alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Re: EPA mtg at Sheritan 

Susan Stone to: wildart 02/08/2010 08:49 AM

Cc: Tricia Crabtree, Lydia Wegman, Alison Davis

Dear Ms. Fronce: It was nice meeting you at lunch. Thank you for your testimony. We will enter it into 

the public docket. Best regards, Susan Stone

Susan Lyon Stone

Ambient Standards Group l US EPA (C504-06) l Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-1146 l Fax: 919-541-0237 l HSD Phone 919-966-6226

"Linnea Fronce" We met briefly at lunch. I did not testify but woul... 02/05/2010 12:09:06 PM

From: "Linnea Fronce" <wildart@dslextreme.com>

To: Susan Stone/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/05/2010 12:09 PM

Subject: EPA mtg at Sheritan

We met briefly at lunch. I did not testify but would like to add my 2 cents now.

I had forgotten the girl in the hospital in 1982. She had asthma. She was about 

10-11 yrs old and hospitalized for about the 57

th

 time. The asthma meds had made 

her bones brittle and she could not pay, run, ride a bike, etc. No idea if ozone was 

a factor, but I wonder if she is still alive.

To rebut the engineer that felt ground level ozone did not matter; only exercise 

matters:

When living in Santa Rosa I began to wonder if I had allergies. Nose dripped 

frequently.

1988 moved to Sacramento and immediately had to have handkerchief with me at 

all times. Ozone???

About 10 years ago I was getting plenty of exercise: hiked 6-10 miles a week, & 

walked my large dog. I also worked a retail job in a big building while shorthanded, 

so I walked back and forth all day; perhaps another 5 miles. But I was living in 

polluted Sacramento. Kaiser tested me and found my lungs were at bottom of 

normal range. Ground level ozone at work???

Now retired, I garden a lot, including laying drip irrigation, digging out bushes and 

trees we don’t want and propagating plants for CA Native Plant Society. I do 

shorter errands on bike, walk 3 miles with husband (nearly daily), & take walks on 

parkway with Native Plant Society. I haven’t near the stamina I used to have. At 

night I am tired. I had assumed it was due to getting older (am 66), but after 

yesterdays testimonies I wonder if that has more to do with 21 1⁄2 years in 

Sacramento.

Please make stringent requirements. Oil & coal only care about profits, not the 
future of the country or the people.

Linnea Fronce

Sacramento CA
§ 380.20 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions apply: *Educational Transmission* means an eligible nonsubscription transmission (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(6)) made by a Noncommercial Educational Webcaster over the internet.
*Noncommercial Educational Webcaster* means a noncommercial webcaster (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 114(f)(4)(E)(i)) that: ( 1 ) Has obtained a compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114 and the implementing regulations therefor to make Educational Transmissions and related Ephemeral Recordings;
( 2 ) Complies with all applicable provisions of Sections 112(e) and 114 and applicable regulations in 37 CFR part 380;
( 3 ) Is directly operated by, or is affiliated with and officially sanctioned by, and the digital audio transmission operations of which are staffed substantially by students enrolled at, a domestically accredited primary or secondary school, college, university or other post-secondary degree-granting educational institution;
( 4 ) Is not a “public broadcasting entity” (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(f)) qualified to receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting pursuant to its criteria; and
( 5 ) Takes affirmative steps not to make total transmissions in excess of 159,140 Aggregate Tuning Hours (ATH) on any individual channel or station in any month, if in any previous calendar year it has made total transmissions in excess of 159,140 ATH on any individual channel or station in any month.
Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
In connection with the Quarterly Report of McRae Industries, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending May 1, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, D. Gary McRae, President and CEO of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and result ofoperations of the Company.   /s/ D. Gary McRaeD. Gary McRae  President and CEO  
June 14, 2004
21
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RONALD STOCKTON,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

MARIROSA LAMAS; B. THOMPSON; R. 

MARSH; T. MILLER; L. EATTON; AND R. 

VANCE,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 712 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of April, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
41609.

#### MUNDAY v. BRISSETTE et al.

Felton, Chief Judge.

