alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DESIGN VALUE REPORT Nov. 22, 2011 Report Request ID: 931249 Report Code: AMP480

Selection Criteria Page 1 User ID: HXN

State County City

Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA EPA Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date 42 42 095

095 0025

0027 88101

88101 GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

SELECTED OPTIONS

USER SITE METADATA MERGE PDF FILES QUARTERLY DATA IN WORKFILE WORKFILE DELIMITER SINGLE EVENT PROCESSING Option Type Option Value STREET ADDRESS YES NO

, EXCLUDE REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENTS GLOBAL DATES

2010 Start Date End Date 2010 Tribal Code

APPLICABLE STANDARDS Standard Description PM25 24-hour 2006 PM25 Annual 2006UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Nov. 22, 2011

Notes: 1. Warning: Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 1 of 2UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY DESIGN VALUE REPORT Report Date: Nov. 22, 2011

Notes: 1. Warning: Computed design values are a snapshot of the data at the time the report was run (may not be all data for year). 2. Annual Values not meeting completeness criteria are marked with an asterisk ('*'). Page 2 of 2 

### Pollutant: Standard Units: NAAQS Standard: Statistic: Statistic: Site-LevelPM2.5 - Local Conditions(88101) Micrograms/cubic meter (LC)(105) PM25 24-hour 2006 / PM25 Annual 2006 Annual Weighted Mean Annual 98th Percentile Level: Level: Design Value Year: 2010

REPORT EXCLUDES MEASUREMENTS WITH REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENT FLAGS. 15 35 State Name: Pennsylvania Site_ID / STREET ADDRESS | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs Wtd.

Mean 98th Perctil Cert. | | | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Cred. Days Comp. Qrtrs 98th Perctil Wtd.

Mean Cert. |

| | Design Value Valid

Ind. | | | Design Value Valid

Ind. 24-Hour Annual 2010 2009 2008

42-095-0025 42-095-0027 WASHINGTON & CAMBRIA STS. FREEMANSBURG 2604 Schoenersville Road 335 346 4

4 33.3 27.6 13.7

9.8 N

N 341 4 30.1 11.9

* N 360 4 33.1 12.3

* Y 32 28 Y
N 12.6

9.8 Y
N
Exhibit 31(a)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Interphase Corporation (the Company);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
     5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the
audit committee of the Companys board of directors:
   Date:
    
    August 10, 2010
    
    Signature:
    
    /s/ Gregory B. Kalush

Chief Executive Officer
- Bureau Home
- About Us
- Industry Engagement
- Project Portfolio
- Releases
- Careers
- Contact Us

HomeBureau of Overseas Buildings Operations...Releases – Overseas Buildings Operations

# 						Releases – Overseas Buildings Operations					

60 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year20242023202220212020

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a LocationAfghanistanBrazilChinaColombiaDemocratic Republic of the CongoGuatemalaIndiaIndonesiaItalyKosovoMalawiMauritiusMexicoMontenegroMoroccoMozambiqueNamibiaNigerNigeriaPakistanParaguayQatarSaudi ArabiaSingaporeSri LankaTaiwanThailandTurkeyUnited KingdomVietnam

Select a Release TypeDipNote: Education and CultureFact SheetMedia Note

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of African AffairsBureau of Consular AffairsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of Diplomatic TechnologyBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Energy ResourcesBureau of European and Eurasian AffairsBureau of Near Eastern AffairsBureau of Overseas Buildings OperationsBureau of South and Central Asian AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDeputy Secretary of State for Management and ResourcesOffice of Management Strategy and SolutionsOffice of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

