alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 of 1 November 7, 2014

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

TO GEORGIA’S STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS AND PARTIES: 

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the authority set forth below, the Environmental 

Protection Division (hereinafter, “EPD”) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

proposes Amendments to Georgia’s State Implementation Plan (SIP). The proposed revision is 

described below: 

The proposed State Implementation Plan revision contains Georgia’s request to remove 

Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(zz), Gasoline Dispensing Facilities–Stage II otherwise known as 

Georgia Rule (zz) from the Georgia SIP. Revisions to the Rules for Air Quality Control 

associated with this SIP revision were adopted by Georgia’s Board of Natural Resources on 

March 25, 2014. 

This notice is being provided to all persons who have requested in writing that they be placed on 

a notification list. The proposed SIP revision may be viewed at

http://www.georgiaair.org/airpermit/html/planningsupport/stageII.htm or during normal business 

hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Air Protection 

Branch, 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia 30354. Copies may also be 

requested by contacting the Air Protection Branch at 404/363-7000. 

To provide the public an opportunity to comment upon and provide input into the proposed SIP 

revision, a public hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. on December 8, 2014, in the EPD Training 

Center located at 4244 International Parkway, Suite 116, Atlanta, Georgia 30354. At the 

hearing, anyone may present data, make a statement, comment, or offer a viewpoint or 

argument either orally or in writing. Lengthy statements or statements of a considerable 

technical or economic nature, as well as previously-recorded messages, must be submitted in 

writing for the official record. Oral statements should be concise. 

Written comments are welcomed. To insure their inclusion in EPD's final submission of the SIP 

revision to EPA, written comments should be received by close of business on December 15, 

2014. Written comments may be emailed to EPDComments@dnr.state.ga.us or sent via 

regular mail addressed to: Branch Chief, Air Protection Branch, 4244 International Parkway, 

Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia, 30354. 

The proposed SIP revision is proposed pursuant to authority contained in Georgia Air Quality 

Act (O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1 et. seq.). For further information, contact the Air Protection 

Branch at 404/363-7000.
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 2 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 3 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 4 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 5 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 6 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 7 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 8 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 9 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 10 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 11 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 12 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 13 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 14 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 15 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 16 of 17
Case 3:06-cv-00711-MHT-WC Document 46 Filed 04/25/2007 Page 17 of 17
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
DESMOND RAYNARD BROWN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4894 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 2, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Michael F. Andrews, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. CASANUEVA, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Case 2:06-cv-00720-WHA-SRW Document 8 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00720-WHA-SRW Document 8 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### Rodrigo Galvan, Appellant, v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority et al., Respondents.

[814 NYS2d 256]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosengarten, J.), dated March 8, 2005, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

To prevail on a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff must prove both that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his injuries *(see Bland v Manocherian,*66 NY2d 452 [1985]; *Lightfoot v State of New York,*245 AD2d 488 [1997]). The statute applies to both “falling workers” and “falling objects” *(Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc.,*96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]). Here, the plaintiff failed to meet his prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to summary judgment on a “falling object” theory *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., supra).*The proffered evidence did not demonstrate prima facie that the C-clamp which struck the plaintiff “fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” *(Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., supra*at 268; *see Rosado v*
      *518
      *Briarwoods Farm, Inc.,*19 AD3d 396 [2005]; *Gambino v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*8 AD3d 337 [2004]; *see also Atkinson v State of New York,*20 AD3d 739 [2005]; *Love v New York State Thruway Auth.,*17 AD3d 1000 [2005]). In any event, the defendants raised issues of fact as to the manner in which the C-clamp fell, i.e., whether it was deliberately thrown off the side of the scaffolding or whether it was accidentally dropped or fell *(see Roberts v General Elec. Co.,*97 NY2d 737 [2002]).

The defendants also raised issues of fact as to the manner in which the accident occurred, which precludes summary judgment based on a “falling worker” theory *(see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co.,*81 NY2d 494 [1993]; *Cajamarca v Interconex, Inc.,*8 AD3d 602 [2004]; *Tylman v School Constr. Auth.,*3 AJD3d 488 [2004]; *cf. Ramos v Champion Combustion, Inc.,*12 AD3d 227 [2004]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion. Miller, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
of First Community Financial Corporation, (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jody D. Graybill, President of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to§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. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                   |  |     |  |                              
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Jody D. Graybill         
|                   |  |     |  | Jody D. Graybill,            
|                   |  |     |  | President                    
|                   |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### CAHILL, Respondent, v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Mary D. Cahill against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

ROBSON, J., dissents.
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 10 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 10 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
[879 NE2d 157, 849 NYS2d 18]

#### Cordelia A. Corsino et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

Decided November 20, 2007

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Mischel & Horn, P.C.,*New York City *(Scott T. Horn*of counsel), for appellants.

