alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: February 16, 2011

TO: Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM: Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT: Summary of the February 7, 2011 Meeting with API Regarding Requirements in 

the RICE NESHAP

INTRODUCTION

A meeting was held between EPA and the American Petroleum Institute (API) to followup on earlier meetings and issues related to the current requirements for stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engines subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ. Summaries of the

previous meetings between EPA and API are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-

0708-0693, 0696, and 0743). 

ATTENDEES

Michael Horowitz, EPA Kyle Jantzen, Exterran

Bob Wayland, EPA Michael McBride, Van Ness Feldman

Melanie King, EPA (by phone) Jenny Yang, Marathon

Peter Westlin, EPA (by phone) Dan Regan, INGAA

Colin Boswell, EPA (by phone) Jeff Panek, IES (by phone)

Barrett Parker, EPA (by phone) Jim McCarthy, IES (by phone)

Tanya Parise, EC/R (by phone) Ellen Collins, Chevron (by phone)

Matt Todd, API Clay Freeberg, Chevron (by phone)

John Wagner, API Janet Bounds, Chevron (by phone)

Jeff Adams, BP Rebecca Rentz, Bracewell & Giuliani (by phone)

Bill Wehrum, Hunton & Williams Tom Monohan, ExxonMobil (by phone)

Joshua Epel, DCP Midstream

Bill Grygar, Anadarko

E

C

/R Incorporated Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989
2

SUMMARY OF MEETING

Prior to the meeting, EPA provided draft regulatory language concerning revisions to the 

continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) requirements currently in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart ZZZZ. During the meeting, API raised two concerns with the draft CPMS regulatory

language. First, API was concerned with the term “approved” as it appeared in 63.6625(b)(2) of 

the draft language, which read as follows:

“You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS in continuous operation according to the 

procedures in your approved site-specific monitoring plan.”

In API’s opinion, the term “approved” might be extraneous and could cause confusion, and API 

therefore recommended that the term not be included in the rule. Secondly, API recommended 

that EPA include a brief paragraph in the preamble explaining how the hour averages should be 

reduced and calculated in order to demonstrate compliance. 

Regarding the current requirements for stationary engines located at area sources, API 

reiterated from prior meetings that EPA consider providing regulatory alternatives. EPA asked 

API to provide specific recommendations for alternative provisions and flexibility for area 

source engines. API indicated that it would provide various alternatives for EPA to consider. 

EPA and API plan to meet again to discuss the specific suggestions that API will provide for 

area source engines.
Part 5649 - TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS

Subpart 5649.1 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

5649.101 Authorities and Responsibilities.

Subpart 5649.4 - TERMINATION NOTIFICATION

5649.470 Required Reporting of all Notification for Termination for Cause and Termination for

Default

Subpart 5649.6 - CONTRACT TERMINATION FORMS AND FORMATS

5649.607 Delinquency Notices.

Subpart 5649.1 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

5649.101 Authorities and Responsibilities.

(f) Contracting officers shall coordinate termination actions as necessary with the servicing Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office and request in writing that DCMA perform the

Termination Contracting Officer (TCO) functions in accordance with FAR 49.105 .

Subpart 5649.4 - TERMINATION NOTIFICATION

(Added August 2008)

5649.470 Required Reporting of all Notification for Termination for Cause

and Termination for Default

(Revised December 2015)

(a) No later than five (5) calendar days after issuing a “show cause notice” IAW FAR 49.607 ,

regardless of contract dollar value, the contracting officer shall furnish a copy of the notice to SOF

AT&L-KM.

(b) No later than three (3) calendar days prior to issuing any notice of termination for cause or

default, regardless of contract dollar value, the contracting officer shall report the potential

termination action to SOF AT&L-KM.