          -    Media Note  		The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations Receives LEED® Gold Certifications for  U.S. Embassy Pristina and U.S. Consulate General Nuevo Laredo	  July 12, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		Annual GDI-OBO Resilience Innovation Grant Recipients Announced	  June 28, 2022 
          -    		Melissa Johnson	   
          -    		Rollie Miller	   
          -    Media Note  		The Department of State Celebrates the Groundbreaking of the New U.S. Embassy in Doha, Qatar	  May 9, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		Annual Greening Diplomacy Initiative Award Winners Announced	  April 22, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		The Department of State Breaks Ground on New U.S. Consulate General in Milan, Italy	  April 6, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		Department of State Begins Construction on New U.S. Consulate General in Lagos, Nigeria	  March 31, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		New U.S. Embassy Project in Niamey Achieves LEED® Platinum	  January 11, 2022 
          -    Media Note  		U.S. Department of State Announces Design/Build Construction Award for the U.S. Embassy in Lilongwe	  December 15, 2021 

previous page123456next page

Back to Top
<PAGE>
                                                              Exhibit 10.2(a)


                                    EXHIBIT A

                                    INVENTORY

Wallace & Gromit in Project Zoo (on the PS2)

Wallace & Gromit in Project Zoo (on the Gamecube)

Wallace & Gromit in Project Zoo (on the Xbox)

Carmen Sandiego (on the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox)

Ed, Edd n Eddy (on the Advanced Game Boy)

PPG Him & Seek (on the Advanced Game Boy)

Samarai Jack (on the Advanced Game Boy)

My Disney Kitchen (on the PSX)

PPG (on the PS2)

Amendment Date: October 17, 2003

Phillips Land LLC (initials of auth. rep) GRP

BAM! Entertainment, Inc. (initials of auth. rep) SMA

                                        i
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2155 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2155

To provide for the conversion of a temporary judgeship for the district 
                  of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2007

 Ms. Hirono (for herself and Mr. Abercrombie) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for the conversion of a temporary judgeship for the district 
                  of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship.

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

SECTION 1. CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP TO PERMANENT JUDGESHIP FOR 
              THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII.

    (a) In General.--The existing judgeship for the district of Hawaii 
authorized by section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 
(28 U.S.C. 133 note; Public Law 101-650; 104 Stat. 5089) shall, as of 
the date of enactment of this Act, be authorized under section 133 of 
title 28, United States Code, and the incumbent in that office shall 
hold the office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as 
amended by this Act.
    (b) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 133(a) of 
title 28, United States Code, will reflect the change in the total 
number of permanent district judgeships authorized as a result of 
subsection (a) of this section, the item relating to Hawaii is amended 
to read as follows:

 
 
 
  ``Hawaii.............................  4''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Isaiah *v.*The State.

*Carrying Concealed Weapon.*

(Decided June 30, 1911.

Rehearing denied April 4, 1912.

58 South. 57.)

1. *Carrying Concealed Weapons; Statute; Constitutionality.*— The Acts of 1909, p. 258, section 2 thereof, is not unconstitutional.

2. *Costs; Rate; Criminal Prosecution.*— Under section 7635, Code 1907, the rate per day at which a defendant can be sentenced for the payment of costs is 75 cents and not forty.

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon, Armstead Brown.

Jacob Isaiali was convicted of carrying a concealed pistol, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

A1 constitutional question having arisen, it was referred to the Supreme Court under the statute, and in accordance with their answer upholding the constitutionality of the act, the judgment is affirmed after being corrected as to costs. See *Isaiah v. The State,*58 South. 33, for the opinion on the constitutionality of the act.

Hill, Hill, Whiting & Stern, Evans & Parrish, and M. D. Brainard, for appellant.

The indictment was demurrable for being in the *alternative.*— Mays *v. The State,*89 Ala. 39; *Noble v. The State,*59 Ala. 73. *139Section 2 of tlie act under which this indictment is drawn is unconstitutional. — Amendment No. 2, Constitution U. S.; *U. S. v. OndJcshanks,*92 U. S. 542; *Presser so. III..*116 U. S. 252; *Speers v. The State,*123 U. S. 131; Sec. 26, Constitution 1901. The carrying of concealed weapons may be prohibited. In other words, the manner of carrying may be regulated, but the carrying cannot be *prohibited.'*— Reecl *v. The State,*1 Ala. 616; *Owen v. The State,*31 Ala. 387; *Dtmston v. The State,*1244 Ala. 89. But the carryign cannot be *prohibited.*— Eng*lish v. The State,*35 Tex. 472; *Amclr&ics v. The State,*3 Heisk. 165; *Dobbs v. The State,*39 Ark. 363; *State v. Burgoyne,*7 Lea. 173; *Oollier v. The State,*68 Ala. 499; *Bsc parte Thelmas,*by *Olda.*77, reaches an improper conclusion.