*Cerussi & Spring,*White Plains *(Peter J. Morris*and *Jeffrey N. Land*of counsel), for New York City Transit Authority and others, respondents.

*Law Offices of Kral, Clerkin, Redmond, Ryan, Perry & Girvan, LLP,*New York City *(Oliver W. Williams*of counsel), for Villafane Electric Corp., respondent.

*979OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The Appellate Division order should be modified, with costs to plaintiffs against defendants New York City Transit Authority, CAB Associates and Villafane Electric Corp. by denying the motions for summary judgment by these defendants and, as so modified, affirmed, with costs to defendant Sheldon Electric Company, Inc. against plaintiffs.

Except as to defendant Sheldon Electric Company, Inc., we agree with Supreme Court and the dissenting Justices at the Appellate Division that triable issues of fact exist as to whether the hazardous condition that caused the injured plaintiffs fall was the result of negligence *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]) and as to whether the owner and contractor defendants exercised the requisite supervisory or safety control over defendant Villafane Electric Corp.’s work on the property so as to preclude summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to those defendants *(Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co.,*91 NY2d 343, 352-353 [1998]).

The record establishes as a matter of law that Sheldon did not exercise supervisory or safety control over the work in question, and as to that defendant the complaint was properly dismissed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC

Wayne 

### R. Messinger, ) ) Complainant )


### v. Clover Acquisition Corporation d/b/a Pearland Regional Airport, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) FAA Docket No. 16-15-01

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to January 29, 2016. 

### An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in thi s case.

# tNv--C,k}~ Byron K.

# Hu£~cting Director Office of Airport Compliance

and Management Analysis

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIF Y that on December 16, 2015 , I caused to be p laced in the United States mail (first class mail , postage paid) a true copy ofthe FAA's Request for Additional Information and Notice ofExtension of

**Time~** addressed to: 

### FOR COMPLAINANT Wayne R. Messinger P 0 Box 1710 Friendswood , Texas 77549 G i nevan4@gma i l.com


### FOR RESPONDENT JAMES F
. PARKER, III Texas State Bar No. 24027591 jparker@ lglawfirm.ccom JOSE E. de la FUENTE Texas State Bar No. 00793605 j delafuente @ lglawfirm. com SHEILA B. GLADSTONE Texas State Bar No. 07993550 sgladstone @ lglawfirm.com LLOYD GOSSELINK ROCHELLE & TOWNSEND, P.C. 816 Congress Avenue, S uite 1900 Austin , Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 322

- 5800 Facsimile: (512) 472-0532 Copy to: F AA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Co mpli ance and Management Analysis , AC0-1 00



# rJtu~iCw 

# _-)

C laudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis
Exhibit 10.16


 


SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS


 


The following summarizes
the current compensation and benefits received by the Company’s non-employee directors as of January 1, 2018. This document
is intended to be a summary of existing oral, at will arrangements, and in no way is intended to provide any additional rights
to any non-employee director. Compensation of the non-employee directors may be adjusted from time to time.


 


Retainer


 


Non-employee directors
each receive an annual retainer fee of $50,000. The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $20,000, the
Chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $10,000 and the Chairman of each of the Corporate Governance/Nominating
Committee and Diversity Committee receives an annual retainer of $6,000. A director that chairs more than one committee receives
a retainer with respect to each Committee he chairs. All of the retainers are paid on a quarterly basis.


 


Meeting Fees


 


Per meeting fees for non-employee directors
are as follows:


 


		–	For meetings of the Board of Directors, $2,000



 


		–	For meetings of the Compensation Committee, $2,000



 


		–	For meetings of the Corporate Governance/Nominating Committee, $1,500.



 


		–	For meetings of the Diversity Committee, $1,500.



 


		–	For meetings of the Audit Committee either in person or over the telephone, $2,500.



 


		–	In addition, the Chairman receives an additional $2,500 for preparing to conduct each quarterly
meeting.



 


Equity Compensation


 


Under the terms of
the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan, directors are eligible to receive stock options, stock awards, and other types of equity-based
compensation awards. However, the Company does not make any such awards to non-employee directors under its current compensation
practices.


