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

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

196)IV-E-70 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57 PM Sheet 196 of 242 
P.2 

'• A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

#-87-// 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION" 

SEP 2 2 1988 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

Phone Conversation With Mr. George Musser of Exxon 

John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Public Docket A-87-11 

Q^/Z^jy 

During the week of September 12, 1988 I had conversations 

with Mr. George Musser of EXXON concerning arrangements for the 

testing of the API onboard cars. The purpose of these 

conversations was to obtain various details about the 

construction and operation of the modified Ford vehicle to 

facilitate our testing of the vehicle. 

? I
VHS Network, Inc.
1599 Hurontario Street

                                                                  April 15, 1999

Re: Management Agreement

Dear Sirs:

This letter will  constitute  our  agreement of VHS Network,  whereby  Groupmark
Canada  Ltd.,  will  supply  executive,  clerical  and  administrative  staff as
required to perform the day to day  business of VHS.  Groupmark  will  contract,
where required,  with third parties for technical  development and consulting in
regard to "Set Top Box: and "Smart Card" applications.

Groupmark will respond to requests for quotations, answer e-mails etc. Groupmark
will also supply the necessary telephones,  office equipment,  reception and all
other physical requirements to carry the business of VHS.

The charge for these  services will vary  depending on demand,  however will not
exceed  $56,000  per month in U.S.  funds  including  travel  and other  related
expenses.

Groupmark  agrees to accrue its billing for services until VHS may reasonably be
able to pay for same and in the  alternative,  Groupmark can exercise the option
to accept  payment by way of VHS stock in lieu  therefore.  This  agreement will
renew each year unless  cancelled  by either  party in  writing,  giving 30 days
notice.

Yours truly,


By: /s/ Elwin Cathcart

----------------------
Elwin Cathcart
CEO Groupmark Canada Ltd.


Accepted by VHS Network Inc.

Per_______________________
§ 192.425 Termination of conversion. A conversion may be terminated by: ( a ) A savings association's members failing to approve the conversion at its members' meeting;
( b ) A savings association before its members' meeting; or
( c ) A savings association after the members' meeting, but only if the appropriate Federal banking agency concurs.
§ 263.73 Order for informal hearing. ( a ) *Issuance of hearing order.* Upon receipt of a timely request for an informal hearing, the Secretary shall promptly issue an order directing an informal hearing to commence within 30 days of the receipt of the request. At the request of the institution-affiliated party, the Secretary may order the hearing to commence at a time more than 30 days after the receipt of the request for hearing. The hearing shall be held in Washington, DC, or at such other place as may be designated by the Secretary, before presiding officers designated by the Secretary to conduct the hearing. The presiding officers normally will include representatives from the Board's Legal Division and the Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation and from the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank.
( b ) *Waiver of oral hearing.* A institution-affiliated party may waive in writing his or her right to an oral hearing and instead elect to have the matter determined by the Board solely on the basis of written submissions.
( c ) *Hearing procedures.* ( 1 ) The institution-affiliated party may appear at the hearing personally, through counsel, or personally with counsel. The institution-affiliated party shall have the right to introduce relevant written materials and to present an oral argument. The institution-affiliated party may introduce oral testimony and present witnesses only if expressly authorized by the Board or the Secretary. Except as provided in § 263.11, the adjudicative procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 554-557) and of subpart A of this part shall not apply to the informal hearing ordered under this subpart unless the Board orders that subpart A of this part applies.
( 2 ) The informal hearing shall be recorded and a transcript shall be furnished to the institution-affiliated party upon request and after the payment of the cost thereof. Witnesses need not be sworn, unless specifically requested by a party or the presiding officers. The presiding officers may ask questions of any witness.
( 3 ) The presiding officers may order the record to be kept open for a reasonable period following the hearing (normally five business days), during which time additional submissions to the record may be made. Thereafter, the record shall be closed.
( d ) *Authority of presiding officers.* In the course of or in connection with any proceeding under this subpart, the Board or the presiding officers are authorized to administer oaths and affirmations, to take or cause to be taken depositions, to issue, quash or modify subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum, and, for the enforcement thereof, to apply to an appropriate United States district court. All action relating to depositions and subpoenas shall be in accordance with the rules provided in §§ 263.34 and 263.53.
( e ) *Recommendation of presiding officers.* The presiding officers shall make a recommendation to the Board concerning the notice or order of suspension, removal, or prohibition within 20 calendar days following the close of the record on the hearing.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alliance Financial Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Daniel Mohr, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted 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, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: August 11, 2008



