alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EPA CLIMATE CHANGE TESTIMONY OF TERRY WILLIAMS PRESIDENT,
EASTWICK FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS COALITION, 7/29/14

INITIALLY I WANT TO THANK PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR HIS COURAGE AND HIS STRIDENT INITIATIVES TO SAFEGUARD OUR NATION AND OUR WORLD FROM THE DANGEROUS IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE DISRUPTION DUE TO INCREASED CARBON EMMISIONS. I ALSO WANT THANK THE EPA ADMINISTRATORS FOR FACILITATING THESE HEARINGS GIVING ALL AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND THANS TO SIERRA CLUB FOR IT'S INTREPID ADVOCACY CONCERN OUR PRECIOUS ENVRIONMENT.
MY NAME IS TERRY WILLIAMS, AND I SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF THE EASTWICK FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS COALITION. OURS IS UNIQUE COALITION OF NEIGHBORS , EVIRONMENTALIST, EDUCATORS AND RELATED PROFESSIONALS DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR IMMEDIATE, REGIONAL, NATIONAL AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT.

PHILADELHIA'S EASTWICK COMMUNITY, IS A COMMUNITY OF APPROXIMATELY FIVE THOUSAND RESIDENTS , LOCATED IN A ONE HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD PLAIN CONFLUENT TO THE SCHULKYILL AND DELAWARE RIVERS AND THE DARBY CREEK ALL OF WHICH ARE TIDAL TO THE ATLANTIC OCEAN. AS AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, ARGUABLY A COASTAL NEIGHBORHOOD EASTWICK DODGED BULLIT DURING THE ONSLAUGHT OF HURRICANE SANDY. THE THREAT OF SANDY WAS SO IMMEDIATE TO EASTWICK THAT OUR MAYOR THE HONORABLE MICHEAL NUTTER CALLED FOR THE COMPLETE EVACUATION OF OUR BELOVED NEIGHBORHOOD.LADIES AND GENTLEMEN I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, HOWEVER IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR

TO ME THAT WHAT OCCURRED IN NEW ORLEANS NINTH WARD, IN EASTWICKS FOURTIETH WARD AND WHAT SANDY DID TO NEW JERSEY AND NEW YORK CERTAINLY SUGGEST THAT OUR CLIMATE IS CHANGING.
IF WE AS STEWARDS OF THE EARTH HAVE ALTERED/DISRUPTED OUR AIR, WATER AND LAND THEN WE MUST BE STRIDENT TO TAKE THE CORRECTIVE MEASURES NECESSARY TO REPAIR AND TO SAFEGUARD OUR PRECIOUS ENVIRONMENT RIGHT NOW AND FOR FUTURE GENERATION. THE EASTWICK FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS COALITION SUPPORTS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE PLAN TOO.

THANK YOU
Editorial Note on Part 91
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear at 61 FR 51350, Oct. 2 1996.

§ 91.22 Disposition of analyzed sample. ( a ) Excess samples not used in analyses will be placed in proper storage for a maximum period of 30 days after reporting results of tests.
( b ) Any sample of a processed commodity that has been used for a laboratory service may be returned to the applicant at his or her request and expense; otherwise, it shall be destroyed or disposed of to a charitable institution.
#### § 917.31 Compensation and expenses.

All committee members shall serve without compensation, but said members, and their respective alternates, shall be reimbursed for expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties. At its discretion any committee may request the attendance of one or more alternates at any or all meetings, notwithstanding the expected or actual presence of the respective members, and may pay expenses as aforesaid.

