alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Michael McCabe [ mailto:michaeljmccabe@verizon.net ]

Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 7:55 AM

To: Cohen, Daniel Subject: Nats Games

Dan, here are the games that we have tickets for. As I mentioned, we are in two groups, the second group has tickets in section 314 (green highlight) and Phil's group is in the yellow highlight. Mary is the friend and neighbor that we

share tickets with.

See you at the games.

Also, on the business sid e, I have been giving the new LCC calculation some more thought. I don't like it and I don't believe the Department satisfies section 325(o) by using it. Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) requires the Department to consider "the savings in operating costs thro ughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered products which are likely to result from the imposition of the standard." The new LCC calculation includes operating costs of products purchased in place of the covered class (non

- weatherized gas furnaces). By abandoning the earlier LCC calculation and using this new procedure with fuel switching, the Department no longer can demonstrate what the "savings in operating costs" of the more energy efficient products (particularly max tech) and therefore, I believe, without that information, DOE doesn't meet the requirement of section 325(o).

Michael
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of income from the
September 30, 1998 Form 10-Q Report and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,272,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,321,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,593,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             140,946,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,402,000
<BONDS>                                     11,750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       321,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  86,759,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               140,946,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,155,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,738,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,089,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             728,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                600,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   259,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            341,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   341,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
#### ELDRED *v.*ELDRED.

Divorce — N onsupport.

The testimony in a suit for divorce, on the ground of nonsupport, is considered on appeal and *held,*insufficient to sustain the decree of the trial court granting the divorce.

Appeal from Hillsdale; Chester, J.

Submitted April 14, 1911.

(Docket No. 5.)

Decided June 2, 1911.

Bill by Mary E. Eldred against L. Selah Eldred for a divorce on the ground of nonsupport. From a decree for complainant defendant appeals.

Reversed.

*Charles M. Weaver*and *Charles A.*Shepard, for complainant.

*Arthur L. Guernsey*and *Merton Fitzpatrick,*for defendant.

Hooker, J.

The defendant has appealed from a de*258cree of divorce granted to his wife on a hearing upon proofs taken in open court. *We*are constrained to hold that the testimony fails to make out a case warranting the decree, which must therefore be reversed, and the bill dismissed. It is so ordered.

Ostrander, C. J., and Bird, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.
Order issued October 20 , 201 4 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

________________________________________

No. 05

- 1 4

- 0 0 193

- CR

________________________________________

PATRICIA ANN SMITH , Appellant



### V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee



### O R D E R

Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Evans

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the June 3, 2014 motion of Niles

Illich for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court

to remove Niles Illich as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to

send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Patricia Ann Smith , TDCJ No.

1907479

, Hilltop Unit, 1500 State School Road, Gatesville, Texas, 76598

- 2996.

/ Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 238

AN ACT

To repeal a prohibition on the use of certain funds for 

tunneling in certain areas with respect to the Los Angeles to San Fernando Valley Metro Rail project, California.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 238 EH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PROHIBITION. 

2 The second sentence of section 321 of the Depart3 ment of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropria4 tions Act, 1986 (99 Stat. 1287) is repealed. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 7, 

2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 238

AN ACT

To repeal a prohibition on the use of certain funds 

project, California.Los Angeles to San Fernando Valley Metro Rail for tunneling in certain areas with respect to the
1/2

EASA AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 

AD No.: 2007-0232 

Date: 23 August 2007 

Type Approval Holder’s Name: 

Thielert Aircraft Engines

Type/Model designation(s): 

TAE125-01 engines 

TCDS Numbers: EASA E.055 

Foreign AD: Not applicable 

Supersedure: None 

ATA 79 Engine Oil System - Catchtank (Sump) Filter Adaptor - Installation 

Manufacturer: Thielert Aircraft Engines 

Applicability: TAE125-01 engines, all serial numbers (s/n), up to and including s/n 02-01-

1018. 

These engines are known to be installed on, but not limited to, Cessna 172 

and (Reims-built) F172 series (EASA STC Nr. EASA.A.S.01527); Piper PA-28 

series (EASA STC Nr. EASA.A.S.01632), APEX (Robin) DR 400 series (EASA 

STC Nr. EASA.A.S.01380); and Diamond DA40 and DA42 series aircraft. 

