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

DATE:			 															 07/15/2014

FROM: 																 Niloufar	Glosson/US	EPA	Region	9

TO: 							 															 Clean	Power	Plan	for	Existing	Power	Plants;	Docket	Id:	OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT:		 									 Meeting	with	State	of	Nevada	Officials	held	on	07/11/2014

SUMMARY:							

A	meeting	was	held	between	EPA	and	the	attendees	listed	below	on	07/11/2014	to	discuss	

the	proposed	Carbon	Power	Plan	for	Existing	Power	Plants.	The	Carbon	Power	Plan	for	

Existing	Power	Plants	was	proposed	on	June	2,	2014.

ATTENDEES:

U.S.	EPA

Chris	Sherry,	EPA	HQ

Brian	Fisher,	EPA	HQ

James	Critchfield,	EPA	HQ

Robyn	DeYoung,	EPA	HQ

Kevin	Culligan,	EPA	HQ

Joe	Bryson,	EPA	HQ

Beth	Conlin,	EPA	HQ

Erika	Wilson,	EPA	HQ

Amy	Zimpfer	– EPA,	Region	9

Deborah	Jordan	– EPA,	Region	9
Niloufar	Glosson,	EPA,	Region	9

Anita	Lee,	EPA,	Region	9

External	Stakeholders

Colleen	Cripps	– Nevada	Division	of	Environmental	Protection	

Dave	Emme	- Nevada	Division	of	Environmental	Protection	

Jasmine	Mehta	– Nevada	Division	of	Environmental	Protection	

Rob	Bamford	– Nevada	Division	of	Environmental	Protection	

Brita	Tryggvi	– Governor’s	Office	of	Energy

Paul	Thomsen	– Governor’s	Office	of	Energy

Tom	Harvey	– Idaho	Power	Company

John	Carstenson	– Idaho	Power	Company

Starla	Lacy	– Nevada	Energy

Anne-Marie	Cuneo	– PUC	Nevada

Dennis	Laybourn	– Newmont	Nevada	Energy
**EXHIBIT 32**
 
 **Certification of Periodic Financial Report**
 **Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**
 
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Criticare Systems, Inc. (the "Company") certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ Emil H. Soika
 Emil H. Soika, Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 
 Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ Joel D. Knudson
 Joel D. Knudson, Vice President - Finance
 
 
 
 This Certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
Subpart 2002.1 - Definitions

Parent topic: PART 2002 - DEFINITIONS

2002.100 Definitions.

Agency means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Agency Head or Head of the Agency means the NRC Executive Director for Operations, for the

purposes specified in the regulations in this chapter and the FAR. This delegation does not extend to

internal NRC requirements such as clearance levels and Commission papers which specify higher

levels of authority.

Commission means the NRC Commission of five members, or a quorum thereof, sitting as a body, as

provided by Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5841).

Competition Advocate means the individual appointed as such by the Agency Head as required by

Public Law 98-369. The Director, Division of Contracts and Property Management, has been

appointed the Competition Advocate for the NRC.

Head of the Contracting Activity means the Director, Division of Contracts and Property

Management.

Senior Procurement Executive means the individual appointed as such by the Agency Head pursuant

to Executive Order 12352. The Deputy Executive Director for Management Services, has been

appointed the NRC Senior Procurement Executive.

Simplified acquisitions means those acquisitions conducted using the methods, policies, and

procedures of FAR part 13 for making purchases of supplies or services.

Task and Delivery Order Ombudsman means the Director, Division of Contracts and Property

Management, or designee pursuant to section 1004(a) of Pub. L. 103-355, the Federal Acquisition

Streamlining Act.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 614 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 15, 2005 

Mr. BARROW submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend 

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for 

an increase in the Federal minimum wage. 

1 Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 

2 resolution the House shall without intervention of any 

3 point of order consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2429) 

4 to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to pro5 vide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage. The 

6 bill shall be considered as read. The previous question 

7 shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 

8 without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 

9 on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
2 

HRES 614 IH 

1 and ranking minority member of the Committee on Edu2 cation and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to recom3 mit. 

Æ
#### John K. Polichak, Appellant, v. New York Telephone Company, Respondent.

Order of the 'Supreme Court, Hassau County, entered July 25, 1968, affirmed, without costs. Ho opinion. The notice of appeal erroneously refers to the date of entry of the order as August 31,1968. We have treated the notice of appeal as valid (iCPLR 5520, subd. [c]). Beldoek, P. J., Brennan, Benjamin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 402

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 28, 2006.

