alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Property Clerk of the New York City Police Department, Appellant, v Louis Di Paolo, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered June 10,1980, which denied the application, dismissed the petition, and directed the return to respondent of property consisting of $20,082 cash under *835Voucher No. A764949, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and disbursements, the petition reinstated and the matter remanded for a hearing. Petitioner, the property clerk, New York City Police Department, commenced this proceeding for judgment, declaring property seized under Voucher No. A764949 (to wit, $20,082 cash) as forfeited and the respondent as not the proper claimant. Respondent’s residence was searched, pursuant to a warrant, on February 7, 1980, resulting in the seizure of $24,500 found in a safe (which money has been returned by petitioner) and $20,082 found in the drawers of respondent’s personal desk, which desk also contained illegal gambling records. Respondent’s arrest for the crimes of promoting gambling in the first degree and possession of gambling records in the first degree eventuated in his pleading guilty to possession of gambling records. Study of the record discloses a clear factual issue as to whether under the totality of the surrounding circumstances the $20,082 (which was segregated apart from the fund in the safe and was located in the desk in proximity to illegal gambling records) was the proceeds of illegal gambling activities, and that respondent is an unlawful claimant to said sum pursuant to section 435-4.0 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York.Thus, summary relief to respondent or to petitioner is not justified and a hearing is required. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Markewich, Lupiano, Silverman and Carro, JJ.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM: Amy Kopin

TO: The Docket

DATE: July 19, 2011

On June 9th, 2011 we held a conference call with Allison to discuss concerns raised by

Allison regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. Specifically, 

they have requested a delay of the application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid applications 

until 2020. Concerns were raised during the comment period for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas 

notice of proposed rulemaking that heavy-duty hybrid applications may not be able to meet the 

2013 heavy-duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking.

1,2

 

Attendees from the EPA and Allison are shown in the table below. 

Attendee Affiliation 

Cleophas Jackson EPA

Anthony Neam EPA

Amy Kopin EPA

Barb Chance Allison

Kevin Rodgers Allison

 

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Mediumand Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: 

http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule 

Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway 

Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty 

Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-74-fr-8310.pdf

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION
§ 4280.2 Policy. ( a ) *REDL Program.* REDL Zero-Interest Loans are made to Intermediaries, to relend, at a zero-interest rate, to Ultimate Recipients. Ultimate Recipients are responsible for repayment to the Intermediary. The Intermediary must transmit Ultimate Recipient loan repayments to Rural Development.
( b ) *REDG Program.* Grants are made to Intermediaries to establish Revolving Loan Funds. REDG Zero-Interest Loans are made by the Intermediary from the Revolving Loan Fund to Ultimate Recipients for the purpose of financing specific, approved Projects. Ultimate Recipients are responsible for repayment to the Intermediary. The Ultimate Recipient's loan repayments are to be retained in the Revolving Loan Fund, which is maintained by the Intermediary, to finance other rural economic development Projects. Only the initial loan made by the Intermediary from the Revolving Loan Fund has to be at zero interest.
Exhibit 23




               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

The Board of Directors
Quipp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-06355 and 333-75085) of Quipp, Inc. of our report
dated January 31, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Quipp,
Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, and the
related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31,
2002 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quipp, Inc.


/s/ KPMG LLP
------------------------
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
March 14, 2003
§ 400.304 Nonstandard Classification determinations. ( a ) Nonstandard Classification determinations can affect a change in assigned yields, premium rates, or both from those otherwise prescribed by the insurance actuarial tables.
( b ) Changes of assigned yields based on insurance experience of insured acreage (or of a person on specific insured acreage) will be based on the simple average of available actual yields from the insured acreage during the base period.
( c ) Changes of assigned yields based on insurance experience of a person without regard to any specific insured acreage will be determined by an assigned yield factor calculated by multiplying excess loss cost ratio by loss frequency and subtracting that product from 1.00 where: ( 1 ) Excess loss cost ratio is total indemnities divided by total liabilities for all years of insurance experience in the base period and the result of which is then reduced by the cumulative earned premium rate, expressed as a decimal, and
( 2 ) Loss frequency is the number of crop years in which an indemnity was paid divided by the number of crop years in which premiums were earned during the base period.
( d ) Changes of premium rates will be made to reflect premium rates that would have resulted in insurance experience during the base period with a loss ratio of 1.00 but: ( 1 ) A higher loss ratio than 1.00 may be used for premium rate determinations provided that the higher loss ratio is applied uniformly in a county; and
( 2 ) If a Nonstandard Classification change has been made to current assigned yields, insurance experience during the base period will be adjusted to reflect the affects of changed assigned yields before changes of premium rates are calculated based on that experience.
( e ) Once selection criteria have been met in any year, Nonstandard Classification adjustments will be made from year to year until no further changes are necessary in assigned yields or premium rates under the conditions set forth in § 400.304(f). In determining whether further changes are necessary, the eligibility criteria will be recomputed each subsequent year using the premium rates and yields which would have been applicable had this part not been in effect.
( f ) Nonstandard Classification changes will not be made that: ( 1 ) Increase assigned yields or decrease premium rates from those otherwise assigned by the actuarial tables, or
( 2 ) Result in less than a 10 percent decrease in assigned yields or less than a 10 percent increase in premium rates from those otherwise assigned by the actuarial tables.
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 4 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 5 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 6 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 7 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 8 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 9 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 10 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 11 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 12 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 13 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 14 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 15 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 16 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 17 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 18 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 19 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 20 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 21 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 22 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 23 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 24 of 25
Case 3:20-cr-00058-MCR Document 80-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 25 of 25
2005-2364.