 


All non-employee directors
are entitled to reimbursement of expenses for all services as a director, including committee participation or special assignments.
Exhibit








Exhibit 4.3




AGREEMENT TO FURNISH DEBT INSTRUMENTS
Pursuant to Item 601(b)(4)(iii)(A) of Regulation S-K, Criteo S.A. (the “Company”) has not included as an exhibit to its Annual Report on Form 10-K any instrument relating to long-term debt if the total amount of debt authorized by such instrument does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Company. The Company agrees to furnish a copy of any such instrument to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.


                        
	
		
	 
	CRITEO S.A.

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Eric Eichmann

	Name:
	Eric Eichmann

	Title:
	Chief Executive Officer

	Date:
	March 1, 2018
5642.1503 Procedures.

(Revised June 2021)

(d)

(1) USSOCOM HCDs and FCOs shall use the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

( CPARS ) as the method to record evaluations of contractor performance.

(2) Those contractor performance evaluations involving national security/classified contract actions

shall not be entered into CPARS; however, they must follow CPARS reporting requirements in

conjunction with the individual program security requirements.

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

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

SOFARS 5642

February 2007

Parent topic: Subpart 5642.15 - CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Premanufacture Notice (PMN ) for P - 99 - 1280, P - 99 - 1281, and P - 99 - 1282 A pubic copy of the sanitized PMN for these substances is not available. For further information on obtaining a copy of this document contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M) , Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Enviro nmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460

- 0001 Telephone: 202

- 564

- 9232 Email: Moss.Kenneth@epa.gov
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 17 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 17 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 17 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 17 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 17 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 5 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00728-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “Report”) of Harvest Capital Credit Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph A. Jolson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1) The Report fully complies 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 Registrant.





/s/ Joseph A. JolsonName:Joseph A. JolsonDate:March 15, 2019
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 5, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40391

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL ALAN SMARR,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-901-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Alan Smarr appeals his conviction for transporting

illegal aliens for the purpose of commercial advantage or private

financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and

(a)(1)(B)(I). Smarr argues that the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction because the evidence did not establish

that he committed the offense for the purpose of commercial

advantage or private financial gain. We conclude that the

evidence was sufficient to establish that Smarr participated in

an illegal alien smuggling operation and that members of the
No. 05-40391

-2-

operation received sums of money to help the illegal aliens enter

the United States illegally and travel within the United States. 

The evidence was sufficient to support Smarr’s conviction. See

United States v. Nolasco-Rosas, 286 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir.

2002); United States v. Moser, 123 F.3d 813, 819 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3445 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3445

    To suspend temporarily the duty on epoxide resins consisting of 
    Formaldehyde, polymer with methylphenol, 2-hydroxy-3-[(1-oxo-2-
       propenyl)oxy]propyl ether and formaldehyde, polymer with 
(chloromethyl)oxirane and methylphenol, 4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylate 
                          2-propenoate (9Cl).

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2006

   Mr. Reid introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on epoxide resins consisting of 
    Formaldehyde, polymer with methylphenol, 2-hydroxy-3-[(1-oxo-2-
       propenyl)oxy]propyl ether and formaldehyde, polymer with 
(chloromethyl)oxirane and methylphenol, 4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboxylate 
                          2-propenoate (9Cl).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EPOXIDE RESINS CONSISTING OF FORMALDEHYDE, POLYMER WITH 
              METHYLPHENOL, 2-HYDROXY-3-[(1-OXO-2-PROPENYL)OXY]PROPYL 
              ETHER AND FORMALDEHYDE, POLYMER WITH 
              (CHLOROMETHYL)OXIRANE AND METHYLPHENOL, 4-CYCLOHEXENE-
              1,2-DICARBOXYLATE 2-PROPENOATE (9CL).

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.29.12        Epoxide resins          Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           consisting of                                                     31/2009          ''
                           formaldehyde, polymer                                                               .
                           with methylphenol, 2-
                           hydroxy-3-[(1-oxo-2-
                           propenyl)oxy]propyl
                           ether and
                           Formaldehyde, polymer
                           with
                           (chloromethyl)oxirane
                           and methylphenol, 4-
                           cyclohexene-1,2-
                           dicarboxylate 2-
                           propenoate (9Cl) (CAS
                           Nos. 126901-56-2 and
                           182697-62-7)
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           3907.30.00)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```