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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, Intertek USA, Inc., 3741 Red Bluff Road Suite 105, Pasadena, TX 77503, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                     

*http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*.                     

# DATES:

The approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger became effective on November 07, 2008. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for November 2011. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania                               ( print page 6301)                            Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.                     

Dated: January 29, 2009. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director,  Laboratories and Scientific Services. 

[FR Doc. E9-2500 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
#### §§ 334.80-334.82 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule for Adelphia Communications Corp. for the
6 months ended September 30, 1995
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                            3723
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    21452<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          542225
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1300850
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        2090815
<COMMON>                                           263
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1065140)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1300850
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                194003
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   145921
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1745
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              105878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (59541)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1239)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (58302)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (58302)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.22)
<FN>
<F1>Amount net of allowance
<F2>PP&E net of Depreciation
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19823 Filed:01/18/22 Entered:01/19/22 15:46:48 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19823 Filed:01/18/22 Entered:01/19/22 15:46:48 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 3
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19823 Filed:01/18/22 Entered:01/19/22 15:46:48 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                             BELL MICROPRODUCTS INC.
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Numbers 333-39916 and 333-45554) and in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Numbers 333-51724, 33-8398, 33-66580, 33-9568,
333-10837, 333-41179 and 333-58053) of Bell Microproducts Inc. of our report
dated February 6, 2001 relating to the financial statements and financial
schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California

March 22, 2001
--------------
# C_2005103EN.01002701.xml

| 28.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/27

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Markedsrådet by decision of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case of Pedicel AS v Sosial- og helsedirektoratet

(Case E-4/04)

(2005/C 103/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 7 July 2004 of Markedsrådet (the Market Council), Oslo, Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2004, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pedicel AS v Sosial- og helsedirektoratet, on the following questions:

| 1. | Since wine is not included in the product coverage of Article 8(3) of the EEA Agreement:
  should the Agreement — including Article 18 and Article 23 cf. Protocol 47 — be so understood that Article 11 and/or Article 36 are applicable to wine? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Since wine is not included in the product coverage of Article 8(3) of the EEA Agreement:

should the Agreement — including Article 18 and Article 23 cf. Protocol 47 — be so understood that Article 11 and/or Article 36 are applicable to wine?

| 2. | Should Article 11 and/or Article 36 of the EEA Agreement be so understood that they are applicable to national legislation that contains a general prohibition against the advertising of alcoholic beverages, such as in the Act on the sale of alcoholic beverages, section 9-2 et al.? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 11 and/or Article 36 of the EEA Agreement be so understood that they are applicable to national legislation that contains a general prohibition against the advertising of alcoholic beverages, such as in the Act on the sale of alcoholic beverages, section 9-2 et al.?

| 3. | If question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Can such a prohibition nevertheless be maintained out of concerns for public health, and if so, is it in conformity with the proportionality principle of EEA law?
  When answering this question, it should be indicated to what extent the application of a general precautionary principle in this field would be in conformity with the case law of the EFTA Court/Court of Justice of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

3.

If question 2 is answered in the affirmative: Can such a prohibition nevertheless be maintained out of concerns for public health, and if so, is it in conformity with the proportionality principle of EEA law?

When answering this question, it should be indicated to what extent the application of a general precautionary principle in this field would be in conformity with the case law of the EFTA Court/Court of Justice of the European Communities.

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Ms. Kathleen M. Roberts 

BRAG Executive Director 

2200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite I OOW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Dear Ms. Roberts: 

DEC 3 1 2015 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has completed its review of your petition dated 

October 5. 2015 requesting the Agency to promulgate a rule pursuant to T CA section 8 that 

would "establish a process to amend the list of natural sources of oil and fat in the 'Soap and 

Detergent Association· ( DA) nomenclature system by considering the chemical equivalency of 

additional natural sources." 

Based on this review and ca reful consideration of your request, the EPA is denying the petition. 

The reasons for the EPA's denial are set forth in the enclosed, prepublication copy of a notice which 

will be published in the Federal Register in a few days announcing the EPA's decision. You have 

the right to appeal this denial by commencing a civil action in a U.S. district court to compel 

initiation of the requested rulemaking proceeding within 60 days of the date of this denial letter. 

Note that TSCA section 5(h)(4) provides that "[t]hc Administrator may, upon application and by 

rule. exempt the manufacture of any new chemical substance from all or part of the requirements of 

section 5 if the Administrator determines that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce. 

use. or disposal of such chemical substance. or that any combination of such activities. will not 

present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment." As such, this section of 

T CA may be more relevant to the subject of your petition. 

If you would like to discuss these matters further, please contact Wendy Cleland-Hamnett. 

Director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. at 202-564-3810. 

