alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes for the September 5, 2007 Conference Call Between the US 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Vinyl Institute to Discuss Plans

for the Vacated Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production MACT Standard

FROM: Greg Nizich, U.S. EPA.

TO: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0037

DATE: October 2, 2007

The EPA held a conference call with the Vinyl Institute (VI) and some member 

companies on September 5, 2007 to discuss issues related to the court vacature of the subject 

MACT standard. The following people participated in the call:

Greg Nizich, EPA Frank Borrelli, VI

KC Hustvedt, EPA Mary Bachynsky, Formosa Corp.

Randy McDonald, EPA Ken Akins, Georgia Gulf Corp.

Marcia Mia, EPA J.C. Walker, Keller and Heckman

Sheila Igoe, EPA Peter de la Cruz, Keller and Heckman

Jason Huckaby, ERG Ray Giovanetti, Oxy Chemicals

The following topics were discussed:

1. The Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (MON) and the polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

manufacturing industry.

2. Establishment of the MACT floor for processes cited by petitioners on the original PVC 

rule.

3. Variation in product mix and end products amongst the different facilities.

4. Previous meetings between the VI and state permitting staff with PVC facilities.

5. Option of having VI members review our National Emissions Inventory data and fill in 

areas where we lack information to properly address petitioner’s issues.
| SUBSIDIARY                                          | JURISDICTION                OF INCORPORATION |
|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| Buckeye                Florida Corporation          | Delaware                                     |
| BFC                2 Inc.                           | Florida                                      |
| BFC                3 LLC                            | Delaware                                     |
| BFOL                2 Inc.                          | Florida                                      |
| BFOL                3 LLC                           | Delaware                                     |
| Buckeye                Florida, Limited Partnership | Delaware                                     |
| Buckeye                S. A.                        | Switzerland                                  |
| Buckeye                Lumberton Inc.               | North                Carolina                |
| Buckeye                Mt. Holly LLC                | Delaware                                     |
| Merfin                Systems LLC                   | Delaware                                     |
| Buckeye                Canada Co.                   | Canada                                       |
| Buckeye                Nova Scotia Co.              | Canada                                       |
| Buckeye                Canada                       | Canada                                       |
| Buckeye                Technologies Ireland Ltd.    | Ireland                                      |
| BKI                International Inc.               | Delaware                                     |
| Buckeye                France SARL                  | France                                       |
| Buckeye                Italia S.r.l.                | Italy                                        |
| Buckeye                Holding GmbH                 | Germany                                      |
| Buckeye                Technologies GmbH            | Germany                                      |
| Buckeye                Steinfurt GmbH               | Germany                                      |
| BKI                South America LLC                | Delaware                                     |
| Buckeye                Americana Ltda.              | Brazil                                       |
| Buckeye                Technologies Canada Inc.     | Delaware                                     |
| Buckeye                Building Fibers LLC          | Delaware                                     |
#### § 308.181 Recommended decision.

The administrative law judge shall file with the Administrative Officer a recommended decision on the fee application not later than 90 days after the filing of the application or 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, whichever is later. The recommended decision shall include written proposed findings and conclusions on the applicant's eligibility and its status as a prevailing party and an explanation of the reasons for any difference between the amount requested and the amount of the recommended award. The recommended decision shall also include, if at issue, proposed findings on whether the FDIC's position was substantially justified, whether the applicant unduly protracted the proceedings, or whether special circumstances make an award unjust. The administrative law judge shall file the record of the proceeding on the fee application and, at the same time, serve upon each party a copy of the recommended decision, findings, conclusions, and proposed order.

[86 FR 2251, Jan. 12, 2021]
#### § 335.241 Unlisted trading.

The provisions of the applicable and currently effective SEC regulations under section 12(f) of the Exchange Act shall be followed as codified at 17 CFR part 240.

[75 FR 73949, Nov. 30, 2010]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,063,245
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,745
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,134,990
<PP&E>                                      19,494,064
<DEPRECIATION>                             (4,157,171)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,600,259
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          143,277
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     385,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,600,259
<SALES>                                      1,772,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,901,427
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               975,501
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,530,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (604,913)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (604,913)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (604,913)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7340

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM LEWIS HINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-93-258-P)

Submitted: November 26, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lewis Hinson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). In a criminal case, a defendant has ten days

within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from

judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The district court

may, upon a showing of excusable neglect, extend by thirty days the

time for filing a notice of appeal. See United States v. Reyes, 759

F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 857 (1985).

The district court entered its order on March 8, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on Sept. 5, 1996. Appellant's

failure to note an appeal within the ten-day appeal period and the

thirty-day permissible extension period leaves this court without

jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We

therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. We also deny Appellant's motion for appointment of

counsel.

