alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 310.5 Disclosure of requested information to individuals. ( a ) Except to the extent that Corporation records pertaining to an individual: ( 1 ) Are exempt from disclosure under §§ 310.6 and 310.13 of this part, or
( 2 ) Were compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding, the Corporation will make such records available upon request for purposes of inspection and copying by the individual (after proper identity verification as provided in § 310.4) and, upon the individual's request and written authorization, by another person of the individual's own choosing.
( b ) The FOIA/PA Group will notify, in writing, the individual making a request, whenever practicable within ten business days following receipt of the request, whether any specified designated system of records maintained by the Corporation contains a record pertaining to the individual. Where such a record does exist, the FOIA/PA Group also will inform the individual of the system manager's decision whether to grant or deny the request for access. In the event existing records are determined not to be disclosable, the notification will inform the individual of the reasons for which disclosure will not be made and will provide a description of the individual's right to appeal the denial, as more fully set forth in § 310.9. Where access is to be granted, the notification will specify the procedures for verifying the individual's identity, as set forth in § 310.4.
( c ) Individuals will be granted access to records disclosable under this part 310 as soon as is practicable. The FOIA/PA Group will give written notification of a reasonable period within which individuals may inspect disclosable records pertaining to themselves at the offices of the FOIA/PA Group during normal business hours. Alternatively, individuals granted access to records under this part may request that copies of such records be forwarded to them. Fees for copying such records will be assessed as provided in § 310.11.
[40 FR 46274, Oct. 6, 1975, as amended at 42 FR 6796, Feb. 4, 1977; 67 FR 71071, Nov. 29, 2002]
Non-Guideline Application

Introductory Remarks

Tyler Fox

9th Conference on Air Quality Modelin

October 9, 2008
Presentations

• 2002 NATA—Ted Palma (OAQPS)• AERMOD Experiences in Birmingha

PM2.5 Study—Leigh Bacon (ADEM

• Use of Photochemical Models for NE

New Oil & Gas Wells—Ralph Morris (ENVIRON)
Toxics Risk Assessment

• Appendix W states . . . 

– “We separately issue guidance for use of mo

facility-specific and community-scale air toxicassessments through the Air Toxics Risk AssReference Library.”

• http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_main.html

– “We recognize that the tools and approaches 

recommended therein will eventually reflect timproved formulations of the AERMOD modesystem and we expect to appropriately incorpthem as expeditiously as practicable.”
Ozone/PM2.5/Regional Ha

Modeling Guidance

• “Guidance on the use of Models and 

Analyses for Demonstrating AttainmAir Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, 

Regional Haze”

– Original draft—Jan 2001– Draft final—Sept 2006– Final version—April 2007

• http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guida

ide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf
Local Area Analysis

• Focused on evaluating influence of prima

PM2.5 at monitors

– Provides method to examine local primary PM 

contributions at FRM monitors

• Replaces “hotspot” analysis from draft PM

(2001) guidance

– 2001 guidance specified dispersion modeling 

unmonitored areas w/ high primary PM2.5 em

• Local area analysis can use dispersion m

or fine grid Eulerian model
Local Area Analysis

• Model local sources to examine 

contributions to nonattainment and impacts of potential controls

– High resolution grid model

• 1 km (or finer?) resolution• Follow “standard” guidance procedures

– Dispersion modeling

• Need to combine the results of the photoc

and dispersion models

• The modeling guidance outlines a framew

this
PM2.5 Local Area Analysi

Modeling Workshop

• EPA sponsored October 2007 workshop 

Rosemont, IL to discuss modeling experiand issues/recommendations

• Several state presentations

– Cleveland, Cincinnati, & Steubenville (Ohio E– St Louis Area (IL EPA)– Birmingham, AL area (ADEM)– Atlanta, GA (GA EPD)– Allegheny Co, PA (Allegheny Co Health Dept– Detroit, MI (MDEQ)
§ 241.1 Authority and purpose. ( a ) *Authority.* This part is issued by the Board pursuant to section 618 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 U.S.C. 1850a).
( b ) *Purpose.* This part establishes the procedures by which a securities holding company may elect to register to be supervised by the Board.
Opinion issued February 27, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00831-CV

———————————

TETRA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant

V.

ORINOCO NATURAL RESOURCES, LLC, 

THOMAS M. CLARKE, AND ANA M. CLARKE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2018-44621

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Tetra Technologies, Inc., has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss 

this appeal. No opinion has issued in this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion 

and dismiss the appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss any other pending 

motions as moot.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower.
#### § 303.4 Computation of time.