The Supreme Court in *Brissette v. Munday,*222 Ga. 162 (149 SE2d 110) has reversed in part the judgment of this court. In compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court the judgment of this court in this case is amended by striking from this court’s judgment the words “and in not granting a new trial as to both defendants” and by adding thereto the words “the court did not err in denying a new trial as to the co-defendant, John L. Brissette.”

*850Decided June 21, 1966.

*Lokey ■& Bowden, Hamilton Lokey, Glenn Frick,*for appellant.

*Bryan, Carter, Ansley & Smith, M. D. McLendon, N. Forrest Montet,*for appellees.

*Judgment amended to conform to the Supreme Court’s mandate in the above cited case.*

*Jordan and Deen, JJ.; concur.*
Opinion filed August 4 , 20 22



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 1 6 6

- CR

__________ JOSE ANGEL SILVA , Appellant
V

. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 70 t h District Court Ect or County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. A

- 20

- 1 131

- CR

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The jury convicted Appellant, Jose Angel Silva , of the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a young child

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 21.02 (West Su pp. 2021 ). The jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for life, and the trial court sentenced him accordingly. W e affirm

. Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that th e2 appeal is frivolous and without merit

. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of

t he brief , a copy of the motion to withdraw , and a copy of both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Couns el advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right t o file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 68

. Court

- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Te x. Crim. App. 1991)

. A ppellant has not filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief

. F ollowing the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. 1 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw , and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

PER CURIAM

August 4 , 20 22 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trott er , J., and Will iams , J.

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Lebanon National Day

# 									Lebanon National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

November 22, 2023

On behalf of the United States of America, I extend my best wishes to the people of Lebanon on their Independence Day.

We know you are marking this moment in a challenging regional security climate and that this is the second National Day that has passed without the election of a President. To the Lebanese people, whose friendship is dear to the United States: your values, hard work, and commitment to your country have helped you overcome many challenges over the last 80 years, including at the present moment. You deserve a better future. The United States will continue to partner with you to promote peace, lower tensions in the region, and realize our shared hope of security, prosperity, freedom, and good governance for the Lebanese people.

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsLebanonOffice of the SpokespersonPeaceThe Secretary of StateSecurity

Back to Top
#### § 18b.72 Exceptions to initial or recommended decisions.

Within 20 days after the mailing of an initial or recommended decision, any party may file exceptions to the decision, stating reasons therefor, with the reviewing authority. Any other party may file a response thereto within 30 days after the mailing of the decision. Upon the filing of such exceptions, the reviewing authority shall review the decision and issue its own decision thereon.
§ 21.416 Review of decisions. ( a ) *Applicability.* This section applies where notice of a decision under this subpart or subpart M of this part was provided to a claimant or his/her representative on or after the effective date of the modernized review system as provided in § 19.2(a) of this chapter, or where a claimant has elected review of a legacy claim under the modernized review system as provided in § 3.2400(c) of this chapter.
( b ) *Reviews available.* Within one year from the date on which VA issues notice of a decision on an issue contained within a claim, a claimant may elect one of the following administrative review options: ( 1 ) *Supplemental Claim.* The nature of this review will accord with § 3.2501 of this chapter, except that a complete application in writing on a form prescribed by the Secretary will not be required and a hearing will not be provided.
( 2 ) *Appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals.* See 38 CFR part 20.
( 3 ) *Higher-level Review.* The nature of this review will accord with § 3.2601.
( c ) *Notice requirements.* Notice of a decision made under paragraph (b)(1) or (3) of this section will include all of the elements described in § 21.420(b).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5104B, 5108, 5109A, and 7105)
[84 FR 193, Jan. 18, 2019]
#### § 14.664 Scope of authority and effective date.

Pub. L. 88-558 (78 Stat. 767), approved August 31, 1964, as amended, authorizes the Secretary or the Secretary's designee to settle and pay a claim for not more than $40,000 made by a civilian officer or employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs for damage to, or loss of personal property incident to such person's service. Authority is delegated by § 2.6(e)(5) of this chapter to the General Counsel, Deputy General Counsel, Assistant General Counsel (Professional Staff Group III), and the Deputy Assistant General Counsel, of said staff group and the Regional Counsel and those acting for them to settle and pay such claims on behalf of the Secretary, and such settlement shall be final and conclusive.