/s/ J. Daniel MohrName:

J. Daniel MohrTitle:

Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer




-33-
Hamptons	Aerial	Photography

Mr.	Sean	Finnerty

5	Gracewood	Ct.

Hampton	Bays,	NY	11946

631-988-5101

sfinnerty2@gmail.com

I,	Sean	Finnerty,	owner	of	Hamptons	Aerial	Photography,	am	petitioning	the	Federal	

Aviation	Administration	(FAA)	for	an	exemption	from	part	21	Subpart	H	and	§§	

61.113(a)	and	(b);	61.23(a),	91.109,	91.121,	91.151(a),	91.405(a),	91.407(a)(1),	

91.409(a)(1)	and	(2),	and	91.417(a)	and	(b)	of	Title	14,	Code	of	Federal	Regulations	

(14	CFR).			This	exemption	would	be	granted	to	operate	a	DJI	Inspire	1	+	unmanned	

aircraft	system	(UAS)	to	conduct	aerial	photography	and	videography	for	

homeowners,	realtors,	home	builders,	home	contractors,	and/or	home	inspectors	

for	real	estate	marketing	and	inspections	of	home	exteriors	in	addition	to	other	

photography	and	videography	for	hire	projects	which	may	include	but	not	limited	to	

weddings,	birthday	parties,	and	private	events.		A	granted	exemption	would	allow	

Hamptons	Aerial	Photography	to	safely	provide	a	service	to	local	individuals	and	

businesses	which	currently	is	not	widely	available.	The	owner	operated	DJI	Inspire	

1	will	be	operated	in	a rural community environment	which poses	no	imminent	

safety	risk	to	the	public	or	local	infrastructure.		Additionally,	all	other	Federal	

Aviation	Administration	regulations	governing	aircraft	operation and	unmanned	

aircraft	systems	will	be	adhered	to.		All	pre	flight	safety	and	maintenance

procedures will	be	conducted	on	a	regular	basis	as	outlined	in	1)	Inspire	1	Training	

Guide,	Inspire	1	User	Manual,	Inspire	1	Guide,	and	Academy	of	Model	Aeronautics	

(AMA)	Safety	Code.
#### Edward E. Greenberg, Respondent, *v.*The American Technical Book Company, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court of the city of New York, affirming a judgment of the Trial Term of that court, in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial had before the court and a jury.

Kellogg *&*Beckwith (S. Vilas Beckwith, of counsel), for appellant.

George 0. Coffin (Edgar W. Williams, of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This action was brought to recover damages sustained in consequence of defendant’s alleged breach or abandonment of an agreement made by him with the plaintiff. It is not brought, as the defendant erroneously suggests, to recover commissions. It is true plaintiff would not be entitled to commissions as such until earned under the terms of the contract, but if plaintiff was unable to complete Ms right to commissions because of conduct of the defendant, which worked a breach of the contract, it cannot be said that in such a case the plaintiff was without redress. His remedy was the one pursued in this case — an action for damages for the breach. Upon the issue raised by the pleadings there was ample evidence requiring the submission of the case to the jury, and as there are no exceptions requiring notice, the judgment must be affirmed.

