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

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

38) ll-B-13 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:53 AM Sheet 38 of 276 
P.2 

jl 'I » itia 'I L

1' J 

^JlW 

(ft 

II-B-13 

NOTE: A signed copy of this item was not available. 
V^iw** 

P.3 

IT'S'/3 

NOTE: This item is missing attachments, 
. , I A^-r ' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRI 2.1 1 

P.4 

ZT-B-/3 

OCT 31980 

MEMORANDUM 

SUETJECTi PSD and NSPS Applicability to a Reactivated Source 

FROM: 

TO i 

Director 

Division of Stationary Source Enforcement 

Sandra 6. Gardebring, Director 

Enforcement Division, Region V 

This is in response to your memo of September 22, I960, in 

which you requested clarification of EPA's policy concerning FSD, 

NSR and NSPS applicability for reactivated sources. 

According to your memo, the source in question (SHE Cement, 

Inc.) has installed and begun operating a rotary cement kiln which 

had been shutdown in 1976. After shutdown in 1976, the emissions 

front the kiln were removed from the state's emissions inventory and 

the owner issued a statement that the closure was permanent. The 

issue of whether the kiln, upon reactivation is subject to PSD or 

NSR review or NSPS, must now be addressed. 

Consistent with previous PSD determinations, (See Attachment A) 

and the purpose of the PSD program, the reactivation of the kiln is 

subject to PSD review, since its 1976 shutdown was deemed permanent. 

For the same reasons that the source's emissions must be assessed 

under PSD, the kiln would also be subject to New Source Review. 

Under NSPS, the kiln would be considered an existing source. 

Reactivation would not subject the kiln to NSPS unless the kiln is 

modified or reconstructed, as defined in 40 CFR 60.14 and 15, 

respectively. This determination is also consistent with previous 

Agency policy (See Attachment E) . 

o. 

CONCURRENCES 

t»i OFFICIAL FILE COFY 
P.5 

0 , 

If you have any questions regarding this determination rleas** 

contact Janet Littlejohn of my staff at'755-2564. 

Edward E. Reich 

Attachments 

cc: "Jim Weigold (CACPS) 

Peter Wyckoff (OGC) 

Mike 'James (OGC)
----

Value added tax (VAT)

(exempt investment gold)

List of gold coins meeting the criteria established in article 26B(a) (ii) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 As amended by Council Directive 98/80/EC of 12 October 1998 (Special scheme for investment gold)

(2006/C 291/08)

Valid for the year 2007

EXPLANATORY NOTE

----
39451.

#### SPIRES v. FITZSIMMONS.

Decided May 11, 1962.

*23*Weltner & Brancun, Charles L. Weltner,*for plaintiff in error.

*Lokey ■& Bowden, Hamilton Lokey,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

“The responsibility of a landlord for damages from personal injuries to a tenant or his invitee, for failure to repair a latent defect in the premises before leasing it, is not absolute, but is predicable only on his knowledge of the defect and consequent necessity for repairs.” *Elijah A. Brown Co. v. Wilson,*191 Ga. 750 (1) (13 SE2d 779).. “This knowledge may, of course, be constructive as well as actual; for the landlord can not, merely by remaining ignorant of the facts out of which his duty arises, exempt himself from responsibility. Accordingly, if the facts be such that by the exercise of ordinary care in the performance of his obligation to keep the premises in repair he ought to have known of a latent defect therein, he becomes answerable in damages to the tenant, or one entering under the authority of the tenant, for personal injuries sustained by reason of such defect. [Citing cases]. *Ordinary care in the fulfillment of the landlord’s duty to keep the premises in repair does not, however, embrace an affirmative duty to make such an inspection of the premises as will disclose the existence of any and all latent defects u>hich, may actually exist therein.*[Emphasis ours]. This would be but to place upon the landlord an absolute duty, not implicit in the statute, to rent premises free from latent defects.” *Elijah A. Brown Co. v. Wilson,*191 Ga. 751, supra.

It is implicit in the decision of the Supreme Court in the *Brown*case, supra, that there exists no absolute duty of inspec*24tion upon a landlord to discover defects in the premises prior to leasing them, for the reason that ordinary diligence, which is the measure of the duty imposed upon the landlord in such case, does not require an inspection where the landlord has no reason to think an inspection is necessary. See *Cuthbert v. Schofield,*35 Ga. App. 443 (133 SE 303); *Williamson v. Kidd,*65 Ga. App. 285 (15 SE2d 801); *McCarthy v. Hiers,*81 Ga. App. 365 (59 SE2d 22).

Accordingly, where, as in the instant case, the petition does not allege facts showing actual knowledge of the alleged defect on the part of the landlord and where the circumstances alleged fail to disclose that there was anything to indicate the propriety or necessity of making an inspection to ascertain the possible or probable existence of any defects, a cause of action is not set forth against the defendant landlord because of the failure to repair the alleged defect in the premises prior.to giving possession to the lessee.

The trial- court did not err therefore in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition as amended.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-5 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2015 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 21, 2015, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2015-5 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jennifer M. DavisName:

Jennifer M. DavisTitle:

Deputy Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016/s/ Rich
MorrinName:

Rich MorrinTitle:

Chief Operating OfficerDate:

March 29, 2016
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 5178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1876]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1813-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Massachusetts; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-1813-DR), dated January 5, 
2009, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: January 16, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is hereby amended to include the 
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely 
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of January 5, 2009.