(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3721(b))

[42 FR 41421, Aug. 17, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 47005, Nov. 30, 1984; 55 FR 48841, Nov. 23, 1990]
This page is currently under construction.   
This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them. Do you wish     to download **Microsoft     Internet Explorer 5.5** or **Netscape**     ? Click on the links and dowload them.

**OR**

**Click** for Non-frames / text version     of site.
|**Secondary Market Report** | **October 1998**
|--------------------------- | ----------------



---

### TABLE 9
Unsold Inventory of New Homes Compared
to Previous Month 
(Percent of Field Offices Reporting)



---

`Oct'98          Oct'97
                                        ------          ------
                Declining                 17%             14%
                Stationary                74%             79%
                Advancing                  9%              7%
                                
                Total                    100%            100%
                                
                                
                                        Sep'98          Sep'97
                                        ------          ------
                Declining                 23%             14%
                Stationary                73%             83%
                Advancing                  4%              3%
                                
                Total                    100%            100%
                                
                                
                                        Aug'98          Aug'97
                                        ------          ------
                Declining                 20%              8%
                Stationary                74%             90%
                Advancing                  6%              2%
                                
                Total                    100%            100%
                                
                                
                                      Percentage Point Difference                               
                                
                                        Aug'98-         Aug'97-
                                        Oct'98          Oct'97
                                        -------         -------
                Declining                 -3%              6%
                Stationary                 0%            -11%
                Advancing                  4%              5%
 
        


Data as of: October 1, 1998                                HQE: 10-26-98`

HSG/FHA Home Page**|**Reports Menu**|**Email Us
**Date Last Modified: 10/26/98**
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nos. 04-14-00209-CR

 04-14-00211-CR &

 04-14-00212-CR

Shanelle Evette CHARLES1,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2014CR0038, 2012CR3193, & 2013CR10374

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 21, 2014

DISMISSED

Appellant entered into three plea bargain agreements with the State pursuant to which she 

pleaded nolo contendere to the offenses of bribery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and 

burglary of a habitation by force. The trial court imposed sentence in each case and, in each case,

1 In the judgments in Appeal Nos. 04-14-00209-CR and 04-14-00211-CR, appellant’s name is stated as Shanelle 

Evette Charles. However, in Appeal No. 04-14-00212-CR, the judgment states appellant’s name is Shanelle Cooks. 

It is clear from the records that Shanelle Evette Charles and Shanelle Cooks are the same person. Accordingly, we 

shall refer to appellant as Shanelle Evette Charles. 

 
04-14-00209-CR, 04-14-00211-CR & 04-14-00212-CR

signed a certificate stating that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of 

appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed notices of appeal. The clerk’s 

records, which include the plea bargain agreements and the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) 

certifications, have been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an appeal “if 

a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the 

record.” Id.

This court gave appellant notice that the appeals would be dismissed unless amended trial 

court certifications showing she has the right to appeal were made part of the appellate records

within thirty days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 

2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel filed 

a written response, stating he has reviewed the records and can find no right of appeal. After 

reviewing the records and counsel’s response, we agree appellant does not have a right to appeal. 

See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should 

review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). We therefore 

dismiss these appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

- 2 -
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.42

                          FIRST AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE
                      AND CONSULTING AND SERVICES AGREEMENT

This First Amendment to Severance and Consulting Services Agreement
("Amendment") by and between Smart & Final Inc. and its subsidiaries and
affiliates (collectively "S&F") and Dennis L. Chiavelli ("Chiavelli") hereby
amends the Severance and Consulting Services Agreement ("Agreement") executed
between the parties on or about May 14, 2003.