(c) Follow the procedures at FAR 42.1503 (h) for reporting a final termination for cause or default

notice in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) module of

CPARS.
(d) The information required for inclusion is:

(i) Date of Action (when termination for default or termination for cause was signed)

(ii) Contractor Name (doing business as (DBA name) optional), DUNS Number, CAGE Code, and Full

Physical Address

(iii) Contract Number

(iv) Modification issuing the termination

(v) PSC Code

(vi) NAICS

(vii) Office Code

(viii) Contracting Officer Name, Address, E-mail Address, and Phone Number

(ix) Reason for Termination

(x) Estimated Dollar Value of Contract

(xi) Estimated Dollar Value of Termination

(xii) Any other information that the Contracting Officer determines is relevant.

Subpart 5649.6 - CONTRACT TERMINATION FORMS AND

FORMATS

5649.607 Delinquency Notices.

(Revised November 2007)

Any actions relating to delinquent contractors, including Termination for Default, Cure Notice, and

Show Cause Notice, must be coordinated with legal counsel. A copy of all Cure and Show Cause

Notices to small business firms must be furnished to the OSBP concurrent to the notice being sent to

the contractor. The contractor's response or lack of response within the allotted time period, as well

as any relevant documentation related to the contractor's response, must be furnished to legal

counsel for review on all contracts.

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)

SOFARS 5649

February 2007
###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter VIII](/current/title-7/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A)

#### Authority:

[7 U.S.C. 71-87K](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/7/71), [1621-1627](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/7/1621).

###### Editorial Note on [Subchapter A of Chapter VIII](/current/title-7/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A)

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at [84 FR 45645](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-45645), Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 868.261 Grade and grade requirements for the classes of brown rice for processing. (See also [§ 868.263](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-868.263).)

| Grade | Maximum limits of— | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Paddy kernels | | Seeds and heat-damaged kernels | | | Red rice and damaged kernels (singly or combined) (percent) | Chalky kernels1 2 (percent) | Broken kernels removed by a 6 plate or a 61/2 sieve3 (percent) | Other types4 | Wellmilled kernels (percent) |
| Percent | Number in 500 grams | Total (singly or combined) (number in 500 grams) | Heat-damaged kernels (number in 500 grams) | Objectionable seeds (number in 500 grams) |
| U.S. No. 1 | — | 20 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| U.S. No. 2 | 2.0 | — | 40 | 2 | 10 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| U.S. No. 3 | 2.0 | — | 70 | 4 | 20 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 |
| U.S. No. 4 | 2.0 | — | 100 | 8 | 35 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| U.S. No. 5 | 2.0 | — | 150 | 15 | 50 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 |

| U.S. Sample grade | U.S. Sample grade shall be brown rice for processing which (a) does not meet the requirements for any of the grades from U.S. No. 1 to U.S. No. 5, inclusive; (b) contains more than 14.5 percent of moisture; (c) is musty, or sour, or heating; (d) has any commercially objectionable foreign odor; (e) contains more than 0.2 percent of related material or more than 0.1 percent of unrelated material; (f) contains two or more live weevils or other live insects; or (g) is otherwise of distinctly low quality. |
| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1 For the special grade Parboiled brown rice for processing, see [§ 868.263(a)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-868.263#p-868.263(a)). | |
| 2 For the special grade Glutinous brown rice for processing, see [§ 868.263(c)](/on/2024-09-16/title-7/section-868.263#p-868.263(c)). | |
| 3 Plates should be used for southern production rice and sieves should be used for western production rice, but any device or method which gives equivalent results may be used. | |
| 4 These limits do not apply to the class Mixed Brown Rice for Processing. | |

[[56 FR 55979](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/56-FR-55979), Oct. 31, 1991. Redesignated and amended at [60 FR 16364](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/60-FR-16364), Mar. 30, 1995]
Case 2:06-cv-00680-LES-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/09/2006 Page 1 of 1
215.403-3 Requiring data other than

certified cost or pricing data.

Follow the procedures at PGI 215.403-3 .

(a) In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3705 —

(1) Contracting officers shall not determine the price of a contract or subcontract to be fair and

reasonable based solely on historical prices paid by the Government (see PGI 215.403-3 Requiring

data other than certified cost or pricing data.(4)); and

(4) In lieu of the factors for consideration listed in FAR 15.403-3(a)(4), a determination by the head

of the contracting activity (see PGI 215.403-3 Requiring data other than certified cost or pricing

data.(7)) that it is in the best interest of the Government to make the award to an offeror that does

not make a good faith effort to comply with a reasonable request to submit data other than certified

cost or pricing data shall be based on consideration of pertinent factors, including the following:

(i) The effort to obtain the data.

