alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C. 20549**

**FORM 10-K**

**[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002

OR

**[  ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

Commission File Number 0-11176

**NTS-PROPERTIES III***(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)*

|                                        |                                            |
|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                        | 10172 Linn Station Road                    |
| 61-1017240                             | Louisville, Kentucky 40223                 |
| *(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)* | *(Address of principal executive offices)* |

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (502) 426-4800

Georgia(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Title of each Class: None

Name of each exchange on which registered: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

|                               |  |      |
|-------------------------------|--|------|
| Limited partnership interests |  | None |
|                               |  |      |

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

In the matter of The State ofConnecticut and Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation ) ) ) ) ) Trading Agreement and Order 8I09 Modification No.3

Whereas, the Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation ("Respondent") having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading Agreement and Order 8I09 and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement, further modify said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows: I. All references to May I, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions reduction credittrading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to comply with the emissions limits ofSubsections 22a-1 74-22(d)(I) through 22a-174- 22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ("Regulations") are hereby replaced with May 1,2010. 2. Delete the Full Load Emission Rates (FLERs) in Table I ofTrading Agreement and order 8109 and substitute the following therefor:

Boilers in Building# 1 Boiler Fuel FLERs Lbs/MMBlu Boiler #I #6 oil 0.425 Boiler#2 #6 oil 0.434 Boiler #3 #6 oil 0.445

3. All references to September 1,2008 with respect to the submission ofFuture Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009. 4. No laterthan May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading Agreement and Order 8109 and/orits subsequentmodifications, the Respondent shall comply with the requirements ofSections 22a-174-22(d)(I) and 22a-174-22(d)(2)(A) of the Regulations. 5. All otherterms and conditions ofTrading Agreement and Order 8109, as modified, shall remain in effect. (Printed on Recycled Paper) 79 Elm Street • Hartford. CT 06106-5127 www.ct.govldcp An Equal Opportunity Employer•
Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation 2 Trading Agreement and Order 8109 Modification No.3

The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement and Order without further notice. Hamilton Sundst#d Corpor,ion 

# ? .'

# Signature:~VL/h}~~" l,.,.A.YJ v"/ Name: 

### J{el'di 

## ff.-DI'rc5IYlS Title: J)1fU,,+z,
... 

### rJJecbarHW/

## Op~S Date: 

## 'i

# /1 (,; /01 

# , Issued as amodification ofa Trading Agreement and Order. 

# d. 

# 4**C4--l.~-~cro1'** Ga Ro Date Director Engineering and Enforcement Division Bureau ofAir Management
#### Manning License

*George C. Eppinger,*for appellant.

*Rudolph M. Wertime,*for Commonwealth.

December 10, 1954.

Wingerd, P. J.,

*Findings of Fact*

1. On December 3, 1952, at about 5:45 p.m., appellant, Clifton A. Manning, drove an International truck tractor drawing a Fruehauf trailer, a combination of vehicles for which the-maximum speed limit is 30 miles per hour, at a speed of about 50 miles per hour for a distance of seven tenths of ,a mile on the two-lane concrete highway known as United States Route No. 11 beween. Middlesex and Carlisle, Pa.

2. The weather was clear, the .highway dry and free of obstruction^ and traffic was light.

3. Appellant is an experienced truck driver having driven motor vehicles for about .20 years and is averaging about 50,000 miles per year,

4. There was no evidence or indication of any recklessness on the part of appellant or any improper *226driving except excessive speed and he had never been arrested previously for any violation of The Vehicle code and had had no accident.

5. There was no accident involved in the present case.

6. Appellant was prosecuted by a State Police officer, pleaded guilty and paid the fine and costs without a hearing.

7. The Secretary of Revenue suspended appellant’s license for a period of 90 days'on the ground of “speeding” and from this action the present appeal is taken.

*Discussion*

As in all appeals from the order of suspension of a driver’s license by the Secretary of Revenue, this court heard the case de novo. As set forth in the findings of fact, supra, appellant is an experienced truck driver who has been driving motor vehicles for about 20 years. As a truck driver he was driving on an average of about 50,000 miles per year. He had never been arrested for any violation of The Vehicle Code nor had any accident. He was driving a large tractor trailer, the speed for which, as defined by The Vehicle Code, is 30 miles per hour, at approximately 50 miles per hour on a clear, dry day on a level concrete road in the evening about dusk. There was very little traffic and no evidence of any improper operation of the truck except excessive speed.