Whereas infant mortality refers to the death of a baby before 

it reaches its first birthday; 

Whereas the United States ranks 28th among industrialized 

nations in the rate of infant mortality; 

Whereas in the United States, infant mortality increased in 

2002 for the first time in more than four decades; 

Whereas in 2002 the rate reached 7 deaths per 1,000 live 

births, which was the first increase since 1958; 

Whereas the recent increase is a significant and troubling 

public health issue, especially for African American families, Native American families, and Hispanic families; 

Whereas the infant mortality rate among African American 

women is more than double that of Caucasian women, according to a report produced by the National Healthy 

Start Association and by a related group supported by 

the health department of Allegheny County, in the State 

of Pennsylvania; 

Whereas the Secretary of Health and Human Services has 

designated 2010 as the year by which certain objectives 

should be met with respect to the health status of the 

people of the United States; 
2

•HRES 402 EH 

Whereas such objectives, known as Healthy People 2010, include an objective regarding a decrease in the rate of infant mortality; 

Whereas September 1, 2007, is the beginning of a period of 

several months during which there will be several national observances that relate to the issue of infant mortality, including the observance of October as Sudden Infant Death Awareness Month and November as Prematurity Awareness Month; and 

Whereas it would be appropriate to observe September 2007 

as Infant Mortality Awareness Month: Now, therefore, be 

it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports 

the goals and ideals of Infant Mortality Awareness Month in 

order to—

(1) increase national awareness of infant mortality 

and its contributing factors; and 

(2) facilitate activities that will assist local communities in their efforts to meet the objective, as established by the Secretary of Health and Human Service in 

Healthy People 2010, that the rate of infant mortality 

in the United States be reduced to a rate of not more 

than 4.5 infant deaths per 1,000 births. 

Attest:

Clerk.
§ 602.2 Applicability. ( a ) This part applies to all grants and cooperative agreements awarded after the effective date of this rule.
( b ) Except as otherwise provided by this part, the award and administration of grants and cooperative agreements shall be governed by 2 CFR part 200 as amended by 2 CFR part 910 (DOE Financial Assistance Regulation).
[60 FR 5841, Jan. 31, 1995, as amended at 79 FR 76046, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### PEOPLE ex rel. BLANKENBERG v. WALDO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1914.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Charles L. Blankenberg, against Rhinelander Waldo,' as Commissioner. Grant & Rouss, of New York City, for relator. T. Farley, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Writ dismissed, and proceeding affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
H. Res. 64

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 2, 2005.

Resolved, That the following Members be, and are hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the House

of Representatives:

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET: Mr. Crenshaw to

rank after Mr. Ryun of Kansas; Mr. Wicker to rank

after Mr. Putnam and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen to rank after

Mr. Hensarling.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                             340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,563
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,433
<INVENTORY>                                    105,617
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,577
<PP&E>                                         296,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                 192,882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 271,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,272
<BONDS>                                         38,412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,922
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,136
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   271,468
<SALES>                                        218,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               218,803
<CGS>                                          184,181
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  184,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,182
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,685
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,901
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,784
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,784
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.(a).1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350





In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) by Mazor Robotics Ltd. (the "Company"), the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 my knowledge:





(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 28, 2015


/s/ Ori Hadomi

Ori Hadomi

Chief Executive Officer
# L_2023172EN.01002601.xml

| 6.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 172/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 172/26

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 108/2020

of 14 July 2020

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1368]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EU) 2020/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/352, so as to allow the managing body of a port or the competent authority to provide flexibility in respect of the levying of port infrastructure charges in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EU) 2020/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/352, so as to allow the managing body of a port or the competent authority to provide flexibility in respect of the levying of port infrastructure charges in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following is added in point 56z (Regulation (EU) 2017/352 of the European Parliament and of the Council) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

‘, as amended by:

| — | 32020 R 0697: Regulation (EU) 2020/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 (OJ L 165, 27.5.2020, p. 7).’ |
| --- | --- |

—

32020 R 0697: Regulation (EU) 2020/697 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 (OJ L 165, 27.5.2020, p. 7).’

Article 2

The text of Regulation (EU) 2020/697 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 15 July 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1), or on the day of the entry into force of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 128/2019 of 8 May 2019 (2), whichever is the later.

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 14 July 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 165, 27.5.2020, p. 7.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

(2)  
  OJ L 279, 27.10.2022, p. 33.

