alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P. 0. Box 17779, Fountain Hzlh, AZ 85269 (Phone (480) 83 7-5121 Fac(480) 837-16.30 

--r--n---------- 

TW V -* Vvq -- WY ---*W rS---W F-W y% -y *m--Iv"y -I" Ilff -PPlnr 

Readent Dr. Clinton Pattea Vzce President Bernadine Bumette (Treasurer Parneh Mott 

CounczCMern6er PauCRusselC CounczCMember Ruben (Balderas CouncilSecretaly Palzsy fiomas 

December 22,2010 

Jared Blumenfeld 

Regional Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA. 94105-3901 

Dear Mr. Blumenfeld, 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to recommend a designation class for the boundaries of 

the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. 

We recommend a classification of "Unclassifiable" because we do not monitor for Nitrogen 

Dioxide (1102) nor do any of our immediate neighbors therefore there are no data available 

upon which to classify or not respond at all. 

Sincerely, 

Dr. Clinton M. Pattea 

President 

Cc: Phil Dorchester
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Theragenics Corporation, (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, M.
Christine Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of the dates and for the periods referred to in the
    Report.









Date: August
      12, 2010
            By:
            /s/ M.
      Christine JacobsM.
      Christine JacobsChief
      Executive Officer






A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Theragenics Corporation and will be retained by Theragenics Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
# C_2011156EN.01000701.xml

| 26.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/7

---

No state aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement

2011/C 156/05

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure

Date of adoption of the decision:

Case Number: 68558

Decision Number: 489/10/COL

EFTA State: Norway

Name of the beneficiary: Nordkraft Vind AS

Type of measure: Individual aid under the Energy Fund Scheme, subject to a detailed assessment under the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection

Scheme: The Energy Fund scheme approved by the EFTA Surveillance Authority with Decision No 125/06/COL of 3 May 2006

Objective: Environmental protection

Form of aid: Grant

Aid amount: NOK 200,1 million

Economic sector: Electricity production

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Enova SF |
| --- |
| Professor Borchsgt. 2 |
| 7030 Trondheim |
| NORWAY |

Enova SF

Professor Borchsgt. 2

7030 Trondheim

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
#### § 268.607 Delegation of authority.

The Board of Governors may delegate authority under this part, to one or more designees.
79–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106–496

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2086, NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

FEBRUARY 8, 2000.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 422]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 422, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2086, the

Networking and Information Technology Research Development

Act, under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Science.

The rule further provides that it shall be in order to consider as

an original bill for the purpose of amendment the amendment in

the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on

Science now printed in the bill, modified by striking section 8 (Research Credit Made Permanent). The amendment in the nature of

a substitute shall be open for amendment by section.

The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to

accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed

their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides that

those amendments shall be considered as read. The rule also allows

the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes

during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting time to five

minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a fifteen
2

minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Æ
Order entered May 26 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00338
- CV
FREDERICK E. MCDONAL D, IV, Appellant
V. EMILY MCDONALD, Appellee On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. DF
- 07
- 09019 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s May 22, 2015 second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by JULY 8, 2015 . We caution appellant that no further extension of time will be granted absent extrao rdinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ITS FIRST QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,613
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,401
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,131
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,907
<PP&E>                                         125,908
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 253,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,738
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,562)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   253,683
<SALES>                                         17,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,629
<CGS>                                            8,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   882
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,292
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,619
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,673
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,673
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
        


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40727

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARIO CORTEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(7:05-CR-614-ALL)

_________________________________________________________________

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Cortez appeals the 70-month term of imprisonment imposed

after his guilty plea to taking a vehicle by force, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2119. Cortez claims the district court reversibly

erred by imposing a Guidelines sentence without considering his

troubled and violent youth in the light of the sentencing factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 
-2-

After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentences

are reviewed only for unreasonableness; nevertheless, a district

court has a duty to consider the § 3553(a) factors as well as a

duty to correctly determine the applicable Guidelines range. E.g.,

United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 518-19, cert. denied, 126 S.

Ct. 43 (2005). If, in the exercise of discretion, the district

court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines

range, little explanation is required, and this court will infer

that the district court considered all of the factors for a fair

sentence set for in the Guidelines. Id. at 519. Given the

deference due the district court’s discretion under the Booker

regime, “it will be rare for a reviewing court to say such a

sentence is ‘unreasonable’”. Id.

The record reflects that the district court considered the

relevant statutory sentencing factors. Cortez has not shown that

the sentence was unreasonable or that this court should not defer

to the district court’s determinations at sentencing. Id.

AFFIRMED
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S

N O

. P D

- 1 0 6 1

- 1 9

O R L A N D O O R T I Z , A p p e l l a n t

v .

