alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AIRLINES

June 10, 2002

Binh V. Tran Aerospace Engineer System and Equipment Branch Federal Aviation Administration Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-130 1601 LindAve., Sw. Renton, WA 98055-4056 

## ROUTE NM-100S NM-102S ANM-120S NM-130S ANM-140S NM-160S NM-190S 

### ILE P.O. Box 30028 Honolulu, Hawaii 96820

SUBJECT: NPRM 2002-NM-12-AD, MODIFICATION OF STATIC INVERTER

COMMENTS Dear Mr. Tran: Aloha Airlines' review of NPRM 2002-NM-12-AD has found the following requiring clarification: 1. The applicability table lists part number corresponding to aircraft model. Boeing Service Letter, 737-SL-24-165, shows a slightly different applicability. For example, Static Inverter PIN 1-002-0102-1000 is used on all effective aircraft types perService Letter, butonly on 767 aircraft perthe NPRM. 2. Per Service Letter, 737-SL-24-165, Static Inverters with serial number CJ001750 or higher, oras listed inthe Service Letter, have been upgraded to meet the modification requirements. The NPRM does not specify serial number effectivity. 3. The NPRM iseffective to aircraft fleet; however, the subject isthe Static Inverter. Should this beacomponent AD? In summary, Aloha Airlines agrees with the proposed rule provided the above clarifications are made. Sincerely,

Earl RSepulveda Director -Maintenance Support KKCma[FAA2] c: K.Kiyan-Collu
# C_2013239EN.01S00301.xml

| 20.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/s3

---

NOTICE

On 20 August 2013, in Official Journal of the European Union C 239 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — seventh supplement to the 31st complete edition’ and the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — sixth supplement to the 31st complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Image

---
§ 21.74 Extended evaluation. ( a ) *General.* An extended evaluation may be authorized for the period necessary to determine whether the attainment of a vocational goal is currently reasonably feasible for the veteran. The services which may be provided during the period of extended evaluation are listed in § 21.57(b) of this part. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3105(a), 3106(a))
( b ) *Duration.* An extended evaluation may not be for less than two weeks (full or part-time equivalent) nor for more than twelve months, unless a longer period is necessary to determine whether achievement of a vocational goal is reasonably feasible. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3105(a))
( c ) *Approval of the period of an extended evaluation.* ( 1 ) The Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) may approve an initial period of up to 12 months for an extended evaluation.
( 2 ) An additional period of extended evaluation of up to 6 months may be approved by the CP or VRC, if there is reasonable certainty that the feasibility of achieving a vocational goal can be determined during the additional period. The CP or VRC will obtain the concurrence of the Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) Officer before approving the extension of a period of extended evaluation.
( 3 ) An extension beyond a total period of 18 months for additional periods of up to 6 months each may only be approved by the CP or VRC if there is a substantial certainty that a determination of current feasibility may be made within this extended period. The concurrence of the VR&E Officer is also required for this extension.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3105(a), 3106(b); Pub. L. 99-576)
[49 FR 40814, Oct. 18, 1984, as amended at 53 FR 50957, Dec. 19, 1988; 54 FR 37332, Sept. 8, 1989; 62 FR 17707, Apr. 11, 1997; 81 FR 26131, May 2, 2016; 87 FR 8742, Feb. 16, 2022]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2380 

To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2007 

Mr. HULSHOF (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. 

BIGGERT, Mr. CANNON, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. 

LOBIONDO, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. KNOLLENBERG, Mr. CULBERSON, 

Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. PAUL, Mr. CARTER, Mr. CANTOR, 

Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. 

KUHL of New York, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mr. WAMP, 

Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. HALL

of Texas, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. KELLER of Florida, Mr. 

FOSSELLA, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. 

NUNES, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. 

GOODE, Mr. PORTER, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. TERRY, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. RENZI, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, 

Mr. EVERETT, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. MACK, Mr. TIAHRT, 

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. PITTS, 

Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. ROSKAM, Mr. HERGER, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, 

Mr. KIRK, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. BONNER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. 

WHITFIELD, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, and 

Mr. SHUSTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent. 

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


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2380 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Death Tax Repeal Per3 manency Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. ESTATE TAX REPEAL MADE PERMANENT. 

5 Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

6 Reconciliation Act of 2001 shall not apply to title V of 

7 such Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 11-1**

THE NAVIGATORSGROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

**COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS**

**Earnings Per Share of Common Stock and Common StockEquivalents*($ and shares in thousands, except per share data)***

 
| ** **                                                          | ** ** | **Three Months Ended** | ** ** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                          | ** ** | **March 31,**               | ** ** |
| ** **                                                          | ** ** | **2007**                         | ** ** | **2006** | ** ** |
|                                                                |       |                             |       |   |   |
| Net income applicable  to common stock                              |       | $                                | 19,672     |   | $ | 15,525 |   |
|                                                                |       |                             |       |   |   |
| Average number of  common shares outstanding                        |       | 16,756                           |       | 16,639 |   |
|                                                                |       |                             |       |   |   |
| Net income per share -  Basic                                       |       | $                                | 1.17       |   | $ | 0.93 |   |
|                                                                |       |                             |       |   |   |
| Average number of  common shares outstanding                        |       | 16,756                           |       | 16,639 |   |
| Add: Assumed exercise  of stock options and vesting of stock grants |       | 128                              |       | 118 |   |
|                                                                |       |                             |       |   |   |
| Common and common  equivalent shares outstanding                    |       | 16,884                           |       | 16,757 |   |
|                                                                |       |                             |       |   |   |
| Net income per share - Diluted                                      |       | $                                | 1.17       |   | $ | 0.93 |   |