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

At 76 FR 66605, Oct. 27, 2011, § 917.31 was suspended indefinitely, effective Oct. 28, 2011.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George Arrington, Respondent, v Harry B. Schneider et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 31, 1979. The board found that the injuries inflicted upon the claimant from an assault by his brother arose out of and during the course of the claimant’s employment and thus were compensable. The claimant was employed as a building superintendent by the appellant employer. His brother was living temporarily in a vacant apartment in the employment premises and on prior occasions, to the knowledge of the appellant employer, had aided the claimant in his janitorial duties. The assault, for which the claimant was awarded compensation herein, occurred when the claimant requested his brother to sweep the hallways for him, since he had other duties to perform, and a dispute concerning money arose between the claimant and his brother. The test in determining compensability in cases such as this is whether the assault has resulted from work connected differences or from purely personal animosity between the combatants. This is a factual question for the board *(Matter of Ward v Typhoon Air Conditioning Co.,*27 AD2d 785), and a determination in favor of compensability, when the assault arose on the employer’s premises during working hours, concerning the claimant’s employment, from a dispute with his brother whose assistance on prior occasions was known to the employer, cannot be said, as a matter of law, to lack substantial evidentiary support *(Matter of Williams v Leonard Elec. Co.,*27 AD2d 780). Any nexus, however slender, between the motivation for the assault and the employment is sufficient to sustain an award of benefits *(Matter of Seymour v Rivera Appliances Corp.,*28 NY2d 406). Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Casey, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 800.31 Who must register.

Each person who has engaged in foreign commerce grain business totaling 15,000 or more metric tons during the preceding or current calendar year must register with the Service and shall be deemed to be regularly engaged in foreign commerce grain business. This includes foreign-based firms operating in the United States but does not include foreign governments or their agents. The Service will, upon request, register persons not required to register under this section if they comply with the requirements of §§ 800.33 and 800.34.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0580-0012)

[48 FR 44453 and 44455, Sept. 29, 1983, as amended at 54 FR 5924, Feb. 7, 1989]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00117-CV

In re Robert F. Brown III

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Robert F. Brown III has petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus ordering

the 277th District Court of Williamson County to act on various pro se motions Brown filed in cause

number 05-307-K277. The exhibits attached to the petition reflect, however, that the motions were

filed while Brown’s appeal from his conviction in cause number 05-307-K277 was pending in

this Court or in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Brown v. State, No. 03-06-526-CR

Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 1, 2007), pet. ref’d, No. PD-1284-07 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 23, 2008).

Therefore, the district court was without authority to act on his motions. See Tex. R. App. P.

25.2(g).

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
2

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Filed: March 26, 2008
5206.502 Duties and responsibilities.

(b)(2) The annual competition report shall be submitted via DASN(P) by January 31st of each year by

email at RDAJ&As.fct@navy.mil with the subject “[Activity Name] FAR 6.502(b) Annual Competition

Report.”

(S-90) Competition advocates shall also:

(1) Act as the primary focal points to assist members of the private sector regarding their expressed

concerns or complaints in reference to the manner of application or lack of application of

competition in the acquisition process; and

(2) Take appropriate action to ensure that valid complaints from the private sector are resolved in a

fair and timely manner.

Parent topic: Subpart 5206.5 - COMPETITION ADVOCATES
### SERVED: MAY 28,2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF ARTIC AIR ALASKA, INC.

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0316 (Civil Penalty Action)



### NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING ,.n**~-:** :: ;") I • ..**~.,.,**

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011WP910076) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the other persons onthe attached Service List.

ChiefAdministrativ Attachment
- Service ListDocket No. FAA-2014-0316 (Civil Penalty Action) SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL . ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1
James 

### I. Hamilton, President/CEO Arctic Air Alaska, Inc., Respondent 3540 University Ave. South Fairbanks, AK 99709 Peter Lynch, Complainant's Counsel Assistant ChiefCounsel for Enforcement Office ofthe ChiefCounsel, AGC-300 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 TEL: 202-267-7728 FAX: 202-267-5106 ONE COPY