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N A P P E L L A N T ’ S M O T I O N F O R B A I L P E N D I N G A P P E A L

U N D E R T E X
. C O D E C R IM
. P R O C
. A r t 4 4

. 0 4 ( h )

L A S A L L E C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m .

O R D E R

A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f a s s a u l t f a m i l y v i o l e n c e b y o c c l u s i o n i n C a u s e N o

. 1 7

- 0 5

-

0 0 0 5 6

- C R L i n t h e 2 1 8 T H D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f L a S a l l e C o u n t y

. P u n i s h m e n t w a s a s s e s s e d a t

c o n f i n e m e n t f

o r 4 0 y e a r s

. T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s r e v e r s e d t h e c o n v i c t i o n

. O r t i z v

. S t a t e , N o

.

0 4

- 1 8

- 0 0 4 3 0

- C R ( T e x

. A p p

. – S a n A n t o n i o , S e p t e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 9 )

. T h e S t a t e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n

f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w w h i c h w a s g r a n t e d a n d t h e c a s e i s c u r r e n t l y p e n d i n g b e f o r e t h i s

C o u r t

. N o

. P D

- 1 0 6 1

- 1 9

.ORTI Z - 2

A p p e l l a n t h a s f

i l e d a n a p p l i c a t i o n u n d e r A r t i c l e 4 4

. 0 4 ( h ) o f t h e C o d e o f C r i m i n a l

P r o c e d u r e , t o s e t a r e a s o n a b l e b a i l p e n d i n g f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y ,
b a i l i s h e r e b y s e t i n t h e a m o u n t o f $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 , a n d i t i s O R D E R E D t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r d e r

A p p e l l a n t r e l e a s e d f

r o m c o n f i n e m e n t a s s e s s e d i n t h i s c a u s e u p o n t h e p o s t i n g o f b a i l

. A n y

s u r e t i e s m u s t b e a p p r o v e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t

.

E n t e r e d D e c e m b e r 9 , 2 0 1 9

. D o N o t P u b l i s h
Fw: Published discussion of the Xact Multi Published discussion of the Xact Multi Published discussion of the Xact Multi - Metals CEMS performance Metals CEMS performance Metals CEMS performance while at Lilly while at Lilly .....

..... Jacksonville IT Jacksonville IT Jacksonville IT 3

, 2011 Jeff Ryan Jeff Ryan to: David Ogulei, Sarah Marshall, Charles Hall,

Dan Bivins, Kim Garnett 09/26/2012 03:38 PM

Info from Rick Lambert to share with you.

____________________________________________________ Jeff Ryan U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division Air Pollution Technology Branch 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Mail Drop E305-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-1437 (919) 541-0554 FAX

" And all this science , I don't understand." "It's just my job 5 days a week"

Elton John - Rocket Man

____________________________________________________ ----- Forwarded by Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US on 09/26/2012 04:36 PM -----

From: Richard H Lambert <lambert_richard_h@lilly.com> To: Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Michael L Foster <foster_michael_l@lilly.com> Date: 09/26/2012 12:49 PM Subject: Published discussion of the Xact Multi-Metals CEMS performance while at Lilly.....

Jacksonville IT3, 2011

Jeff,

I thought I would forward several recent publications by Lilly regarding our positive experience with the Xact multi-metals CEMS. We can discuss this and any questions you or Region V have on the conference call, but I thought the attached publications would provide documentation around our experience. I believe we (Lilly) have been very straight forward on our positive experience with the Xact and have published this quite a bit.

Once you get an idea of what day(s) and/or times next week work, I will schedule the call.

Rick

### Rick Lambert

Eli Lilly Engineering Tech Center Phone: 317-276-1820 Cell Phone: 317-319-0523 Email: rhlambert @ lilly

. com

IT3 Paper on T149 CPT.ppt IT3 Paper on T149 CPT.pptIT3 2011 Lambert.ppt IT3 2011 Lambert.ppt

Execution of Comprehensive Performance Test using P articulate rev 1.doc
**Exhibit 21.1**

List of Subsidiaries 

Supreme International, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Supreme International, Inc. 

Jantzen, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Jantzen, Inc. 

Perry Ellis Menswear, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Perry Ellis Menswear, Inc. 

Perry Ellis Europe Limited, a privatelimited company incorporated in England and Wales 

Salant Holding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Salant Holding Corporation

PEI Licensing, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

Jantzen Apparel,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known as Jantzen Apparel Corp. 