 

 

----
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1190 Prepped by Candice Davis



### Document

Number: 

# 10 ) IV-B-1 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-2 8

Printed 5/5/2008 9:13:50 AM

Sheet 10 of 106P. 2 

# VV ) - ^ 

# -v & Marc h 25 , 199 6 • Summar y o f Meeting Betwee

n Chrysle r Corporatio n an

d EP A Participants : Chrysle

r - Fran k Fodale , Reg Modlin , Fran

k Kritch ; EP

A - David Dickinson , Kar

l Simon , And

y Brooks , Tod

d Sherwood . Meeting wa s requeste d b

y Chrysle r t o presen t informatio n a s t o wh y i t feel s i t cannot full y compl y wit h California' s OB D I I requirements . v Chrysle r presente d bot

h genera l or "public " informatio n an d als o informatio

n i t ha d previousl

y show n t o CAR B an d whic h Chrysle r wante d treate d a s confidential . EP

A informe d Chrysle r tha t al l informatio

n would b e considere d but

tha t EP A could onl

y rel y upo n informatio

n actuall y i n th e docke

t withi n it s waive r decision . Chrysle r presente d dat awhic

h reflected o n it s abilit

y t o monito

r misfir e throug h full-rang e or out t o red-line an

d suggested tha

t CAR B shoul d not nee d t o monito

r ove r th e full-rang e an

d suggeste d tha

t CAR B conside r alowe r RP M cutof f tha t mor e accuratel y reflect s in-us e condition s an d th e FTP . Chrysle

r suggested tha

t variabilit y i n factor s suc

h a s combustion event s an

d torsiona l stabilit y creat e difficultie s i

n misfir e monitorin

g an d therefor e misfir e monito r technolog y cannot

readil y b e transferred betwee

n engin e types . Despit

e Chrysler' s efforts wit

h outside contractor s i

t i s stil l finding i t difficul t t o mee t th e full-range misfir

e requirement s an

d fears CAR B deficienc

y penalties . Additionally , Chrysle

r presente d informatio

n explainin

g th e difficult

y i t wa s havin g comin g u p wit h th e abilit y t o properl

y monito r bot h LE V an d ULE V catalyst s without

eithe r risking fals e MIL s whe n th e syste mi s actuall

y working or

not catching catalys t

inefficienc y b y th e tim e exhaus t exceed 1.5 time s th e standard . Chrysle r explaine d tha t i t wa s difficul

t t o 1 . Properly calculat

e th e exact volum e t o measur

e wit h it s oxyge n sensor s an

d 2 . B e abl

e t o timel y appl y th e requisit

e technolog y without

havin g t o completel

y invad e th e underbod

y o f it s automobiles . Chrysle r als o presente d informatio

n an d it s strategie s fo

r complyin g wit h curren t CAR B OB D requirement s an

d th e continued improvements i t wa s makin

g an d als o state d tha

t additiona l tim e shoul d b e foun d t o furthe r perfec t th e curren

t OB D syste

man d als o tak e som e additiona

l tim e t o determine whethe

r manufacturers ar

e read y fo r th e nex t rOun d o f California' s technologica

l requirements . Chrysle

r state d tha t a"pause " b e allowe

d or tha t EP A gran t CAR B a waive r perhap s throug h mode

l yea r 199 6 or 1997 an d tha t CARB , industr

y an d EP A look a t th e progres s an

d viabilit y o f futur e OB D I I requirement s befor e EP A gran t awaive r beyon d thes e mode l years .
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") by FCCC, Inc. (the "Registrant"), I, Bernard Zimmerman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify 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 ZimmermanName: Bernard Zimmerman
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: August 6, 2003
Order issued December 

# 3/ ,2012

In The
No. 05-12-01598-CV DALLAS COUNTY SOUTHWESTERN INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC SCIENCES

& MEDICAL EXAMINER DEPARTMENT, Appellant

GLYNDA RAY, AppeUee 

### ORDER We GRANT appellant’s December 21, 2012 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file its brief on or before January 14, 2013. We caution appellant that no further extension of time will be granted in this accelerated appeal absent extraordinary ctrcumstances.
§ 21.6242 Resources for provision of medical treatment, care and services. ( a ) *General.* VA medical centers are the primary resources for the provision of medical treatment, care and services for program participants which may be authorized under the provisions of § 21.6240 of this part. The availability of necessary services in VA facilities shall be ascertained in each case. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
( b ) *Hospital care and medical services.* Hospital care and medical services provided to program participants shall only be furnished in facilities over which VA has direct jurisdiction, except as authorized on a contract or fee basis under the provisions of part 17 of this chapter. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))