(ii) Availability of other sources of supply of the item or service.

(iii) The urgency or criticality of the Government's need for the item or service.

(iv) Reasonableness of the price of the contract, subcontract, or modification of the contract or

subcontract based on information available to the contracting officer.

(v) Rationale or justification made by the offeror for not providing the requested data.

(vi) Risk to the Government if award is not made.

(c) Commercial products or commercial services. For determinations of price reasonableness of

major weapon systems acquired as commercial products, see 234.7002(d)

Parent topic: 215.403 Obtaining certified cost or pricing data.
# Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

- Part 234 - MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITION 
- Part 235 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING 
- Part 236 - CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT — ENGINEER CONTRACTS 
- Part 237 - SERVICE CONTRACTING 
- Part 238 - RESERVED 
- Part 239 - ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 
- Part 240 - RESERVED 
- Part 241 - ACQUISITION OF UTILITY SERVICES 

**Parent topic:**Subchapter F - SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF CONTRACTING
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROGER WRIGHT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 1:06-cv-647-WKW

)

PEMCO WORLD AIR SERVICES, INC., )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 22) filed on

September 24, 2007, it is ORDERED that the motion be submitted without oral argument on

October 30, 2007.

It is further ORDERED that plaintiff file a response which shall include a brief on or before

October 16, 2007. The Defendants may file a reply brief on or before October 30, 2007.

All future motions to remand, motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the

pleadings, and motions for summary judgment filed in this case, it is ORDERED that:

1. The movant shall file its brief and any evidentiary submission simultaneously with

the filing of the dispositive motion.

2. The opponent’s response brief and any evidentiary submission shall be due 21 days

after the date the motion is filed.

3. The movant’s reply brief, if any, shall be due 14 days after the date the response

is filed.

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 25 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 1 of 2
4. The motion shall be under submission on the due date of the reply brief. Unless the

court determines that a hearing is necessary or helpful, at which time a date will be set, the court will

determine the motion without oral argument upon submission. 

5. Briefs in support of or in opposition to any motion generally should not exceed

25 pages. In all cases in which briefs exceed 25 pages, counsel must include a table of contents

indicating the main sections of the brief, the principal arguments and citations to authority made in

each section, and the pages on which each section and any sub-sections may be found.

6. The parties are required to submit or mail a paper courtesy copy of briefs and

supporting evidence to the Chambers of the undersigned. 

7. For those submissions (including briefs and evidentiary materials) that exceed 25

pages, the paper courtesy copy shall be bound in a three-ring binder and tabbed.

8. Any discussion of evidence in a brief must include the specific reference, by name

or document number and by page and line, to where the evidence can be found in the supporting

evidentiary submission or in any document filed with the court.

9. Failure to comply strictly with this Order for all future filings may result in the

striking of the filing or other appropriate sanctions.

DONE this 25th day of September, 2007.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00647-WKW-SRW Document 25 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
PART 27 –– PATENTS, DATA, AND

COPYRIGHTS

 SUBPART 27.90 – TRADEMARK RIGHTS UNDER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

 27.9000 Definitions.

 27.9001 Trademark rights under government contracts.

SUBPART 27.90 – TRADEMARK RIGHTS UNDER

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

27.9000 Definitions.

Trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination that identifies your goods or

services, distinguishes them from the goods or services of others, and indicates the source of your

goods or services.

Service Mark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or

designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of a service of one party from that of other

parties.

27.9001 Trademark rights under government contracts.

The FAR and DFARS do not address trademark or service mark rights, nor is there an official DoD

policy on ownership of trademarks or service marks first used in performance of a government

contract in connection with goods or services delivered to the Government. Under federal trademark

law, trademark rights generally reside with the entity that controls the nature and quality of the

goods or services that are identified by the trademark.