DISMISSED
§ 313.46 Notice of salary offset where FDIC is the paying agency. ( a ) Upon issuance of a proper certification by the Director for debts owed to the FDIC, or upon receipt of a proper certification from a creditor agency, the Director shall send the employee a written notice of salary offset. Such notice shall advise the employee: ( 1 ) That certification has been issued by the Director or received from another creditor agency;
( 2 ) Of the amount of the debt and of the deductions to be made; and
( 3 ) Of the initiation of salary offset at the next officially established pay interval or as otherwise provided for in the certification.
( b ) Where appropriate, the Director shall provide a copy of the notice to the creditor agency and advise such agency of the dollar amount to be offset and the pay period when the offset will begin.
§ 51.6 Administrative expenses of receiver. ( a ) *Priority of administrative expenses.* All administrative expenses of the receiver for an uninsured bank shall be paid out of the assets of the bank in receivership before payment of claims against the receivership.
( b ) *Scope of administrative expenses.* Administrative expenses of the receiver for an uninsured bank include those expenses incurred by the receiver in maintaining banking operations during the receivership, to preserve assets of the uninsured bank, while liquidating or otherwise resolving the affairs of the uninsured bank. Such expenses include pre-receivership and post-receivership obligations that the receiver determines are necessary and appropriate to facilitate the orderly liquidation or other resolution of the uninsured bank in receivership.
( c ) *Types of administrative expenses.* Administrative expenses for the receiver of an uninsured bank include: ( 1 ) Salaries, costs, and other expenses of the receiver and its staff, and costs of contracts entered into by the receiver for professional services relating to performing receivership duties; and
( 2 ) Expenses necessary for the operation of the uninsured bank, including wages and salaries of employees, expenses for professional services, contractual rent pursuant to an existing lease or rental agreement, and payments to third-party or affiliated service providers, that in the opinion of the receiver are of benefit to the receivership, until the date the receiver repudiates, terminates, cancels, or otherwise discontinues the applicable contract.
#### § 365.1 Purpose and scope.

This subpart, issued pursuant to section 304 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, 12 U.S.C. 1828(o), prescribes standards for real estate lending to be used by FDIC-supervised institutions in adopting internal real estate lending policies. For purposes of this subpart, the term “FDIC-supervised institution” means any insured depository institution for which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is the appropriate Federal banking agency pursuant to section 3(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1813(q).

[84 FR 31173, July 1, 2019]
ASSIGNMENT

     ASSIGNMENT made effective as of January 31, 2001, by Mark Gifford to
Concentrax, Inc. I, Mark Gifford, have invented a vehicle and equipment tracking
device called the SELF MONITORING VEHICLE ALERT AND TRACKING STSYEM, an
invention for which an application for United States Patent was executed. A
disclosure document for this invention was submitted to the Honorable
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks on June 2, 1998; WHEREAS, actual
reduction to practice of the invention covered by the application has not
occurred; and

     WHEREAS, American Tracking Systems, Inc., the company that was initially
formed to exploit that invention, was voluntarily dissolved on December 9, 2000,
and as a result of such dissolution, each of nine shareholders and investors
were granted an undivided interest in and to the business products, inventions,
and other assets of such corporation;

     WHEREAS, On January 31, 2001, Concentrax, Inc. acquired all of the
business, business assets, and the "Track-Down" concept, invention and patent
application pending pursuant to a certain 351 Contribution Agreement that was
made by and among the previous owners (shareholders and investors) of American
Tracking Service, Inc. and Concentrax, Inc.(then called Miami Dade Ventures,
Inc.), which became effective on January 31, 2001;

     WHEREAS, according to that 351 Contribution Agreement, the previous owners
of American Tracking Service, Inc., including Mr. Gifford, transfered, sold,
conveyed, assigned and quitclaimed all rights, title and interest in the former
business of American Tracking Services, Inc., including the "patent pending and
the invention as described in the patent application, together with all
potential modifications and/or improvements to the invention, including designs,
concepts and work-in process" in exchange for Common Stock in Concentrax, Inc.;

     WHEREAS, the patent application was filed individually by me, and the
purpose of this assignment is to formalize my full assignment of rights, title
and interest in the patent pending and the invention as described in the patent
application , together with all potential modifications and/or improvements to
the invention, including designs, concepts and work-in process, to Concentrax,
Inc.

     NOW THEREFRE, INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND, in consideration of the
issuance to me of 1,750,000 shares of Common Stock of Concentrax, Inc., receipt
by me is hereby acknowledged, and for other good and valuable consideration, I
do hereby transfer, sell, convey, assign and quitclaim an of my rights, title
and interest in the of the patent pending and the invention as described in the
patent application , together with all potential modifications and/or
improvements to the invention, including designs, concepts and work-in process.