The facts of this case are almost exactly the same as Hardwick Automobile License Case, 348 Pa. 266, in which the lower court concluded that the “ ‘case does not appear so grave as to warrant a double penalty’ and sustained the appeal.”

The Supreme Court on review stated; “There is nothing in the record requiring this Court to hold that there has been a manifest abuse of discretion by the court below.”

*227This court feels to impose a suspension of driver’s license in the instant case is too severe a penalty under all the circumstances and that the appeal should be sustained.

Now, December 10,1954, the order of the Secretary of Revenue is reversed and the suspension vacated at the cost of the Commonwealth.
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 quarterly report of Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities
and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, 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.












/s/ Renyi Hou


Renyi Hou


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


August 16, 2010





/s/ Wilson W. Liu


Wilson W. Liu


Chief Financial Officer


August 16, 2010







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Apollo Solar Energy Inc. and will be retained by Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Thomas W. PICKENS v. Honorable L. P. HIGGINBOTHAM, Judge 19th Judicial District; Victor Townsley, Deputy Probation and Paroles; Department of Corrections.

No. 67644.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 23, 1980.

In re Thomas W. Pickens applying for remedial writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge. No. 3-80-168, Section IV.

Denied.
§ 1005.7 Discovery. ( a ) A party may make a request to another party for production of documents for inspection and copying which are relevant and material to the issues before the ALJ.
( b ) For the purpose of this section, the term documents includes information, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers and other data and documentary evidence. Nothing contained in this section will be interpreted to require the creation of a document, except that requested data stored in an electronic data storage system will be produced in a form accessible to the requesting party.
( c ) Requests for documents, requests for admissions, written interrogatories, depositions and any forms of discovery, other than those permitted under paragraph (a) of this section, are not authorized.
( d ) This section will not be construed to require the disclosure of interview reports or statements obtained by any party, or on behalf of any party, of persons who will not be called as witnesses by that party, or analyses and summaries prepared in conjunction with the investigation or litigation of the case, or any otherwise privileged documents.
( e ) ( 1 ) When a request for production of documents has been received, within 30 days the party receiving that request will either fully respond to the request, or state that the request is being objected to and the reasons for that objection. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part will be specified. Upon receiving any objections, the party seeking production may then, within 30 days or any other time frame set by the ALJ, file a motion for an order compelling discovery. (The party receiving a request for production may also file a motion for protective order any time prior to the date the production is due.)
( 2 ) The ALJ may grant a motion for protective order or deny a motion for an order compelling discovery if the ALJ finds that the discovery sought— ( i ) Is irrelevant,
( ii ) Is unduly costly or burdensome,
( iii ) Will unduly delay the proceeding, or
( iv ) Seeks privileged information.
( 3 ) The ALJ may extend any of the time frames set forth in paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
( 4 ) The burden of showing that discovery should be allowed is on the party seeking discovery.
[57 FR 3350, Jan. 29, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 5618, Jan. 22, 1993; 65 FR 24418, Apr. 26, 2000; 65 FR 35584, June 5, 2000; 67 FR 11936, Mar. 18, 2002]
HomeCzech Republic

# Czech Republic

119 items

        -    Media Note  		The Czech Republic Signs the Artemis Accords	  May 3, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on Media Freedom by the United States and the Czech Republic	  May 2, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Joint Statement on the Strategic Dialogue between the United States and the Czech Republic	  May 2, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Czech Foreign Minister Lipavský	  May 2, 2023 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken And Czech Republic Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 2, 2023Thomas Jefferson RoomWashington, D.C.  
        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Czech Republic	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Follow-Up to Terezin Declaration Conference on Holocaust Era Issues 	  December 15, 2022 
        -    Remarks  		Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s Remarks at the Aspen Ministers Forum	  December 10, 2022 Prague, Czech Republic 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Czech Foreign Minister Lipavsky	  December 10, 2022 
        -    Readout  		Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Meeting with Czech National Security Advisor Pojar	  December 10, 2022 

previous page1…34567…12next page

Back to Top
#### George A. BILUNKA, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MARINO; Eric Stokmanis; Correctional Medical Services; Kathy Jensen; Dagmar Mekinley; Robert Hendrix; Bill Domat; Theryn Waggner; Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-15841.