Reason: An in-flight engine shutdown incident was reported on an aircraft equipped 

with a TAE125-01 engine. This was found to be mainly the result of a 

blockage of the scavenge oil gear pump due to a broken axial bearing of the 

turbocharger. The broken parts were sucked into the oil pump and caused a 

seizure. With the pump inoperative, the oil separator overfilled, causing the 

engine oil to escape via the breather vent line. This caused a loss of oil that 

resulted in the engine overheating and subsequent shutdown. Thielert, the 

engine TC holder, has developed a filter adaptor for the Oil Catchtank (Sump) 

that is designed to prevent foreign objects from entering into the scavenge 

pump, minimising the chance of such an incident recurring. 

For the reasons stated above, this Airworthiness Directive (AD) requires the 

modification of all affected TAE125-01 engines by installing filter adaptor 

between the Oil Catchtank and the hose leading to the dual stage oil pump. 

Effective Date: 06 September 2007 
 2/2

Compliance Required as indicated, unless accomplished previously: 

Within the next 50 flight hours after the effective date of this directive, but not 

later than 31 October 2007, whichever occurs first, modify the engine oil 

system in accordance with the instructions of Thielert Aircraft Engines TM/SB 

TAE 125-0016, initial issue dated 19 September 2006 or Revision 1 dated 15 

June 2007. 

Ref. Publications: Thielert Service Bulletin TM TAE 125-0016, Initial Issue or Revision 1 or later 

approved revisions. 

Remarks: 1. If requested and appropriately substantiated the responsible EASA 

manager for the related product has the authority to accept Alternative 

Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) for this AD. 

2. This AD was posted on 08 August 2007 as PAD 07-137 for consultation 

until 22 August 2007. No comments were received during the consultation 

period.

3. Enquiries regarding this AD should be referred to the AD Focal Point - 

Certification Directorate, EASA. E-mail: ADs@easa.europa.eu

4. For any questions concerning the content of this AD, please contact: 

Thielert Aircraft Engines 

Platanenstraße 14 

D-09350 Lichtenstein, Germany 

Telephone +49-37204-696-0; Fax +49-37204-696-55; 

E-mail info@centurion-engines.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               9,654
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                                   0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     1,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         35,019
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                                   0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                     0
<LOANS>                                            111,221
<ALLOWANCE>                                          2,617
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     176,114
<DEPOSITS>                                         160,496
<SHORT-TERM>                                             0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                    850
<LONG-TERM>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             8,518
<OTHER-SE>                                           6,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                     176,114
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                      2,564
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                      590
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                        42
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                     3,196
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   1,035
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,035
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                                2,161
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                           35
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                       0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                      2,339
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        449
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                             449
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           346
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                        5.40
<LOANS-NON>                                          4,627
<LOANS-PAST>                                             0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     2,580
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                            4
<RECOVERIES>                                             6
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    2,617
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 2,617
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              1,667


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 235 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 250
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 235

                          [Report No. 110-117]

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2007

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                             June 28, 2007

              Reported by Mr. Bingaman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of contracts 
  between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County 
                Water District, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RENEGOTIATION OF PAYMENT SCHEDULE.

    Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 (102 Stat. 2573) is amended as 
follows:
            (1) By amending paragraph (2) of subsection (a) to read as 
        follows:
            ``(2) If, as of January 1, 2006, the Secretary of the 
        Interior and the Redwood Valley County Water District have not 
        renegotiated the schedule of payment, the District may enter 
        into such additional non-Federal obligations as are necessary 
        to finance procurement of dedicated water rights and 
        improvements necessary to store and convey those rights to 
        provide for the District's water needs. The Secretary shall 
        reschedule the payments due under loans numbered 14-06-200-
        8423A and 14-06-200-8423A Amendatory and said payments shall 
        commence when such additional obligations have been financially 
        satisfied by the District. The date of the initial payment owed 
        by the District to the United States shall be regarded as the 
        start of the District's repayment period and the time upon 
        which any interest shall first be computed and assessed under 
        section 5 of the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (43 
        U.S.C. 422a et seq.).''.
            (2) By striking subsection (c).
                                                       Calendar No. 250

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 235

                          [Report No. 110-117]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of contracts 
  between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County 
                Water District, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 28, 2007