2

---
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.146 Design control. ( a ) The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish measures to ensure that applicable regulatory requirements and the design basis, as specified in the license or CoC application for those structures, systems, and components to which this section applies, are correctly translated into specifications, drawings, procedures, and instructions. These measures must include provisions to ensure that appropriate quality standards are specified and included in design documents and that deviations from standards are controlled. Measures must be established for the selection and review for suitability of application of materials, parts, equipment, and processes that are essential to the functions of the structures, systems, and components which are important to safety.
( b ) The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish measures for the identification and control of design interfaces and for coordination among participating design organizations. These measures must include the establishment of written procedures among participating design organizations for the review, approval, release, distribution, and revision of documents involving design interfaces. The design control measures must provide for verifying or checking the adequacy of design by methods such as design reviews, alternate or simplified calculational methods, or by a suitable testing program. For the verifying or checking process, the licensee and certificate holder shall designate individuals or groups other than those who were responsible for the original design, but who may be from the same organization. Where a test program is used to verify the adequacy of a specific design feature in lieu of other verifying or checking processes, the licensee and certificate holder shall include suitable qualification testing of a prototype or sample unit under the most adverse design conditions. The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall apply design control measures to items such as the following: criticality physics, radiation, shielding, stress, thermal, hydraulic, and accident analyses; compatibility of materials; accessibility for inservice inspection, maintenance, and repair; features to facilitate decontamination; and delineation of acceptance criteria for inspections and tests.
( c ) The licensee, applicant for a license, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall subject design changes, including field changes, to design control measures commensurate with those applied to the original design. Changes in the conditions specified in the license or CoC require prior NRC approval.
Exhibit 34.2



REPORT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



To the Audit and Finance Committee of the Board of Directors
UnionBanCal Corporation
San Francisco, California



We have examined management’s assertion,
included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that Union Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”), a wholly owned subsidiary of UnionBanCal
Corporation, complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the SEC’s Regulation AB for the
servicing of certain retail installment contracts for the Honda Auto Receivables 2013-1 Owner Trust (the “Platform”)
as of March 31, 2014, and for the period from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014, excluding criteria 1122(d) 1(i), 1(ii), 1(iii), 1(iv), 2(i), 2(iii), 2(iv), 2(v), 2(vi), 2(vii), 3(i), 4(i), 4(ii), 4(iii), 4(iv), 4(v), 4(vi), 4(vii),
4(viii), 4(ix), 4(x), 4(xi), 4(xii), 4(xiii), 4(xiv), and 4(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities
performed by the Bank with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Bank’s compliance with the servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Bank’s compliance with the
servicing criteria based on our examination.



Our examination was conducted in accordance
with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Bank’s
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the
Platform, determining whether the Bank performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the
specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited
to selected servicing activities performed by the Bank during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples
may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination
is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Bank during the period covered by this report. We believe that
our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Bank’s
compliance with the servicing criteria.



In our opinion, management’s assertion
that the Bank complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of March 31, 2014, and for the period from April 1,
2013 to March 31, 2014, for the Honda Auto Receivables 2013-1 Owner Trust is fairly stated, in all material respects.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP



May 28, 2014
### 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 February 7, 2011

d0131 

# Order

February 7, 2011

141147(35)

CARLTON LAMONT BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 141147 COA: 296305

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s October 26, 2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
Exhibit 10.1


 


Force
Protection, Inc.

9801 Highway 78, #3

Ladson, SC  29456

www.forceprotection.net


July
21, 2006


Fort
Ashford Funds, LLC

19200 Von Karman

Suite 600

Irvine, CA  92612


Re:
Extension of Maturity Date - Short Term Note 


Gentlemen:


I refer
to that certain Secured Note in the amount of $2,500,000 having an extended
maturity date of July 21, 2006 issued by Force Protection Inc.  On behalf
of the Company we would hereby request that you agree to a short term extension
of the Maturity Date through a date to be determined.  The existing interest rate on the Secured
Note will be applied pro-rata over the term of the extension.


If this
is acceptable to you, I would ask that you kindly sign below and return by fax
to me at (843) 553-3832.


We
appreciate you cooperation in this matter.


Very
Truly Yours,


	
  /s/ Gordon McGilton

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Gordon McGilton

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Chief Executive
  Officer

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Accepted and Agreed

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  For Fort Ashford Funds

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Frank Kavanaugh

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Frank Kavanaugh

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Principal
#### GOLDENBERG, Appellant, v. FULLER et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 20, 1914.)

Action by Samuel L. Goldenberg against Paul Fuller and another. J. S. Wise, Jr., of New York City, for appellant. C. F. Brown, of New York City, for respondents.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.