D.C. No. CV-98-00242-ECR(PHA).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.1

Decided Feb. 22, 2001.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

1

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

MEMORANDUM2

George A. Bilunka Jr., a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendants Marino and Stokmanis in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo grants of summary judgment, *see Robi v. Reed,*173 F.3d 736, 739 (9th Cir.1999), *cert. denied,*528 U.S. 952, 120 S.Ct. 375, 145 L.Ed.2d 293 (1999), and affirm.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant Marino because a difference in opinion between inmate and physician regarding treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference. *See Jackson v. McIntosh,*90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1996).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendant Stokmanis because Bilunka did not suffer harm from the delay in treatment. *See McGuckin v. Smith,*974 F.2d 1050, 1060 (9th Cir.1992), *overruled on other grounds, WMX Tech. Inc. v. Miller,*104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc).

Bilunka’s remaining contentions regarding his Objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations, his Reply to Opposition for Objections to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations, and *468his motion to alter or amend judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

2

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08462**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 08462\08462_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08462\08462_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 08462\08462_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 08462\08462_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08462\08462_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08462\08462_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08462\08462_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 08462\08462_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

08462\Certification Statement Plant ID 08462.pdf Plant certification statement 08462\Supplemental Documents\08462_IPL's Response to EPA ICR_IPL_091510.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 08462\Supplemental Documents\08462_LAN A5-2 MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08462\Supplemental Documents\08462_LAN D2-3 Settling Pond Evaluation.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08462\Supplemental Documents\08462_LAN D3-1 D-1 and D-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08462\Supplemental Documents\08462_LAN SE Unit 3 C2-22.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08462\Supplemental Documents\08462_LAN SE Unit 4 C2-31 BD-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08462\Supplemental Documents\08462_LGS A5-3 WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 08462\Supplemental Documents\08462_LGS A5-3 WB-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
§ 124.3 Eligibility. ( a ) *Eligible applicants.* A grant under section 1625 may only be made to a State or political subdivision of a State, including any city, town, county, borough, hospital district authority, or public or quasi-public corporation for a project described in paragraph (b) of this section for a medical facility owned, operated, or owned and operated by the State or political subdivision.
( b ) *Eligible project.* A grant under section 1625 may be made only for a construction and/or modernization project designed to: ( 1 ) Eliminate or prevent safety hazards which under Federal, State, and/or local fire, building or life safety codes or regulations, will, in the judgment of the Secretary result in one or more of the following: ( i ) Loss of licensure for the facility.
( ii ) Closing of all or a substantial part of the facility,
( iii ) Loss of eligibility for reimbursement under title XVIII or title XIX of the Social Security Act; or
( 2 ) Avoid noncompliance with State licensure or voluntary accreditation standards where noncompliance will, in the judgment of the Secretary, result in one or both of the following: ( i ) Loss of licensure for the facility,
( ii ) Loss of accreditation resulting in loss of eligibility for reimbursement under title XVIII or title XIX of the Social Security Act.
§ 8.22 Application for enrollment. ( a ) *Information to be furnished.* An applicant for enrollment to practice shall state his or her name, address, and business address, citizenship, and age on the application. The applicant shall also state if he or she has ever been suspended or disbarred as an attorney or certified public accountant, or if the applicant's right to practice has ever been revoked by any court, commission, or administrative agency in any jurisdiction. The applicant shall set forth his or her technical qualifications as required by § 8.21(b) which enable him or her to render valuable service before the Bureau. The applicant shall indicate which area or areas of Bureau matters in which he or she desires to practice (alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or explosives matters).
( b ) *Fee.* Each application for enrollment will be accompanied by a check or money order in the amount of $25, payable to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. This fee will be retained by the United States whether or not the applicant is granted enrollment. Agents who are enrolled to practice before the Internal Revenue Service prior to September 27, 1977, need not include this fee and should indicate their enrollment number on the application.
( c ) *Execution under oath.* All applications for enrollment will be executed under oath or affirmation.
( d ) *Filing.* Applications for enrollment will be filed with the Assistant Director, Regulatory Enforcement, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1200 Pensylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20226.
( e ) *Additional information.* The Director, as a condition to consideration for enrollment, may require the applicant to file additional information as necessary to determine if the applicant is qualified. The Director shall, upon written request, afford an applicant the opportunity to be heard with respect to his or her application for enrollment.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1512-0418) (Sec. 501, Pub. L. 82-137, 65 Stat. 290 (31 U.S.C. 483a); 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (80 Stat. 383, as amended))
[42 FR 33026, June 29, 1977; 42 FR 36455, July 15, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 14944, Apr. 16, 1984]
§ 137.215 How does a Self-Governance Tribe obtain title to real and personal property furnished by the Federal Government for use in the performance of a compact, funding agreement, construction project agreement, or grant agreement pursuant to section 512(c) of the Act [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-11(c)]? ( a ) For government-furnished real and personal property made available to a Self-Governance Tribe, the Self-Governance Tribe must take title to all real or personal property unless the Self-Governance Tribe requests that the United States retain the title.
( b ) For government-furnished personal property made available to a Self-Governance Tribe: ( 1 ) The Secretary, in consultation with each Self-Governance Tribe, must develop a list of the property used in a compact, funding agreement, or construction project agreement.
( 2 ) The Self-Governance Tribe must indicate any items on the list to which the Self-Governance Tribe wants the Secretary to retain title.
( 3 ) The Secretary must provide the Self-Governance Tribe with any documentation needed to transfer title to the remaining listed property to the Self-Governance Tribe.
( c ) For government-furnished real property made available to a Self-Governance Tribe: ( 1 ) The Secretary, in consultation with the Self-Governance Tribe, must develop a list of the property furnished for use in a compact, funding agreement, or construction project agreement.
( 2 ) The Secretary must inspect any real property on the list to determine the presence of any hazardous substance activity, as defined in 41 CFR 101-47.202-2(b)(10).
( 3 ) The Self-Governance Tribe must indicate on the list to the Secretary any items of real property to which the Self-Governance Tribe wants the Secretary to retain title and those items of property to which the Self-Governance Tribe wishes to obtain title. The Secretary must take such steps as necessary to transfer title to the Self-Governance Tribe those items of real property which the Self-Governance Tribe wishes to acquire.
§ 136.42 Appointment actions. ( a ) Preference will be afforded a person meeting any one of the definitions of § 136.41 whether the placement in the position involves initial appointment, reappointment, reinstatement, transfer, reassignment, promotion, or any other personnel action intended to fill a vacancy.
( b ) Preference eligibles may be given a schedule A excepted appointment under 5 CFR 213.3116(b)(8). If the individuals are within reach on a Civil Service Register, they may be given a competitive appointment.
[64 FR 58321, Oct. 28, 1999. Redesignated and amended at 67 FR 35342, May 17, 2002]
#### Ex Parte READ NEWS AGENCY, INC., et al. In re READ NEWS AGENCY, INC., et al. v. Guy E. MOMAN, Sr.