For purposes of this part, and except as otherwise specifically provided, the FDIC begins computing the relevant period on the day after an event occurs (e.g., the day after a substantially complete filing is received by the FDIC or the day after publication begins) through the last day of the relevant period. When the last day is a Saturday, Sunday or federal holiday, the period runs until the end of the next business day.

[67 FR 79247, Dec. 27, 2002, as amended at 68 FR 50459, Aug. 21, 2003]
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 1016 Directorate ID : 2010 - SW - 009 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 412 and 412EP Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 143 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of in the swashplate outer ring assembly because of cracking, which could lead to the loss of main rotor blade pitch control and subsequent loss of helicopter control. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $25,725 for the outer ring replacement Labor per Helicopter ( 1 x $ 8 5 /work- hour for the records - related actions ) (26 x $85/work- hour for the outer ring replacement) $ 85 $2,210 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 85 f or the records - related actions $27,935 for the outer ring replacement Total US Fleet Cost $12,155 for the records - related actions Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Po licies and Procedures : Isthe AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Michael Kohner
AUGUST 3, 1994

          INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS          OF THE STATE OF VERMONT
                   NUMBER                              SHARES




                           THE VERMONT WITCH HAZEL CO.
                       AUTHORIZED 100 SHARES COMMON STOCK
                                  NO PAR VALUE
THIS  CERTIFIES  THAT  _________________________________is  the
registered  holder  of  ______________________________________  Shares

                           THE VERMONT WITCH HAZEL CO.
Transferable  only  on  the  books  of  the  Corporation by the holder hereof in
person  or  by  Attorney  when  surrender of this certificate properly endorsed.

In  Witness  Whereof:  The  said  Corporation  has caused this Certificate to be
signed  by  its  duly  authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto
affixed
                               This _____________day
                              of____________ 19___


       ________________________                         ________________________
                      Secretary                         President
                                    CORPORATE SEAL
# CA2021464EN.01000101.xml

| 17.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 464/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 464/1

---

Corrigendum to Directorate-General Research and Innovation – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Principal Adviser – President of the Board of the European Innovation Council

(Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14)

COM/2021/10408

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 432 A of 26 October 2021
  )

(2021/C 464 A/01)

On page 5, under ‘Closing date’, first paragraph:

| for: | ‘The closing date for registration is 26 November 2021, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’, |
| --- | --- |

for:

‘The closing date for registration is 26 November 2021, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’,

| read: | ‘The closing date for registration is 17 December 2021, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’. |
| --- | --- |

read:

read:

‘The closing date for registration is 17 December 2021, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’.

---
#### James O’Donohue, Respondent, *v.*Joseph Reuth and Emil Bartolicus, Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of The Liberty Iron Works, Appellants.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Municipal Court, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff after a trial had before the court without a jury.

J. H. K. Blauvelt, for appellants.

Joseph II. Radigan, for respondent.

*761
      *Per Curiam.*

The action is to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property sustained by plaintiff through the negligence of a driver employed by the defendants. The plaintiff, on the 5th day of May, 1900, was riding a bicycle through the “ Circle ” in the city of Hew York, as that part of Fifty-ninth street which intersects Seventh and Eighth avenues has become universally known, and was proceeding northward when he was run into by a truck driven by an employee of the defendants and which was moving in an opposite direction. There was a conflict of evidence as to who was responsible for the accident and as to whether plaintiff contributed thereto. The justice resolved the conflict in favor of the plaintiff, and we see no reason for disturbing his decision upon the facts.

The record does not disclose a single exception taken by the defendants to adverse rulings of the trial justice.

We conclude that the judgment was right and should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerioh and O’Goriian, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### Hugh O’Neill, Appellant, *v.*Thomas J. Meighan, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

October, 1900.)

1. Bills and notes — Note payable on demand, without interest, must be presented in a reasonable time.

A promissory note, payable on demand, .must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after the making thereof in order to hold the indorser.

2. Same — Presumption of injury to indorser.

Where the holder fails to show that injury did not result to the indorser from the failure so to present the note, the indorser is discharged. .

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the defendant, upon a trial had before the court, without a jury. Action against the indorser of a promissory note payable on demand. The defense was that the note was not presented within a reasonable time after the making of the same.

George C. Coffin, for appellant.

Thomas J. Meighan, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The record discloses sufficient evidence to justify a finding that the note in suit was not presented within a reasonable time. The said note was made payable on demand, without interest, and was given by the maker in part settlement of a previous indebtedness to the holder. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the plaintiff, in order to hold the defendant herein liable as an indorser upon-said note, to present the same within a reasonable time after the making thereof (Crim v. Starkweather, 88 N. Y. 339), and injury will be presumed until it is made to appear that no damage could have resulted from the failure so to do. The mere insolvency of the maker is not a sufficient reason for failing of seasonable presentation. Smith v. Miller, 52 N. Y. 545; Manning v. Lyon, 70 Hun, 345; Carroll v. Sweet, 128 N. Y. 19, reversing 25 N. Y. St. Rep. 356, cited by the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to show that injury *517did not result from the omission to present the note in due time the justice was right in rendering judgment, as he did, in favor of the defendant.