However, in certain cases, it may be in the Government’s best interest for DISA to own a trademark

or service mark first created under a contract. For example, Government ownership may be desired

for a mark that is to be used exclusively in connection with a government-controlled service that the

contractor manages for DISA. DISA’s Office of the General Counsel should be consulted to

determine if there is a need to negotiate trademark ownership rights with the contractor and seek

federal trademark protection on DISA’s behalf by filing an application to register the trademark or

service mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 6, 2011

p0829 

# Order

September 6, 2011

143090

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143090 COA: 302566 Kent CC: 09-000871-FC ALICIA MARIE CAVASOS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 14, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A172
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene K. ALBINO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10146.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 8, 2005.*

Filed Dec. 15, 2005.

*938Pamela J. Byrne, Assistant Federal Defender, Honolulu, HI, for the appellant.

Thomas Muehleck, Assistant United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for the appellee.

Before BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Eugene Albino appeals the ten-year sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to growing 2,349 marijuana plants. Albino argues that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii), which classifies 1000 or more marijuana plants, regardless of weight, as equal to 1000 or more kilograms of marijuana for purposes of the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence, violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. We affirm.

We have rejected Albino’s Fifth Amendment argument in *United States v. Motz,*936 F.2d 1021, 1025 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that “[tjhere is no constitutional requirement that the penalty for an offense involving one marijuana plant be equal to the penalty for an offense involving the quantity of dried marijuana the plant would yield”) and *United States v. Belden,*957 F.2d 671, 676 (9th Cir.1992) (recognizing that the disparity in sentences between marijuana growers and marijuana possessors is rationally related to deterrence and a higher level of culpability for marijuana growers).

Albino’s Eighth Amendment claim also fails because his sentence is not grossly disproportionate to his offense. Albino pled guilty to growing 2,349 marijuana plants and received a ten-year sentence, the minimum under the statute. In reviewing criminal sentences for Eighth Amendment proportionality, we “grant substantial deference to the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and limits of punishments for crimes.” *Solem v. Helm,*463 U.S. 277, 290, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983). In view of this deference “a reviewing court rarely will be required to engage in extended analysis to determine that a sentence is not constitutionally disproportionate.” *Id.*at 290 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. 3001. “Generally, as long as the sentence imposed on a defendant does not exceed statutory limits, this court will not overturn it on Eighth Amendment grounds.” *United States v. Parker,*241 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.2001). Because Albino received the minimum sentence under the statute, combined with the broad deference afforded Congress to set criminal penalties, Albino’s sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

SUSIE COBB, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv675-ID

) (WO)

D.T. MARSHALL, individually and in his )

official capacity as Sheriff of Montgomery )

County, Alabama, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Upon CONSIDERATION of Defendant's motion to dismiss amended complaint

(Doc. No. 11), it is ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause, if any there be, on or before

April 18, 2007, why said motion should not be granted. 

DONE this 10 day of April, 2007. th

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00675-ID-SRW Document 13 Filed 04/10/07 Page 1 of 1
§ 82.3 Definitions. ( a ) *Administrator* means the Administrator of AMS.
( b ) *AMS* means the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
( c ) *Application* means “Application for Clingstone Peach Tree Removal Program.”
( d ) *Calendar year* means the 12-month period beginning January 1 and ending the following December 31.
( e ) *CCPA* means the California Canning Peach Association, a grower-owned marketing and bargaining cooperative representing the clingstone peach industry in California.
( f ) *Diversion* means the removal of clingstone peach trees after approval of applications by the CCPA.
( g ) *Grower* means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation in the State of California who grows clingstone peaches for canning.
( h ) *Removal or removed* means that the clingstone peach trees are no longer standing and capable of producing a crop, and the roots of the trees have been removed. The grower can accomplish removal by any means the grower desires. Grafting another type of tree to the rootstock remaining after removing the clingstone peach tree will not qualify as removal under this program.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           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 Annual Report of Casino Players, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, William G. Forhan, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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 Registrant.

Dated: April 11,  2011

By:  /s/ William G. Forhan
William G. Forhan
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Officer and Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)
(Principal Financial /Accounting Officer)

<page>