#### State v. Perez.

Clark C.P. No. 03CR1010. This cause is pending before the court as a death penalty appeal from the *1462Clark County Court of Common Pleas. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for an extension of time to transmit the record,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is granted, in part, and the time for transmitting the record is hereby extended to June 19, 2006.
Exhibit
                32.2





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





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
      officer of O2 Secure Wireless, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), does
      hereby certify, to the best of her knowledge, that:





1. 
      This Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the
      “Report”) of the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements
      of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and





2. 
      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/
      Keith A. Greaves.


Keith A. Greaves, Acting Chief Financial Officer





Date:
      May 20, 2009
Letter from Russell C. Hirsch, dated March 24, 2009



 Exhibit 10.43 
 March 24, 2009 
 Steve Van Dick 
 Hansen Medical, Inc. 
 800 East Middlefield Road 
 Mountain View, CA 94043 
 Dear Mr. Van Dick, 
 I hereby waive any cash fees due to me for my service as a non-employee director of Hansen Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) during the 2009 calendar year. This applies to all annual retainers and meeting fees,
whether for my service as a non-employee director generally or for my service on any committee of the Company’s Board of Directors. 
  

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	/s/ RUSSELL C. HIRSCH
	Russell C. Hirsch
06844.144 RACE TO THE TOP EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH

1

Response to comment from Yasmina Vinci, National Head Start Association

The Department thanks Yasmina Vinci, Executive Director of the National Head Start Association, for her 

comments. The comments expressed concerns about potentially limited utility of the study to the field 

due to the following factors:

 Correlating TQRIS ratings with KEA scores would not paint an accurate picture of how children’s 

outcomes arise as a result of complex interactions between experiences and environments;

 Results of the study would not be generalizable to states beyond the 2 or 3 included in the analysis; 

and

 Kindergarten Entry Assessments are not designed to validate TQRIS and using them for this purpose 

in this study may elicit high-stakes interpretations of the relationship between TQRIS and child 

outcomes.

We acknowledge that there are limitations to the study design but would like to highlight three 

strategies that the study team is implementing to ensure that results of the study can be useful to the 

field. 

First, this study is not an evaluation of TQRIS and will not be presented as such. If conducted, the study’s 

analyses will be state-specific. Recognizing that TQRIS are constantly evolving, as the commenter notes, 

the study is intended for formative (not evaluative) purposes. It is meant to provide information that 

RTT-ELC and other states could use to further develop, implement, and refine their rating systems.

Second, prior to undertaking the correlational analysis, the study team is assessing the feasibility of

moving forward. This assessment includes collection of detailed information, through interviews with 

state administrators and reviews of state documents, about states’ KEAs, including their validity, the 

developmental domains covered, and timing of assessments and exclusion policies. These factors will all 

be considered in selecting states for the correlational study. 

Third, the report for the study will clearly state the analyses’ limitations and provide information beyond 

findings from analyses of the association between TQRIS ratings and student outcomes by state. 

Specifically, the report will describe the distribution of overall TQRIS ratings and (if data are available) 

the component-level ratings for the programs included in the analysis in each state, the demographic 

characteristics of the children who attended these programs, and the children’s kindergarten entry 

assessment outcomes. These descriptive statistics will provide useful information about the construction 

of each state’s TQRIS. For example, if the rating system fails to differentiate among programs because 

most programs receive the same rating, the ratings will not be associated with child outcomes.
#### ABSALON, Respondent, v. SICKINGER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 22, 1906.)