79-503.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 30, 1980.

MADDOX, Justice.

WRIT DENIED — NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
U N ITED STATES ENVI RON M ENTAL PROTECTION AG ENCY Off ice of

### Air Ouality Planning and Standards Research 

### Triangle Park, 

### North Carolina 27711



### MEMORANDUM 

## SUBJECT: Industry Meetings Regarding Petitions 

### for Reconsideration 

### FROM: TO: Brian Shrager, 

### Environmental Engine

## "t

# â-5

OAQPS/SPPD/ESG 

### Docket 

### ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058 Various 

### industry groups that submitted 

### petitions for reconsideration and data

### to support the reconsideration 

### effort met 

### with representatives 

### of the U.S. 

### EPA to discuss 

### their petitions and data submittals. The 

### industry groups andthe dates

### of the meetings are presented 

### below: American Home 

### Fumishings 

### Alliance: June 

### 9,

## 20ll andAugust 

## 3I,20II American Iron and Steel 

### Institute: 

### July 79,2011 American Petroleum 

### Institute and 

### National Petroleum Refiners 

### Association: July 

### 26,2011 American Forest and Paper 

### Association: June 7, 2071, 

### August 31, 2011, and September 29,

## 20II Southeastern Lumb er 

### ManufacturersAssociation : September 26, 20 I 

### I The issues discussed can be

### found in the 

### petitionsfor reconsideration submitted by these groups, 

### which are located 

### in docket 

### EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0058.