Enclosure 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recyclod/Rocyclablo • Prmted with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer. Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paper
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC

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

KYLA THORINGTON, et al. :

:

Complainants, : 

v. : Docket DOT-OST-2013-0092

:

UNITED AIRLINES, INC. and :

PRIMEFLIGHT AIRLINE SERVICES, INC. :

:

Respondents. : 

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

UNCONTESTED MOTION OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Thomas Newton Bolling

Vice President and Deputy General Counsel

Richard A. Fiore

Associate General Counsel-Litigation & 

Intellectual Property

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

233 South Wacker Drive

11th Floor - HDQLD

Chicago, IL 60606

(872) 825-8068

(872) 825-7077

thomas.bolling@united.com

richard.fiore@united.com

Douglas P. Kelley

Senior Counsel-Regulatory, Antitrust & 

Competition

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

1600 Smith Street

HQSLG-15

Houston, TX 77002

(713) 324-5156

doug.kelley@united.com

May 30, 2013

Karine R. Faden

Managing Counsel-Regulatory, 

Antitrust & Competition

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

1225 New York Avenue, N.W.

Suite 1100 DCALD

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 521-4363

karine.faden@united.com

Lorraine B. Halloway

Gerald F. Murphy

CROWELL & MORING LLP

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20004

(202) 624-2500

lhalloway@crowell.com

gmurphy@crowell.com

Counsel for

United Airlines, Inc.
BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, DC

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

KYLA THORINGTON, et al. :

:

Complainants, : 

v. : Docket DOT-OST-2013-0092

:

UNITED AIRLINES, INC. and :

PRIMEFLIGHT AIRLINE SERVICES, INC. :

:

Respondents. : 

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

UNCONTESTED MOTION OF UNITED AIRLINES, INC.

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER

Pursuant to Rule 405 of the Department’s Rules of Practice, Respondent United Airlines, 

Inc. (“United”), respectfully moves for an extension of time, to June 7, 2013, to file its answer to 

the Complaint of Contractor Employees Assisting Passengers of United Airlines at Philadelphia 

International Airport filed by Complainants Kyla Thorington, Henry Carter, John Stewart and 

Shante Smith on May 2, 2013 (the “Complaint”) in this proceeding.

1

 United discussed this 

motion with Complainants’ representative on May 30, 2013, and Complainants’ representative 

advised that Complainants would have no objection to the extension sought by United. United

submits that good cause exists to grant this uncontested motion.2 Given the nature of the legal 

 

1 United previously filed an uncontested motion for, and the Department granted, a 

two-week extension of time to file its answer to the Complaint to May 31, 2013. See Uncontested 

Motion of United for an Extension of Time to File an Answer dated May 15, 2013 and Notice 

Granting Motion of United dated May 17, 2013 in this docket.

2

See 14 C.F.R. § 302.405(b); see also Notice Granting Motion of United dated May 

17, 2013 in this docket (citing the “complexity of the issues raised in the complaint”).
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3300 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 556
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3300

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 19, 2003

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                              June 7, 2004

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 15500 Pearl Road in Strongsville, Ohio, as the ``Walter F. Ehrnfelt, 
                      Jr. 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 15500 
Pearl Road in Strongsville, Ohio, shall be known and designated as the 
``Walter F. Ehrnfelt, Jr. 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 ``Walter F. Ehrnfelt, Jr. Post 
Office Building''.

                                                       Calendar No. 556

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3300

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 15500 Pearl Road in Strongsville, Ohio, as the ``Walter F. Ehrnfelt, 
                      Jr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 7, 2004

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### §§ 313.185-313.190 [Reserved]
P .O. Box 520461 , San Jose Village, Tinian, MP 96952

- 0461

Tel.: 670

- 433

- 9998/9989 Fax.: 670

- 433

- 9990 Web site: www.starmarianasair.com Page 1 of 2 

### Marianas Air

S e p t e m b e r 6 , 2011

US Department of Transportation

Air Carrier Fitness Division

Attn: Ms. K a t h e r i n e O ’ T o o l e 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

In reference to Docket DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0235 Application of Star Marianas Air, Inc. for Commuter Authority

D e a r Ms. O’Toole

,

This letter is being written in response to your emails dated 8/25/2011 and 9/1/2011 requesting a formal agreement between Star Marianas Air, Inc. (STAR) and Tinian Dynasty Hotel and Casino (TDHC) for the charter flight services provided. The Company’s stockholders and board of directors do not believe it is in STAR’s best interests to enter into a long term formal agreement with TDHC or other

custo mers.

STAR’s policy has been, and will continue to be, not to enter into contracts that could place an undue burden on the company and/or threaten our ability to maintain independent operational control of our flights. With constantly fluctuating prices of oil and gasoline and changes to aircraft availability, STAR needs to maintain flexibility in its arrangements with different customer groups to allow changes to charter prices and the number of flights it can support.