There being no other ground urged for the reversal of the judgment, it must be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 37]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ037.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 229]]

Public Law 110-37
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
    To reauthorize the program of the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
  Development for loan guarantees for Indian housing. <<NOTE: June 18, 
                         2007 -  [H.R. 1676]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Native American Home 
Ownership Opportunity Act of 2007. 12 USC 1701 note.>> assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Native American Home Ownership 
Opportunity Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE AMERICAN HOUSING.

    Section 184(i) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 
(12 U.S.C. 1715z-13a(i)) is amended as follows:
            (1) Outstanding aggregate limitation.--In paragraph (5)(C), 
        by striking ``fiscal years 1997 through 2007'' and inserting 
        ``fiscal years 2008 through 2012''.
            (2) Authorization of appropriations.--In paragraph (7), by 
        striking ``fiscal years 1997 through 2007'' and inserting 
        ``fiscal years 2008 through 2012''.

    Approved June 18, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1676:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110-102 (Comm. on Financial Services).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Apr. 24, considered and passed House.
            May 24, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 10.8


         Consent of HJ & Associates, LLC



         We hereby consent to the use of our audit report dated July 7, 2000 in
this Form 10KSB of Chequemate Intenational, Inc. for the year ended March 31,
2000, which is part of this Form 10-KSB and all references to our firm included
in this Form 10-KSB.


         /s/  HJ & Associates, LLC


                                      129
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED INTERIM FINANCIAL AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED AUGUST
31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                         585,389
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  209,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    389,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,198,692
<PP&E>                                         677,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                 662,122
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,269,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          191,882
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,383,385
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,305,392)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,269,875
<SALES>                                        325,421
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               330,384
<CGS>                                          188,298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  369,810
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,426)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,426)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,426)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        


</TABLE>
#### § 37.8 Safety and soundness requirements.

A national bank must manage the risks associated with debt cancellation contracts and debt suspension agreements in accordance with safe and sound banking principles. Accordingly, a national bank must establish and maintain effective risk management and control processes over its debt cancellation contracts and debt suspension agreements. Such processes include appropriate recognition and financial reporting of income, expenses, assets and liabilities, and appropriate treatment of all expected and unexpected losses associated with the products. A bank also should assess the adequacy of its internal control and risk mitigation activities in view of the nature and scope of its debt cancellation contract and debt suspension agreement programs.
----

**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Annual Report of TurboSonicTechnologies Inc., (the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending June 30,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, (the "Report"), I,Edward F. Spink, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that: 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 
(2)   The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company. /s/ EDWARD F. SPINK Edward      F. SpinkChief      Executive Officer      (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)      September 22, 2006
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-60062 Summary Calendar

Marta Bonger Zrgua,

Petitioner ,

versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A206 639 442

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Marta Bonger Zrgua, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order by the Board of I mmigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from the denial of her applicat ion for asylum, withholding of removal,

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-60062 Document: 00516154087 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2022No. 21-60062

2 and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and her motion to remand.
She contends that the BIA abused it s discretion in denying her motion to remand because she received ine ffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to inform her of the need to provide corroborative evidence or explain why such evidence was importan t. Because she does not challenge the determination that she was not en titled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT based on her failure to provide reasonably available corroborative evidence, she has abandoned review of those claims. See Chambers v. Mukasey , 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
We review the BIA’s denial of a re quest for a remand for an abuse of discretion. Milat v. Holder , 755 F.3d 354, 365 (5th Cir. 2014).
To establish a claim of ineffectiv e assistance, a petitioner must demonstrate substantial prejudice re sulting from counsel’s deficient performance. Gutierrez-Morales v. Homan , 461 F.3d 605, 609 (5th Cir. 2006). Despite her assertions to the contrary, she is unable to d emonstrate that her former attorney acted unreasonably be cause the attorney produced emails and other documents in which the attorney asked her to provide corroborating documents from her friend s and family, and wh en she failed to do so, the attorney asked her to explai n why the evidence was unavailable. Moreover, in her affidavi t in support of the moti on for a remand, Bonger Zrgua acknowledges that the attorney asked if she had documents from home, such as letters from family; as ked about her communications with her father and siblings; and asked her wh y she did not have a letter from her father. Based upon the foregoing, she has failed to demonstrate that the BIA abused its discretion in concluding th at she failed to demonstrate that her former attorney rendered in effective assistance. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED

. Case: 21-60062 Document: 00516154087 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2022