                                                      By:     /s / Mark Gifford
                                                              -----------------
Date:  May 17, 2001                                           Mark Gifford
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3222 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3222

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 300 Quarropas Street in White Plains, New York, as the ``Charles L. 
     Brieant, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2003

Mrs. Lowey (for herself and Mrs. Kelly) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 300 Quarropas Street in White Plains, New York, as the ``Charles L. 
     Brieant, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 300 
Quarropas Street in White Plains, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Charles L. Brieant, Jr. Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Charles L. Brieant, Jr. Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 271.14 Appeals. ( a ) If the Committee makes an adverse determination as defined in § 271.13(f), the requester may file a written appeal with the Committee, as follows: ( 1 ) The appeal should prominently display the phrase FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL on the first page, and can be submitted online at *https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/fomc/appeals.htm* or, if sent by mail, addressed to the Secretary of the Committee, Federal Open Market Committee, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551; or sent by facsimile to the Secretary of the Committee, (202) 452-2921. If the requester is appealing the denial of expedited treatment, the appeal should clearly be labeled “Appeal for Expedited Processing.”
( 2 ) A request for records under § 271.11 may not be combined in the same letter with an appeal.
( 3 ) To be considered timely, an appeal must be postmarked, or in the case of electronic submissions, transmitted, within 90 calendar days after the date of the adverse determination.
( b ) Except as provided in § 271.12(c)(3), the Committee shall make a determination regarding any appeal within 20 working days of actual receipt of the appeal by the Committee. If an adverse determination is upheld on appeal, in whole or in part, the determination letter shall notify the appealing party of the right to seek judicial review and of the availability of dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation.
( c ) The Committee may reconsider an adverse determination, including one on appeal, if intervening circumstances or additional facts not known at the time of the adverse determination come to the attention of the Committee.
Exhibit 99.2




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of  CareerEngine  Network,  Inc. (the
"Registrant")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2002
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Anthony S. Conigliaro,  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     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 result of operations of
          the Registrant.





                                      /s/ Anthony S. Conigliaro
                                      -----------------------------------------
Date: November 14, 2002               Anthony S. Conigliaro, Vice President and
                                      Chief Financial Officer
§ 324.201 Purpose, applicability, and reservation of authority. ( a ) *Purpose.* This subpart F establishes risk-based capital requirements for FDIC-supervised institutions with significant exposure to market risk, provides methods for these FDIC-supervised institutions to calculate their standardized measure for market risk and, if applicable, advanced measure for market risk, and establishes public disclosure requirements.
( b ) *Applicability.* ( 1 ) This subpart F applies to any FDIC-supervised institution with aggregate trading assets and trading liabilities (as reported in the FDIC-supervised institution's most recent quarterly Call Report), equal to: ( i ) 10 percent or more of quarter-end total assets as reported on the most recent quarterly Call Report; or
( ii ) $1 billion or more.
( 2 ) The FDIC may apply this subpart to any FDIC-supervised institution if the FDIC deems it necessary or appropriate because of the level of market risk of the FDIC-supervised institution or to ensure safe and sound banking practices.
( 3 ) The FDIC may exclude an FDIC-supervised institution that meets the criteria of paragraph (b)(1) of this section from application of this subpart if the FDIC determines that the exclusion is appropriate based on the level of market risk of the FDIC-supervised institution and is consistent with safe and sound banking practices.
( c ) *Reservation of authority* ( 1 ) The FDIC may require an FDIC-supervised institution to hold an amount of capital greater than otherwise required under this subpart if the FDIC determines that the FDIC-supervised institution's capital requirement for market risk as calculated under this subpart is not commensurate with the market risk of the FDIC-supervised institution's covered positions. In making determinations under paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section, the FDIC will apply notice and response procedures generally in the same manner as the notice and response procedures set forth in § 324.5(c).
( 2 ) If the FDIC determines that the risk-based capital requirement calculated under this subpart by the FDIC-supervised institution for one or more covered positions or portfolios of covered positions is not commensurate with the risks associated with those positions or portfolios, the FDIC may require the FDIC-supervised institution to assign a different risk-based capital requirement to the positions or portfolios that more accurately reflects the risk of the positions or portfolios.
( 3 ) The FDIC may also require an FDIC-supervised institution to calculate risk-based capital requirements for specific positions or portfolios under this subpart, or under subpart D or subpart E of this part, as appropriate, to more accurately reflect the risks of the positions.
( 4 ) Nothing in this subpart limits the authority of the FDIC under any other provision of law or regulation to take supervisory or enforcement action, including action to address unsafe or unsound practices or conditions, deficient capital levels, or violations of law.