B. C. BricivELL, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

WALKEB, P. J.

Following the ruling of the Supreme Court on the question submitted to it by this court as to the constitutional validity of the provision of section 2 of the act to regulate the right to carry a pistol in this state, approved August 26, 1909 (General and Local Acts Special Session 1909, p. 258), it must be held that the action of the trial court in overruling the demurrer to the indictment was correct.

The court, should have sentenced for the costs at the rate of 75 cents a day, as provided by section 7635 of the Code, and not at the rate of 40 cents a *day*.—Dowling *v. City of Troy,*1 Ala. App. 508, 56 South. 118. In this respect the judgment will be here corrected, without costs.

Corrected and affirmed.
§ 68.10 What loans are ineligible for repayment? The following loans are ineligible for repayment under the NIH LRPs: ( a ) Loans not obtained from a bank, credit union, savings and loan association, not-for-profit organization, insurance company, school, and other financial or credit institution that is subject to examination and supervision in its capacity as a lending institution by an agency of the United States or of the state in which the lender has its principal place of business;
( b ) Loans for which supporting documentation is not available;
( c ) Loans that have been consolidated with loans of other individuals, such as spouses or children;
( d ) Loans or portions of loans obtained for educational or living expenses that exceed the standard of reasonableness as determined by the participant's standard school budget for the year in which the loan was made and are not determined by the NIH to be reasonable based on additional documentation provided by the individual;
( e ) Loans, financial debts, or service obligations incurred under the following programs, or similar programs, which provide loans, scholarships, loan repayments, or other awards in exchange for a future service obligation: ( 1 ) Armed Forces (Army, Navy, or Air Force) Professions Scholarship Program,
( 2 ) Exceptional Financial Need (EFN) Scholarship Program,
( 3 ) Financial Assistance for Disadvantaged Health Professions Students (FADHPS),
( 4 ) Indian Health Service Scholarship Program,
( 5 ) National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program,
( 6 ) National Institutes of Health Undergraduate Scholarship Program (UGSP),
( 7 ) National Research Service Award (NRSA) Program,
( 8 ) Physicians Shortage Area Scholarship Program,
( 9 ) Primary Care Loans (PCL), and
( 10 ) Public Health Service Scholarship Program;
( f ) Any loan in default, delinquent, or not in a current payment status;
( g ) Any Federal educational loan debt—including debt arising from the conversion of a service obligation to a loan—that has been in default or written off as uncollectible is ineligible for repayment under the Program, even if currently considered to be in good standing;
( h ) Loan amounts that participants were due to have been paid prior to the LRP contract start date;
( i ) Parents PLUS loans (except the Graduate PLUS loans for students);
( j ) Loans for which promissory notes have been signed after the LRP contract start date (with the exception of qualifying student loan consolidations); and
( k ) Home equity loans or other noneducational loans.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I
Editorial Note: Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

§ 11.107 Conflict of interest; Current clients. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a practitioner shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: ( 1 ) The representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
( 2 ) There is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the practitioner's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the practitioner.
( b ) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a) of this section, a practitioner may represent a client if: ( 1 ) The practitioner reasonably believes that the practitioner will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
( 2 ) The representation is not prohibited by law;
( 3 ) The representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the practitioner in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and
( 4 ) Each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

208) IV-C-175 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:02 AM Sheet 208 of 232 
P.2 

JUL I 7 133! 

flJ_J_J_JL_U. .fjj) 

AUG - I 1991 

Governor.James G. Martin 

State of North Carolina 

Office of the Governor 

Raleigh, NC 27603-8001 

Dear Governor Martin: 

This is in response to your letter to EPA Administrator 

William K. Reilly dated June 12, 1991, regarding the 

implementation of onboard refueling vapor controls for.motor 

vehicles. We appreciate your comments. 