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
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 Annual Report of
LEAF Equipment Income Fund III, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert K. Moskovitz, Chief
Financial Officer of the General Partner, 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 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|              |  |  |  |                                               
|------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------
|              |  | 
|April 1, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert K. Moskovitz                       
|              |  |  |  | Robert K. Moskovitz                           
|              |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
Editorial Note on Part 869
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 869 appear at 84 FR 45646, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 869.302 Paper warehouse receipts. Paper warehouse receipts must be issued as follows: ( a ) On distinctive paper specified by AMS;
( b ) Printed by a printer authorized by AMS; and
( c ) Issued, identified and maintained in a consecutive order.
Denied and Opinion Filed November 8, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-16-01268-CV No. 05-16-01270-CV IN RE CHARLIE PUENTES, Relator Original Proceeding from th e County Court at Law No. 4 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 004-83427-2015 and 004-83429-2015 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Francis Before the Court is relator’s October 25, 2016 petition for writ of mandamus in which he asks the Court to order the trial court to rule on his motion for speedy trial and motion for bench warrant. Also before the Court is relator’s October 25, 2016 motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus. To be entitled to mandamus relief in a crimin al case, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm , and what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretiona ry or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2007) (orig. proceeding). A defendant seeking to compel the dismissal of an indictment or co mplaint on speedy trial grounds has an adequate remedy at law, and ther efore, is not entitled to mandamus relief. Smith v. Gohmert , 962 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Acco rdingly, relator is not entitled to–2– mandamus relief as to his request for a speedy trial because he has an adequate remedy on appeal. Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is a ministerial act. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray , 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig. proceeding). A relator must establish the trial court (1) had a lega l duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so. In re Keeter , 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.— Waco 2003, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal , 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). It is relator’ s burden to provide the court with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a). Here, the record is insu fficient to establish that the mo tions for which relator seeks a ruling were properly filed, that the trial court wa s requested to rule, and that the trial court refused to rule. Although relator attaches copi es of a motion for speedy trial and a motion for bench warrant, the motion for sp eedy trial is not file-stamped and he includes no evidence showing that he has requested the trial court to rule on the motions. Abse nt proof that the trial court has been requested to rule on the motions, relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. See In re Florence , 14-11-00096-CR, 2011 WL 553241, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 17, 2011, no pet.). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny relator’s motion for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

161268F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
its 

Q 

U.S. Department 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20591 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Mr. Larry L. Davis APR 1 5 2010 

1412 Fourth Ave. 

Jackson, MS 39023 

and by e-mail to davisl3030@hotmail.com 

Alan L. Moore, Esq. ^ 

Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Beriowitz :~0"? 

- - H 

P. O. Box 14167 

Jackson, MS 39236 

and by facsimile to 601 -714-9914 , ^ 

Re: In the matter of Larry L. t)avis v. The Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, Docket 

16-10-01; Respondent's Motion for Extension of Time for Answer. 

Dear Messrs. Davis and Moore: 

The Respondent, Jackson Municipal Airport Authority, through counsel, has moved for an 

extension of time until May 17, 2010, to file its Answer. The Motion was supported with a 

statement saying, among other reasons, that the Respondent's Counsel required additional time 

to review and assemble documents, interview staff, and conduct legal research. The reasons for 

the delay show good cause to extend the time for the Rebuttal. 

The Complainant has responded to the motion stating, among other assertions, that the time for 

filing the motion had run, that Respondent's Counsel has had notice of the proceeding for a 

sufficient amount of time to submit a timely Answer, and that Respondent's Counsel lacks good 

cause for the extension. The FAA has considered the Complainant's objection to the 

Respondent's motion. However, it does not appear that an extension will prejudice the 

Complainant. In consideration of the good cause shown by the Respondent, and the need to 

develop a full and complete record in this matter, it is in the best interest to grant the 

Respondent's motion. 

The time, therefore, for submitting the Answer will expire on May 17, 2010. 

Sincerely, 

laymond Veatch 

Attorney, Airports Law Branch (AGC-610) 

Airport and Environmental Law Division 

Office of the Chief Counsel 
Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Room 900-E 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

(202) 267-3199 (office) 

(202) 267-9676 (direct) 

(202) 267-5769 (fax) 

cc: ACR-4 

Part 16 docket clerk
# L_2013332EN.01001301.xml

| 11.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 332/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 332/13

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1282/2013

of 10 December 2013

correcting the Polish language version of Regulation (EC) No 2508/2000 laying down the detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards operational programmes in the fisheries sector