Whereas presently a majority of ST AR’s revenues are generated through flights chartered by TDHC (it is the single tourist event on the island of Tinian), the Company is making substantial efforts to diversify its customer base, thereby decreasing the percentage of revenue generated from TD HC. The primary purpose of STAR’s application for commuter authority is to realize the goal of increasing revenue from other than TDHC chartered flights.

Since there is no requirement for STAR to have a formal contract with TDHC, we respectfully reques t that STAR’s application process continues without having a formal agreement with TDHC or other
customers that we serve. I welcome any questions you may have related to this letter.

Sincerely,

Shaun R Christian President/COOPage 2 of 2

COMPLIANCE DISPOSITION The contents of this application and the attache d exhibit (s) are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Pursuant to Title 18 United States Code Section 1001, I Shaun R Christian, in my individual capacity and as the authorized representative of the applicant, have not in any manner
k nowingly and willfully falsified, concealed or failed to disclose any material fact or made any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or knowingly used any documents which contain such statements in connection with the preparation, filing or prosecuti on of the application. I understand that an individual who is found to have violated the provisions of 18 U.S.C section 1001 shall be fined or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-50761

Summary Calendar

DR. NORLENE KUNKEL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT; DR. BYRON R. SKINNER

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(SA-96-CV-20)

March 20, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * :

Plaintiff Norlene Kunkel (Kunkel), a white female, served as Dean of Li b eral

Studies at Palo Alto College, a part of the Alamo Community College District (ACCD),from January 1989 until August 31, 1993. The ACCD Board of Trustees chose not to

renew Kunkel’s contract for the 1993-1994 school year. On July 30, 1993, Kunkel filed

suit against ACCD and Byron Skinner, former president of Palo Alto College. She

alleged ACCD’s decision to not renew her contract was based on her race and gender

an d in retaliation for her exercise of protected First Amendment rights. In addition,

Kunkel asserted ACCD breached its cont ract with her by failing to follow certain

procedures in connection with her annual evaluation. Kunkel also asserted Byron

Skinner, a black male, tortiously interfered with her contract by persuading his

successor, J ames Dye, a white male, to recommend to the Board of Trustees that

Kunkel’s contract not be renewed. Finally, Kunkel contended ACCD further retaliated

against her after her contract expired by p r oviding false and damaging information to

her prospective employers. Based on these allegations, Kunkel sued ACCD under (1)

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983; (3) Article 1,

§8 of the Texas Constitution; (4) th e Texas Commission on Human Rights Act

(TCHRA); and (5) Texas common law breach of contract. Kunkel also sued Skinner for

(1) violation of her civil rights under §§ 1983 and 1985; (2) tortious interference with

contracts and (3) conspiracy to commit tortiou s interference. The district court,

accepting the magistrate’s memorandum and recommendation, granted summary

judgment in favor of the defendants on all of Kunkel’s claims.

As Kunkel did not raise or argue any issues in her initial brief with respect to her

claims against Skinner, she has abandoned these claims. Webb v. Investacorp, Inc.

,

89 F.3d 252, n.2 (5th Cir. 1996); C inel v. Connick

, 15 F.3d 1338, 1345 (5th Cir. 1994)

(any issue inadequately briefed or raised only in the reply brief is consideredabandoned). After carefully reviewing the briefs, record excerpts, and the relevant

portions of the record itself, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment with

respect to Kunkel’s remain ing claims against the ACCD for essentially the same

reasons stated in the magistrate’s Memorandum and Recommendation and adopted by

the district court on August 11, 1997.
§ 608.810 Review procedures. ( a ) Unless an oral hearing is required by § 608.823(d), the FCA's review shall be a review of the written record of the claim.
( b ) If an oral hearing is required under § 608.823(d), the FCA shall provide the debtor with a reasonable opportunity for such a hearing. The oral hearing, however, shall not be an adversarial adjudication and need not take the form of a formal evidentiary hearing. All significant matters discussed at the hearing, however, will be carefully documented.
( c ) Any review required by this part, whether a review of the written record or an oral hearing, shall be conducted by a hearing official. In the case of a salary offset, the hearing official shall not be under the supervision or control of the Chairman of the Farm Credit Administration.
( d ) The FCA may be represented by legal counsel. The debtor may represent himself or herself or may be represented by an individual of the debtor's choice and at the debtor's expense.
( e ) The hearing official shall issue a final written decision based on documentary evidence and, if applicable, information developed at an oral hearing. The written decision shall be issued as soon as practicable after the review but not later than 60 days after the date on which the request for review was received by the FCA, unless the debtor requests a delay in the proceedings. A delay in the proceedings shall be granted if the hearing official determines, in his or her sole discretion, that there is good cause to grant the delay. If a delay is granted, the 60-day decision period shall be extended by the number of days by which the review was postponed.
( f ) Upon issuance of the written opinion, the FCA shall promptly notify the debtor of the hearing official's decision. Said notification shall include a copy of the written decision issued by the hearing official pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section.