                       Reported without amendment
```
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Feb. 26, 2010 letter to petitioner requesting more information.
Docket No. FAA - 2013 - 0834
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Erik Mishiyev, as Personal Representative 

of the Estate of Julie Leah Mishiyev, 

Appellant

No. 06-24-00032-CV v.

Deanita Ann Tamm a/k/a Dee Dee 

Gutierrez, and Excel Construction Group 

Commercial, Inc., Appellees

Appeal from the 17th District Court of 

Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 017-

340693-23). Panel consists of Chief Justice 

Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

van Cleef. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Erik Mishiyev, as Personal Representative of the Estate of 

Julie Leah Mishiyev, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we 

waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 19, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
§ 21.6519 Eligibility of qualified veterans for employment and counseling services. ( a ) *General.* A qualified veteran for whom vocational rehabilitation and achievement of a vocational goal are reasonably feasible may be provided the employment and counseling services to which he or she may be entitled under chapter 31. If the qualified veteran is not eligible for such assistance under chapter 31, he or she may be provided, nevertheless, the counseling, placement and postplacement services provided under 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(2) and (5). The specific services which may be authorized are discussed in §§ 21.100, 21.252 and 21.254(a).
( b ) *Services under other VA and non-VA programs.* Veterans being provided counseling, placement and postplacement services under §§ 21.100, 21.252, and 21.254(a) will also be aided in identifying services of other VA and non-VA programs which may be of assistance in securing employment. All elements of a program of these services shall be incorporated in the IEAP.
( c ) *Veteran elects counseling, placement and postplacement services.* If a qualified veteran elects not to undertake the IWRP and is otherwise eligible for counseling, placement and postplacement services under 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(2) and (5), he or she may be provided those services. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1163(b)).
( d ) *Duration of services under 38 U.S.C. 3104(a) (2) and (5).* The services provided under 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(2) and (5), are limited to an 18-month period of employment assistance as described in § 21.73.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1163(b))
[51 FR 19333, May 29, 1986. Redesignated at 53 FR 4397, Feb. 16, 1988, as amended at 55 FR 17273, Apr. 24, 1990]
----

 

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

 

 

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "Report") by FCCC, Inc. (the "Registrant"), I, BernardZimmerman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, herebycertify that:

 

| 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of		section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as		amended, and  
2.
The information contained in the Report fairly		presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results		of operations of Registrant.
 
       /s/ Bernard Zimmerman  
Bernard															Zimmerman  
President and															Chief Executive															Officer 
 

Dated: November 3, 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
§ 21.5030 Applications, claims, and time limits. ( a ) To become a participant an individual must apply to his or her Service Department on forms prescribed by the Service Department and/or the Secretary of Defense.
( b ) Rules and regulations of the applicable Service Department and/or the Department of Defense shall determine if the application is timely.
( c ) The provisions of the following sections shall apply to claims for educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 32: ( 1 ) Section 21.1029—Definitions.
( 2 ) Section 21.1030—Claims.
( 3 ) Section 21.1031—VA responsibilities when a claim is filed.
( 4 ) Section 21.1032—Time Limits
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3232, 3241, 3471; Pub. L. 94-502, Pub. L. 99-576)
[45 FR 31, Jan. 2, 1980, as amended at 48 FR 3368, Jan. 25, 1983; 53 FR 34495, Sept. 7, 1988; 64 FR 23772, May 4, 1999]
Heather McTeer Toney 

Regional Administrator 

USEPA Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Subject: Withdrawal of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) from North Carolina's 2008 Ozone 

Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Submittal 

Dear Ms. Toney: 

On November 2, 2012, the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (DAQ) submitted a final certification 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) demonstrating compliance with Clean Air Act 

Section 110(a)( 1) and (2) infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements for the 2008 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). I am writing this letter to request a withdrawal of 

element (D)(i)(I) which relates to interstate transport of air pollution. 

North Carolina relied on the emissions reductions from EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rules (CAIR) and the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), as well as the state's Clean Smokestacks Act to show that 

emissions activities within the state will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of NAAQS in a neighboring state. In August 2012, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit vacated CSAPR while temporarily reinstating CAIR. In April 2014, the Supreme Court reversed 

that decision and remanded the CSAPR back to the D. C. Circuit. The appellate court is expected to make 

a decision on the CSAPR reinstatement, but its outcome and schedule is uncertain. 

We are withdrawing element (D)(i)(I) to give us additional time to evaluate the court's decision, and if 

needed, conduct air quality modeling based on the final ruling and/or CSA emissions limits to determine 

if North Carolina sources are significantly contributing to NAAQS attainment and maintenance in 

downwind states. We plan to make our final submission as expeditiously as possible to satisfy Section 

11 O(a)(l) and (2) obligations. 

SCH/ssm 

cc: Michael Abraczinskas, DAQ 

Sushma Masemore, DAQ 

Scott Davis, USEPA 

Lynorae Benjamin, USEPA 

Sincerely, 

Sheila 

~~ 

Holman, Director 

Division of Air Quality, NCDENR 

1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 

Phone: 919-707-8400 \ Internet: www.ncdenr.gov 

An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer- Made in part by recycled paper
MPD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0632

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

GREGORY M. SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including December 30, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file its 

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 19 2020

11/19/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0632