Supreme Real Estate I, LLC, a Florida limited liability company

Supreme Real Estate II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company 

Supreme Realty, LLC, a Florida limited liability company 

Supreme Munsingwear Canada Inc., a Canada corporation 

Supreme International Canada Co. Limited, a Canada corporation 

Perry EllisShared Services Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

Winnsboro DC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Tampa DC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

Tampa DC Holdings, LLC,a Delaware limited liability company 

Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Ireland 

Perry Ellis International Europe Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Ireland 

Perry Ellis International HK Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong 

Perry Ellis InternationalEurope SARL, a private company incorporated under the laws of France 

Perry Ellis Real Estate, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company formerly known asPerry Ellis Real Estate Corporation 

Grand Team Holdings Limited, a private company incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong 

Laundry, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

C&C California, LLC,a Delaware limited liability company 

Perry Ellis Europe Retail, Limited, a private company incorporated in England and Wales 

Perry Ellis Menswear Puerto Rico, LLC, a Puerto Rico limited liability company 

Perry Ellis Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. a company incorporated under the laws of Mexico
§ 303.0 Scope. ( a ) This part describes the procedures to be followed by both the FDIC and applicants with respect to applications, requests, or notices (filings) required to be filed by statute or regulation. Additional details concerning processing are explained in related FDIC statements of policy.
( b ) Additional application procedures may be found in the following FDIC regulations: ( 1 ) 12 CFR part 327—Assessments (Request for review of assessment risk classification);
( 2 ) 12 CFR part 328—Advertisement of Membership (Application for temporary waiver of advertising requirements);
( 3 ) 12 CFR part 345—Community Reinvestment (CRA strategic plans and requests for designation as a wholesale or limited purpose institution);
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 32 57

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Mi ch ael D. Hanco ck

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Feb ru ary 10 , 20 15 Fi le d: Marc h 2 3, 2 01 5 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, COLLO TON, andKELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Mi ch ael Han co ck was se rv in g th e su pe rv is ed -rel eas e po rti on of hi s fed eral cri m in al se nt en ce whe n hi s pr ob at io n of fic er fil ed a vi ol at io n rep or t wit h th e di st ric tco ur t al le gi ng th at Han co ck ha d vi ol at ed se ve ral supe rv is ed -rel eas e co nd it io ns

. 1 Fo ll owi ng a he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at Han c o c k h a d vi ol at ed hi s rel eas e co nd it io ns an d rev ok ed s u p e rv is ed rel eas e, im po si ng a rev oc at io n se nt en ce of 11 m on th s in pr i s on an d two y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Fo r rev ers al , Ha nc oc k arg ue s th at th e co ur t co m

m it te d pl ai n erro r in se nt en ci ng hi m be cau se th e co ur t ga ve si gn ifi can t wei gh t t o o ne of h is pri orco nv ic ti on s.

Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n, se e Uni te d S t a t e s v. Mi ll er, 55 7 F.3 d 91 0, 91 5- 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s ta nd ard o f r ev ie w), m uc h le ss pl ai n
erro r, an d we affi rm th e jud gm en t. Co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw is gr an te d, bu t we di rect co un se l to in fo r m ap pe ll an t ab ou t th e pr oc ed ur es fo r fil in g a pe ti ti on fo r reh eari ng an d fo r cer ti or ari

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
-2

-
#### § 310.1 Purpose and scope.

The purpose of this part is to establish regulations implementing the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a. These regulations delineate the procedures that an individual must follow in exercising his or her access or amendment rights under the Privacy Act to records maintained by the Corporation in systems of records, including information transferred to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation from the Office of Thrift Supervision pursuant to sections 312 and 323 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111-203.

[76 FR 35965, June 21, 2011]
§ 263.28 Interlocutory review. ( a ) *General rule.* The Board may review a ruling of the ALJ prior to the certification of the record to the Board only in accordance with the procedures set forth in this section and § 263.23.
( b ) *Scope of review.* The Board may exercise interlocutory review of a ruling of the ALJ if the Board finds: ( 1 ) The ruling involves a controlling question of law or policy as to which substantial grounds exist for a difference of opinion;
( 2 ) Immediate review of the ruling may materially advance the ultimate termination of the proceeding;
( 3 ) Subsequent modification of the ruling at the conclusion of the proceeding would be an inadequate remedy; or
( 4 ) Subsequent modification of the ruling would cause unusual delay or expense.
( c ) *Procedure.* Any request for interlocutory review must be filed by a party with the ALJ within ten days of the ruling and must otherwise comply with § 263.23. Any party may file a response to a request for interlocutory review in accordance with § 263.23(d). Upon the expiration of the time for filing all responses, the ALJ will refer the matter to the Board for final disposition.
( d ) *Suspension of proceeding.* Neither a request for interlocutory review nor any disposition of such a request by the Board under this section suspends or stays the proceeding unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ or the Board.
# C_2021103EN.01001101.xml

| 25.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/11

---

No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

(2021/C 103/10)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 9 December 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85916 |
| Decision No | 144/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Municipal eHealth |
| Form of aid | No aid |

Date of adoption of the decision

9 December 2020

Case No

85916

Decision No

144/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Municipal eHealth

Form of aid

No aid

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
#### § 1807.103 Recipient not instrumentality.

No Recipient shall be deemed to be an agency, department, or instrumentality of the United States.