    Essex and Middlesex Counties for Public Assistance, including 
direct Federal assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-1876 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
----

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Germany) — Alois Kibler jun. v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-275/05) (1)

(Milk and milk products - Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 - Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector - Regulations (EEC) Nos 857/84, 590/85 and 1546/88 - Transfer of the reference quantity following the return of part of a holding - Landlord who is not himself a producer of milk or milk products - Rural lease voluntarily brought to an end)

(2006/C 326/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alois Kibler jun.

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 590/85 of 26 February 1985 (OJ 1985 L 68, p. 1), and of Article 7(2), (3) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1988 L 139, p. 12) — Return to a landlord, who is not himself a producer, of part of a dairy farm which has been let out — Transfer of the reference quantity which is attached thereto

Operative part of the judgment

----

(1)OJ C 229, 17.09.2005.

----
<page>  EXHIBIT 32.01

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 Quarterly Report of Dean Witter Principal
Plus Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Jeffrey A.
Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, 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:
(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 Partnership.









By:  	/s/Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		   Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	   President

Date:		   May 16, 2005
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFree-edge delamination: Laminate width and loading conditions effectsThe width and loading conditions effects on free-edge stress fields in composite laminates are investigated using a three-dimensional finite element analysis. This analysis includes a special free-edge region refinement or superelement with progrssive substructuring (mesh refinement) and finite thickness interply layers. The different loading conditions include in-plane and out-of-plane bending, combined axial tension and in-plane shear, twisting, uniform temperature and uniform moisture. Results obtained indicate that: axial tension causes the smallest magnitude of interlaminar free edge stress compared to other loading conditions; free-edge delamination data obtained from laboratory specimens cannot be scaled to structural components; and composite structural components are not likely to delaminate.Document ID19880003169Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMurthy, P. L. N.*(Cleveland State Univ. Ohio., United States)*Chamis, C. C.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateDecember 1, 1987Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-100238NAS 1.15:100238E-3862Accession Number88N12551Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-11Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19880003169.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 1.9001-4 Adjustments required in computing excess-profits credit. ( a ) *In general.* Subsection (f) of the Act provides adjustments required to be made in computing the excess-profits credit for any taxable year under the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1940 (54 Stat. 975) or under the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 1137). These adjustments are set forth in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, and they shall apply notwithstanding the terms-letter.
( b ) *Equity invested capital.* ( 1 ) Pursuant to subsection (f)(1) of the Act, in determining equity invested capital for any day of any taxable year under section 458 (relating to the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1950) or section 718 (relating to the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1940) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the accumulated earnings and profits as of the changeover date, and as of the beginning of each taxable year thereafter, shall be reduced by the depreciation sustained before March 1, 1913, on all retirement-straight line property held on March 1, 1913, by the taxpayer or a predecessor for which cost was or is claimed as basis and which was held on the changeover date by the taxpayer or a predecessor.
( 2 ) For the computation of accumulated earnings and profits in determining equity invested capital, see 26 CFR (1941 Supp.) 30.718-2, as amended by Treasury Decision 5299, approved October 1, 1943, 8 FR 13451, C.B. 1943, 747 (Regulations 109); 26 CFR (1943 Cum. Supp.) 35.718-2 (Regulations 112); and 26 CFR (1939) 41.458-4 (Regulations 130).
( c ) *Equity capital.* ( 1 ) Pursuant to subsection (f)(2) of the Act, in determining the adjusted basis of assets for the purpose of computing equity capital for any day under section 437(c) (relating to the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1950) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, the basis of the assets which enter into the computation shall also be reduced by: ( i ) Depreciation sustained before March 1, 1913, on all retirement-straight line property held on March 1, 1913, by the taxpayer or a predecessor for which cost was or is claimed as basis and which was: ( a ) Retired before the changeover date by the taxpayer or a predecessor, or
( b ) Held on the changeover date by the taxpayer or a predecessor and also held as of the beginning of the day for which the equity capital is being determined; and
( ii ) All depreciation applicable to the assets which enter into the computation and allowable under the terms-letter for all periods on and after the changeover date and before the taxable year for which the excess-profits credit is being computed.
( 2 ) The adjustment required to be made by subparagraph (1)(i)(*a*) of this paragraph as of the beginning of the day for which the equity capital is being determined shall be made in accordance with the conditions and limitation described in paragraph (b)(2) of § 1.9001-2.
( 3 ) For the determination of equity capital under section 437(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, see 26 CFR (1939) 40.437-5 (Regulations 130).
DEALER RESERVE INCOME ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1960
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000855876
<NAME> CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          29,718
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             208
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    299,697
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          50,954
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            51,113
<LOANS>                                        623,494
<ALLOWANCE>                                     11,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,045,722
<DEPOSITS>                                     717,469
<SHORT-TERM>                                   170,117
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,901
<LONG-TERM>                                     53,865
<COMMON>                                        16,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      78,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,045,722
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 29,111
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,762
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    57
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                39,930
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              13,769
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,774
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           21,156
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      825
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,777
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,552
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      12,552
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,442
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.50
<LOANS-NON>                                        929
<LOANS-PAST>                                     3,278
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   413
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,659
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                11,350
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      911
<RECOVERIES>                                       495
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,759
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,203
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          9,556
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

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 July 19, 2006

l0712 

# Order

July 19, 2006

129688

J. W. HOBBS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 129688 COA: 254069 Ct of Claims: 02-000166-MT REVENUE DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 1, 2005 judgm ent of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.