Action by Rosa Absalon against Rudolph Sickinger.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       


<S>                                           <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           30,161,614
<SECURITIES>                                      8,391,807
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2,925,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                         65,000
<INVENTORY>                                         433,873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 42,073,304
<PP&E>                                           28,985,666
<DEPRECIATION>                                    4,695,669
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   71,140,309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3,107,225
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                            145,378
<OTHER-SE>                                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     71,140,309
<SALES>                                          24,557,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 24,557,374
<CGS>                                             6,141,330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    11,015,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     35,268
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   21,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  14,847,531
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5,350,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               9,497,531
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      9,497,531
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .66
        


</TABLE>
6.302 Circumstances permitting other than

full and open competition.

The following statutory authorities (including applications and limitations) permit contracting

without providing for full and open competition. Requirements for justifications to support the use of

these authorities are in 6.303.

6.302-1 Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy

agency requirements.

6.302-2 Unusual and compelling urgency.

6.302-3 Industrial mobilization; engineering, developmental, or research capability;

or expert services.

6.302-4 International agreement.

6.302-5 Authorized or required by statute.

6.302-6 National security.

6.302-7 Public interest.

Parent topic: Subpart 6.3 - Other Than Full and Open Competition
#### § 4280.404 Exception authority.

The Administrator may make an exception, on a case-by-case basis, to any requirement or provision of this subpart that is not inconsistent with any authorizing statute or applicable law if the Administrator determines that application of the requirement or provision would adversely affect the Government's financial interest.
#### § 301.51-9 Costs and charges.

The services of the inspector during normal business hours will be furnished without cost to persons requiring the services. The user will be responsible for all costs and charges arising from inspection and other services provided outside of normal business hours.
p120169.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0169

Focus Ready Draft 2/16/2012

ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ JD

PV (kg/yr): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (02/07/2012):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox Related Cases: Analogs: 

Migration to groundwater: PMN slow; Deg Pdt rapid

PBT rating: P3B2T2 PMN: Health - 1, Eco - 1, P3B1T1 //

Deg PDt: Health - 2, Eco - 3, P3B2T2

Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Low Concern

Page 1
p120169.eng

Eco: 3 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0169

 

Page 2
p120169.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 3

p120169.eng

 

Page 5
p120169.eng

 

 

 

Page 6
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 74128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30022]



[[Page 74128]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Rescinding the Notice of Intent for an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS): Harrison and Stone Counties, MS

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Rescind Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS.

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

SUMMARY: This notice rescinds the Notice of Intent for preparing an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed highway to provide 
a connection between U.S. Highway 49 near the town of Star to 
Interstate 20 near the Interchange with State Route 475 in the City of 
Pearl, Rankin County, Mississippi. The original Notice of Intent for 
this EIS process was published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claiborne Barnwell, Project 
Development Team Leader, Federal Highway Administration, Mississippi 
Division, 100 West Capitol Street, Suite 1026, Jackson, Mississippi 
39269, Telephone: (601) 965-4217.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in cooperation with the 
Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) initiated an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with a Notice of Intent May 22, 
2009, to provide a connector road, to be built to interstate standards, 
between U.S. Highway 49 and Interstate 20.
    Due to funding constraints this Notice of Intent is rescinded.

Andrew H. Hughes,
Division Administrator, Mississippi, Federal Highway Administration, 
Jackson, Mississippi.
[FR Doc. 2010-30022 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-30,408-17

IN RE DEREK MITCHELL BAILEY, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 94-0857-CR IN THE 25TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM GUADALUPE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that on or about December 5, 2018, and January 9, 2019,

he mailed applications for writs of habeas corpus to the Guadalupe County District Clerk’s Office.

He contends that the district clerk returned his applications without filing them.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the Guadalupe County

District Clerk, shall state whether Relator mailed Article 11.07 applications on or about the above

dates and, if so, whether Respondent filed his applications. This motion for leave to file a writ of

mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Her
2

response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: February 27, 2019

Do not publish
#### § 3560.751 General.

This subpart sets forth appraisal policies for Agency-financed multi-family housing (MFH) projects consisting of five or more rental units. Agency-financed housing projects with fewer than five rental units may be appraised in accordance with the Agency's single family housing appraisal policies established under 7 CFR 3550.62.
#### §§ 4285.48-4285.57 [Reserved]