Cross References:
See § 17.30(1) Hospital care. § 17.30(m) Medical services.
( c ) *Provisions of § 21.240 and § 21.242 .* The provisions of §§ 21.240 and 21.242 of this part are not applicable to this temporary program.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b))
NO. 12-08-00265-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

§

IN RE: WILLIAM WHITE,

RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

William White filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we order the Texas

Board of Pardons and Paroles to give him credit for time served while awaiting his transport to the

State’s Substance Abuse Felony Program (SAFP). This court has no mandamus jurisdiction over

the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered June 18, 2008.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
Exhibit 4.87


 


 Maximum Pledge
Contract


 


Contract No.: 2014JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI 14140225


 


Pledgor : Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd


 


Pledgee : CITIC
Shijiazhuang Branch


 


Signing Date : June 27, 2014


 


Pledge Definition :   To ensure multiple loans Party B
(Pledgee) has lent to Shijie Kaiyuan Auto Trading Group Co., Ltd., Party A (Pledgor) is willing to provide Accounts Receivable
hereunder for Party B.


 


Maximum Amount: RMB90,000,000


  


Pledge Term : From August 15, 2014 to August 15, 2015


 


Collateral: The assets Party A pledges to Party B by Joint Liability
Pledge Contract (No. 2014JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI 14140225).
42354.

#### CRIDER v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon the public roads of Heard County while his driver’s license was revoked. A motion for new trial was overruled and the defendant appealed. *Held:*

1. “If no exception be taken at the trial, no point made, and the opinion of the court not invoked and not given, there had been no decision, sentence, judgment, or decree of a superior court rendered upon the point; and therefore, by the organic law of *523this court, we have no right to review the proceeding.” *Burtine v. State,*18 Ga. 534; *Loomis v. State,*78 *Ga. App.*336, 341 (51 SE2d 33). The defendant’s enumerations of error numbered 1, 2 and 4 present questions not raised in the trial court and consequently cannot be raised for the first time in this court.

Submitted October 3, 1966

Decided October 11, 1966

Rehearing denied October 27, 1966

*Johnson & Johnson, William P. Johnson,*for appellant.

*Wright Lipford, Solicitor General,*for appellee.

2. A ground of objection to evidence raised for the first time on review presents nothing for decision. *Middleton v. Waters,*205 Ga. 847, 854 (55 SE2d 359), and citations. The third enumeration of error complains of the admission of evidence for a reason completely different from the objection made on the trial of the case, and the argument in the defendant’s brief as to the admissibility of such evidence, which is limited to the grounds sought to be raised for the first time on review, presents nothing for decision.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
#### § 1005.35 Acts of agents.

A remittance transfer provider is liable for any violation of this subpart by an agent when such agent acts for the provider.
----

|  | 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. |
|--|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: April 1, 2022 | /s/ Thomas Northover                            |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                | Thomas Northover                                |
|                | Executive Director(Principal Financial Officer) |

----
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Bruce J. Spohler, Co-Chief Executive Officer of SLR HC BDC LLC, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of SLR HC BDC LLC; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary 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 inall material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Dated this 1st day of March, 2022 

 

/s/ Bruce J. Spohler
**Bruce J. Spohler****
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18

- 1993 Filed January 23, 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF M.H., Minor Child, J.O., Mother, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary L. Timko , Associate Juvenile Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights. AFFIRMED.

John S. Moeller of John S. Moeller, P

. C

. , Sioux City, for appellant mother. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Theresa Rachel of Fankhauser Rachel, PLC, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Tabor, P.J. , and Mullins and Bower, JJ.2

MULLINS , Judge

. A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor child pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(f) and ( l ) (2018) . Her argument on appeal is limited to her statements of disagreement with the juvenile court’s
conclusions “that the child can not be returned to the custody of the mother as provided in section 232.102” and her “prognosis indicates that the child will no t be able to be returned to the custody of the [mother] within a reasonable period of time considering the child’s age and need for a permanent home.” See Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(f)(4), ( l

)(3). The mother provides no facts, argument, or analysis in
suppor t of her statements of disagreement. Her failure to do so waives error. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3); see also In re C.B. , 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000) (“A broad, all encompassing argument is insufficient to identify error in cases of de novo re view.”); Hyler v. Garner , 548 N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa 1996) (“[W]e will not speculate on the arguments [a party] might have made and then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts to support such arguments.”); Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co

. , 215 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa 1974) (“To reach the merits of this case would require us to assume a partisan role and undertake the appellant’s research and advocacy. This role is one we refuse to assume.”). Although we acknowledge termination

- of

- parental

- rights appeals are expedited and the opportunity for briefing is abbreviated, see generally Iowa R. App. P. 6.201, the mother’s position is not adequately formulated to facilitate our review. Consequently, we affirm the termination of her parental rights.
AFFIRMED.