Present: Giegerich and" O’Gorman, ' JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 362.17 Definitions. For the purposes of this subpart, the following definitions will apply: ( a ) *Activity, company, control, insured depository institution, insured state bank, insured state nonmember bank and subsidiary* have the same meaning as provided in subpart A of this part.
( b ) *Affiliate* has the same meaning provided in subpart B of this part.
( c ) *Financial subsidiary* means any company that is controlled by one or more insured depository institutions other than: ( 1 ) A subsidiary that only engages in activities that the state nonmember bank is permitted to engage in directly and that are conducted on the same terms and conditions that govern the conduct of the activities by the state nonmember bank; or
( 2 ) A subsidiary that the state nonmember bank is specifically authorized to control by the express terms of a federal statute (other than section 46(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831w)), and not by implication or interpretation, such as the Bank Service Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1861 *et seq.*).
( d ) *Tangible equity* and *Tier 2 capital* have the same meaning as set forth in part 324 of this chapter.
( e ) *Well-managed* means: ( 1 ) Unless otherwise determined in writing by the appropriate federal banking agency, the institution has received a composite rating of 1 or 2 under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System (or an equivalent rating under an equivalent rating system) in connection with the most recent state or federal examination or subsequent review of the depository institution and at least a rating of 2 for management, if such a rating is given; or
( 2 ) In the case of any depository institution that has not been examined by its appropriate federal banking agency, the existence and use of managerial resources that the appropriate federal banking agency determines are satisfactory.
[63 FR 66326, Dec. 1, 1998, as amended at 78 FR 55596, Sept. 10, 2013; 83 FR 17741, Apr. 24, 2018]
#### STEVENS V. THE STATE.

(Decided June 19, 1913.)

Appeal from Pike County Law Court.

Heard before Hon. T. L. Borum.

E. R. Brannen, for appellant. R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for tbe State. ,

Walker, P. J. —

Tbe indictment was *sufficient.*— Mit*chell v.*State, *2*Ala. App. 147, 56 South. 56; Sec. 7151, Code 1907. Affirmed.
#### ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION *v.*Hubert SMITH JR., et al

73-15

495 S.W. 2d 147

Opinion delivered June 4, 1973

*Thomas B. Keys*ánd *Philip N.*Gozuen,.for appellant.

*Lightle, Tedder 6- Hannah,*for appellees.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

The Arkansas State Highway Commission contends on this appeal that the trial, court committed error in allowing the. landowners’ witness to use a sale occurring three years after the taking in arriving at his valuation of the property taken. We do not agree.

The record shows thát the property in question lies at the southern intersection of Highway 67 and Highway 67B. Prior to the taking, the landowners held a total of 40.5 acres with 9.5 acres being north and west of Highway 67 and 31 acres south and east of Highway 67. After the taking, there remains only 3.31 acres in “Y” created by No. 67 and No. 67B and 22.32 acres south *645and east of the freeway. By this action the Highway Commission took all of the access except seventy feet on the remaining 3.31 acre tract. The 22.32 acre tract is landlocked. All of the witnesses for the landowners described the property in the area as being closely held. Admittedly there were no comparable sales within the immediate vicinity. In testifying to comparables Terrill Huff, an expert witness for the landowners, stated that he considered a sale of property of Ruben Adams to J. W. Southerland on March 5, 1965, at $1785 per acre. He also stated that there was another sale of the same piece of property in July, 1971. At that time the Highway Commission objected on the ground that it was three years after the date of taking. The trial, court permitted the witness to use the subsequent sale at $2,857 per acre for the purpose of *interpolating*— i.e., to show market value as of the date of taking on July 25, 1968. By this method the witness arrived at a before value of $2000 per acre foi the 9.5 acre tract.

Two. other witnesses for the landowners used the same process without, objection and at least one of the witnesses for the Highway Commission stated that in making his appraisal he considered the Adams to Southerland sale and also the resale.

The Highway Commission now argues that it is common knowledge that the construction of the freeway through that area has caused substantial increases in land values and that the sale was too remote in time. The record here does not show that the highway construction involved has increased land values in general or that the freeway construction eroes bv or affects the 1971 resale of the Southerland tract. On the record here made we cannot say that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony for the purpose stated.

When viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we find substantial evidence to support the award in the amount of $34,637.00.

Affirmed.
#### § 340.8 Does this part apply in the case of a workout, resolution, or settlement of obligations?