WHEREAS,

1. S&F desires to extend Chiavelli's employment with S&F to facilitate the
orderly consummation of the sales of S&F's foodservice businesses and the
Company's exit from the Florida store market (collectively "the Transactions");
and

2. The Transactions and post-closing transition periods are expected to extend
through the end of December 2003, which is after Chiavelli's current resignation
date of July 1, 2003;

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows, in consideration of the mutual
promises and representations contained herein:

3. The Effective Date in paragraph 6 of the Agreement is hereby changed from
July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003.

4. The incentive compensation payment for fiscal 2003 ("2003 Bonus"), referenced
in paragraph 7 is hereby changed from $88,920.00 to $177,840.00.

All other terms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.

SMART & FINAL INC.                         DENNIS L. CHIAVELLI


/s/ Ross E. Roeder                         /s/ Dennis Chiavelli
-------------------------------------      -------------------------------------
By: Ross E. Roeder
Title: Chairman & CEO

              11/12/03                                   11/8/03
-------------------------------------      -------------------------------------
Date                                       Date
Brendan	O’Donnell 446	Mountaingate	Dr. Springfield,	OR	97478 (928)	710

- 4280

PETITION	FOR	EXEMPTION	UNDER	SECTION	333

Good	Afternoon,

I	am	writing	to	request	an	exemption	under	section	333	for	the	following	reasons:

Proposed	Operations : I	would	like	to	provide	services	w hich	includes	aerial photography	and	videography.		This	exemption	would	include	the	ability	to	take aerial	photos	and	films	for	real	estate	companies,	wineries,	agricultural	companies	, local	news	outlets,	and	other	misc	projects	with	the	exception	of	clos ed	set	motion picture	films	and	television.

Public	Interest : This	request	benefits	the	public	as	a	whole	by	providing	an opportunity	for	small	business	owners,	real	estate	agents,	and	others	who	wish	to document	their	land/property	or	service	using	the	latest	in	aerial	ph otography technology.

Level	of	Safety : I	believe	this	exemption	will	not	adversely	affect	the	safety	for	the following	reasons: As	a	FAA	licensed	Airline	Transport	Pilot	and	Flight	Instructor,	as	well	as being	an	experienced	RC	operator,	I	am	intimately	aware	of	all	the rules	and regulations	pertaining	to	the	National	Airspace	System.	I	truly	take	a	“Safety	First” approach	in	all	of	my	flight	activities	by	always	operating	in	wide	open	spaces, maintaining	an	awareness	to	my	surroundings	at	all	times,	and	always	using	a	s afety spotter.		The	nature	of	why	I	would	be	using	this	exemption	would	be	in	the	confines of	current	safety	recommendations	including	always	maintaining	a	line	of	sight	with the	aerial	unit	and	limiting	operations	to	less	than	400’	agl.

Make/Model	of	Aircraft DJI	Phantom	3	Professional

UAS	Certificate	Number FA3CA9MYTH

The	DJI	Phantom	3	Professional	is	a	lightweight,	quadcopter	which	includes numerous	safety	features	that		increases	safety	as	much	as	possible.	This quadcopter	includes	the	ability	to	return	to	its ’ “ home	point ” if	signal	is	ever	lost	and constantly	updates	position	with	GPS.

Thank	you	for	considering	my	request	for	Exemption.

Brendan	O ’ Donnell
#### JUDITH STILES *v.*HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant’s petition *for*certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 44 Conn. App. 1 (AC 14987), is denied.

*910
      *Philip F. von Kuhn,*in support of the petition.

*Thomas P. Griff en*and *William J. Sweeney, Jr.,*in opposition.

Decided February 13, 1997
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 376/2005

of 4 March 2005         

suspending the buying-in of butter in certain Member States

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards intervention on the market in butter and cream (2), and in particular Article 2 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Buying-in of butter as provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 is hereby suspended in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden.

Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 337/2005 is hereby repealed.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 5 March 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 4 March 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 333, 24.12.1999, p. 11. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2250/2004 (OJ L 381, 28.12.2004, p. 25).

(3)OJ L 53, 26.2.2005, p. 24.

----
----

| 1. | The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020 (the “Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: February 18, 2022                         |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                            |   |
| /s/ Richard Van Doren                           |   |
| Richard Van Doren                               |
| Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director |   |

----