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (1), and in particular Article 9(5) and Article 10(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An error has occurred in Article 12 of the Polish language version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2508/2000 of 15 November 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards operational programmes in the fisheries sector (2). Therefore a correction of the Polish language version is necessary. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An error has occurred in Article 12 of the Polish language version of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2508/2000 of 15 November 2000 laying down the detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 as regards operational programmes in the fisheries sector (2). Therefore a correction of the Polish language version is necessary. The other language versions are not affected.

| (2) | Regulation (EC) No 2508/2000 should therefore be corrected accordingly. In order to eliminate the errors in the act being corrected as soon as possible, this Regulation should enter into force on the third day following that of its publication. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 2508/2000 should therefore be corrected accordingly. In order to eliminate the errors in the act being corrected as soon as possible, this Regulation should enter into force on the third day following that of its publication.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fishery Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Concerns only the Polish language version.

Article 2

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

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 December 2013.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 17, 21.1.2000, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 289, 16.11.2000, p. 8.

2

---
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 13 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 13 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 13 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00650-MEF-SRW Document 13 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 4 of 4
§ 948.122 Application. ( a ) Application for Certificate of Privilege shall be made in person, by telephone, or on forms furnished by the committee. Each application may contain, but need not be limited to, the name and address of the handler; the quantity by grade, size, quality and variety of the potatoes to be shipped; the mode of transportation; the consignee; the destination; the purpose for which the potatoes are to be used; a certification to the United States Department of Agriculture and to the committee as to the truthfulness of the information shown thereon; and any other appropriate information or documents deemed necessary by the committee for the purposes stated in § 948.120.
( b ) [Reserved]
Part 5236 - CONSTRUCTION AND

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS

Subpart 5236.2 - SPECIAL ASPECTS OF CONTRACTING FOR CONSTRUCTION

5236.270 Expediting construction contracts.

Subpart 5236.6 - ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES

5236.601 Policy.

Subpart 5236.2 - SPECIAL ASPECTS OF CONTRACTING FOR

CONSTRUCTION

5236.270 Expediting construction contracts.

(a) Where additional costs are to be incurred, NAVFACENGCOM is responsible for obtaining

required agency head approval and certification.

Subpart 5236.6 - ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES

5236.601 Policy.

(1) NAVFACENGCOM is responsible for any required Congressional notification.
#### § 925.4 Grapes.

*Grapes* means any variety of vinifera species table grapes grown in the production area.
Subpart 5246.7 - WARRANTIES

Parent topic: Part 5246 - QUALITY ASSURANCE

5246.703 Criteria for use of warranties.

Notwithstanding FAR 46.703 and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 8688, contracts for new construction

shipbuilding, for which funds are expended from the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account,

shall require, as a condition of the contract, that the work performed under the contract is covered

by a warranty for a period of at least one year.

(S-90) Waiver. If the contracting officer for a contract covered by the requirement for a new

shipbuilding contract warranty determines that a limited liability of warranted work is in the best

interest of the Government, the contracting officer may agree to limit the liability of the work

performed under the contract to a level that the contracting officer determines is sufficient to

protect the interests of the Government and is in keeping with historical levels of warranted work on

similar vessels.

5246.704 Authority for use of warranties.

(S-90) Notwithstanding DFARS 246.704 (1) and (2) and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 8688, chief of

the contracting office approval is not required for the use of a warranty for new construction

shipbuilding for which funds are expended from the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account and

the contract is effective on or after the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization for

FY2018.

5246.706 Warranty terms and conditions.

(b)(2) Remedies.

(iv) Acceptable turnaround time(s) for warranty corrective actions taken by the contractor should be

specified, and consideration should be given to using liquidated damages or charging the contractor

for product replacement costs when specified turnaround times are not met.

(5) Markings. Warranted items should be marked with the National Stock Number (NSN) or

manufacturer's part number, a serial number or other item identifier (if the warranty applies to

uniquely identified items), the contract number, an indication that a warranty applies, the

manufacturer or entity (if other than the contractor) providing the warranty, the date or time the

warranty expires, and an indication of whether or not attempted on-site repair by DON personnel

will void the warranty.