The restrictions of §§ 340.3 and 340.4 do not apply if the sale or transfer of an asset resolves or settles, or is part of the resolution or settlement of, one or more obligations or claims that have been, or could have been, asserted by the FDIC against the person with whom the FDIC is settling regardless of the amount of such obligations or claims.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3175 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3175

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 2650 Cleveland Avenue, NW in Canton, Ohio, as the ``Richard D. Watkins 
                         Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2650 
Cleveland Avenue, NW in Canton, Ohio, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Richard D. Watkins Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Richard D. Watkins Post 
Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3068 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.3068

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
2055 Siesta Drive in Sarasota, Florida, as the ``Brigadier General (AUS-
                   Ret.) John H. McLain Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2055 
Siesta Drive in Sarasota, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 
``Brigadier General (AUS-Ret.) John H. McLain Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Brigadier General (AUS-Ret.) 
John H. McLain Post Office''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
VENDOR PROFILE

Note: Information is from vendor, however specifications may have 

changed. Contact vendor for updates.

Water Treatment Catalog and Decision Tool

212 Resources

Contact Information

Company Name: 212 Resources

Profile: 212 Resources (originally H2Oil Recovery Services) initially 

specialized in the reclamation of salable crude oil and fresh water 

from oil exploration and production tank bottoms, skim oil and 

produced water delivered for disposal. They now provide multiple 

water and hydrocarbon reclamation technologies to the natural 

gas sector and are primarily focused on a high velocity, turbulent 

flow mechanical vapor recompression evaporation system.

Address: 2795 East Cottonwood Parkway, Suite 310, Salt Lake City, UT 

84121

Phone: 801- 924- 9191

Website: http://www.212resources.com/

Treatment Technology

Category: Thermal Distillation/Evaporation/Microbe Removal

Subcategory: Mechanical Vapor Recompression (MVR) & ZLD/UV Light

Technology Name: Vacom Evaporation System

Surface Footprint 2,400 ft2

Process 

Description:

The Vacom system is based on three operating loops: the first 

loop preheats the feed against the exiting clean water discharge 

(recovers “sensible heat”); the second loop circulates the 

preheated wastewater from a holding vessel to heat exchanger 

and back into the vessel; and the third loop is where steam is 

evacuated with a steam pump and condenses into clean water.

During the process, 100% of the latent heat of vaporization is 

recovered. The system can also be integrated with a UV 

treatment component to aid in biological growth reduction and is 

capable of Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD).

Feedwater TDS/

% Water Recovery

300,000 ppm, approximately 50 % water recovery

Up to 95% water recovery is possible depending on feed water 

quality

% Waste Stream: 50% at 300,000 TDS

Feed Capability: 2,500 – 3,000 Bbls per day

Costs: $3.0 – $ 5.0 Bbl
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52831-52832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24633]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request; Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form T-4; OMB Control No. 3235-0107 ; SEC File No. 270-124.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
this request for extension of the previously approved collections of 
information discussed below.
    Form T-4 (17 CFR 269.4) is used to apply for an exemption under 
Section 304(c) (15 U.S.C. 77ddd(c)) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 
(15 U.S.C. 77aaa et seq.). Form T-4 is filed on occasion. The 
information required by Form T-4 is mandatory. This information is 
publicly available on EDGAR. Form T-4 takes approximately 5 hours per 
response to prepare and is filed by approximately 3 respondents. We 
estimate that 25% of the 5 hours per response (1 hour) is prepared by 
the filer for a total annual reporting burden of 3 hours (1 hour per 
response x 3 responses).

[[Page 52832]]

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed 
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#05566d6462706371645a446d686061456a68672b606a752b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="efbc878e889a899b8eb0ae87828a8baf80828dc18a809fc1888099">[email protected]</span></a>; and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities 
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, 
Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA--Mailbox 
@sec.gov. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this 
notice.

    Dated: October 7, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24633 Filed 10-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
427 A.2d 252

#### Commonwealth v. Tedford, Appellant.

Submitted November 16, 1979.

Paul Bogdon, for appellant;

Robert L. Eberhardt, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before SPAETH, HOFFMAN and VAN der VOORT, JJ.

The order of the lower court is hereby affirmed.