As you pointed out in your letter, Congress directed the 

EPA to promulgate an onboard rule within one year of enactment 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments, that is, by November 15, 

1991. It also directed EPA to consult with the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) regarding onboard system safety as part of 

this rulemaking. This consultation is well underway. The 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which 

is part of the DOT, is planning to release an assessment of 

onboard system safety this month. When we receive this report 

EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing 

the reopening of the public comment period on the original 

onboard proposal, which was issued in 1987. Because this was 

several years ago, the Federal Register notice will contain an 

assessment of circumstances that have changed since that time. 

We will also conduct a public hearing on the matter later this 

summer. 

Thanks again for your comments. They will be included in 

the public docket for this rulemaking. Please feel free to 

contact me if you require any additional information. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED' BY 

DONALD E. ZINGER 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

SDSB:H.Puliese:334:2565 Plymouth Rd:DD#4738W 

Last Reviewed by Phil Lorang:7/16/91:Control No. AX911924 

Reviewed by DZINGER:hp:x27647:7/17/91:AR-455:Wang N0-2328T
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

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

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

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

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

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

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

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

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

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

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

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

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 41.5 Counsel.

While the Board has jurisdiction:

(a) *Appearance pro hac vice.* The Board may authorize a person other than a registered practitioner to appear as counsel in a specific proceeding.

(b) *Disqualification.*

(1) The Board may disqualify counsel in a specific proceeding after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

(2) A decision to disqualify is not final for the purposes of judicial review until certified by the Chief Administrative Patent Judge.

(c) *Withdrawal.* Counsel may not withdraw from a proceeding before the Board unless the Board authorizes such withdrawal. *See* § 11.116 of this subchapter regarding conditions for withdrawal.

(d) *Procedure.* The Board may institute a proceeding under this section on its own or a party in a contested case may request relief under this section.

(e) *Referral to the Director of Enrollment and Discipline.* Possible violations of the disciplinary rules in part 11 of this subchapter may be referred to the Office of Enrollment and Discipline for investigation. See § 11.22 of this subchapter.

[69 FR 50003, Aug. 12, 2004, as amended at 73 FR 47704, Aug. 14, 2008; 78 FR 20211, Apr. 3, 2013]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Lamont JACKSON, Appellant.

No. 98-1964EM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 22, 1998.

Decided Oct. 6, 1998.

Janis C. Good, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, argued, for Appellant.

Kymberly A. Smith, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, MO, argued, for Appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Lamont Jackson has been convicted by a jury of being a felon in possession of a weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1). He was sentenced to fifteen years in prison (180 months), to be followed by three years of supervised release. He now appeals from his conviction, arguing that he was unduly prejudiced by two items of evidence received against him. First, the gov*342ernment was allowed to offer proof of the number and nature of Jackson’s prior convictions, notwithstanding the fact that proof of the fact of only one such conviction (without discussing anything about its nature) would have been sufficient to establish that he was a felon at the relevant time. Second, Jackson argues that a police witness not qualified as an expert was allowed to testify about the sort of damage that could be done by ammunition that the government claimed Jackson had with him.

We affirm. As Jackson points out, the Supreme Court held in *Old Chief v. United States,*519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997), that it is usually an abuse of discretion to allow evidence of the number and nature of previous felonies when the defendant has offered to stipulate that he was a convicted felon at the time of his alleged possession of a firearm. Under the circumstances of this case, however, we cannot agree that *Old Chief*requires that Jackson’s conviction be reversed. Even if it was error to admit the evidence in question, the error was harmless. No fewer than four police officers testified that a gun was found on Jackson at the time of his arrest. There was also evidence that Jackson himself admitted, shortly after the arrest, that he had had the gun. Jackson denied all this at trial, but the jury obviously did not believe him, and we do not think that his chances of being believed would have been appreciably enhanced if the jury had heard only a stipulation as to a prior felony conviction, instead of the evidence that was actually put before it.

As to the testimony about the ammunition, no objection was made at the time, so our review is for plain error only. Probably there was no error here. The police officer who testified about the bullets, while not, perhaps, an expert with scientific credentials, had had nineteen years of experience, including a great deal of contact with guns and bullets. If any error was committed, which we doubt, it was certainly not plain.

Affirmed.