 

contractors designed to identify the likely rates of fuel switching under a scenario of a national 

condensing standard for gas furnaces and the output from a spreadsheet model developed by AGA and 

the Gas Technology Institute designed to assess and quantify the impacts of the fuel switching data 

gathered from the contractor/builder survey. The purpose of this meeting was to encourage DOE to 

incorporate similar types of analyses in the rulemaking proceeding underway on a new gas furnace 

standard. The subject of establishing two product categories for furnaces was also discussed as a 

possible option for consideration in the rulemaking proceeding. 

The following persons attended the meeting: 

Representing the Department of Energy 

 Judith Greenwald 

 Joseph Hezir 

 Melanie Kenderdine 

Representing the American Gas Association 

 Kathryn Clay 

 David McCurdy 

Documents review and discussed at the meeting are attached. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Kathryn Clay 

Kathryn Clay | Vice President, Policy Strategy 

American Gas Association

400 N. Capitol St., NW | Washington, DC | 20001 

P: 202-824-7122 | F: 202-824-9125 | kclay@aga.org
·Swanson, Brian (OST) 

From:. 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

jcisle@charter.net 

Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:26 AM 

Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Service for Brainerd, MN airport 

SkyWest is the best choice to serve our Brainerd Regional Airport. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

Jerry C. Isle 

218 831 3339 

1 

ll 

~ 't .•
Fact Sheet 

The President’s Fiscal 2003 Immigration Budget 02/04/02

Detention and Removals 

The FY 2003 budget request includes $50.5 million and 3 new positions dedicated to 

improving detention facilities and expanding alternatives to detention. In addition, in FY 2003 

the Detention Trustee (under the Department of Justice) will reimburse INS $615 million and 

more than 1,200 positions for detention services. The funding and positions were part of INS’ 

base funding in FY 2002. In addition, the budget continues initiatives begun in the FY 2002 

emergency counter-terrorism supplemental ($6.2 million). 

Alternatives to Detention 

The budget includes $473,000 and 3 positions (a Detention Enforcement Officer, a 

Deportation Officer, and a support position). These funds will continue progress in this area 

begun in FY 2002, with alternative detention pilot projects in several locations. INS is 

committed to providing safe and humane treatment for non-criminal aliens, particularly asylum

seekers, and ensuring their appearance at immigration court proceedings. ($473,000) 

Construction 

The budget includes $71.1 million to provide additional infrastructure to accommodate 

INS’ rapid growth in personnel and enforcement capability over the past several years. Of this, 

$50.1 million is new resources above the FY 2002 funded level. Several construction projects 

will increase INS’ detention capacity. ($50 .1 million) 

FY 2003 Program Improvements Amount 

($ in millions) 

Construction of Detention Facilities 50.1 

Alternatives to Detention 0.5 

Prepared by the Office of Public Affairs • Immigration & Naturalization Service • (202) 514-2648
*Wednesday, September 23, 1998*

MERIT DOCKET

97- 2141.

#### Caldwell v. Greek Corp.

Lucas App. No. LT96-397. *Sua sponte,*the court determines that no conflict exists within the meaning of S.Ct.Prac.R. IV(2XB). This cause is therefore dismissed.

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

Joseph J. Nahra, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for Resnick, J.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

RICHARD W. MCCARTHY, Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 2D21-1430
September 3, 2021 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, Judge. Richard W. McCarthy, pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Ratliff v. State , 914 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2005); Grant v. State , 770 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2000); State v. Cotton, 769 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2000); McDonald v. State , 133 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Hughes v. State , 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Brown v. State , 827 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Joe v. Moore , 787 So. 2d2

55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Clark v. State , 779 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Nelson v. State , 761 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Holmes v. State , 245 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Williams v. State , 925 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Enriquez v. State , 885 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Williams v. State , 715 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). BLACK, SLEET, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.