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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research.

The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Advisory Board on Medical Rehabilitation Research.                    

*Date:*                         May 1-2, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 12 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         The agenda will include reports by the Director, NICHD and Director, NCMRR, update on NCMRR Training activities, discussion of the future of medical rehabilitation, and other business of the Board.                    

*Place:*                         Pooks Hill Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ralph M. Nitkin, Phd, Director, BSCD, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Building, Room 2A03, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 402-4206.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program; 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 17, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-10175  Filed 4-21-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### CHAPPELL v. DIXON.

No. 30387.

Sept. 15, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1942.

*130 P. 2d 845.*

*443M. A. Dennis, of Okmulgee, for plaintiff in error.

Grant Gillespie, of Okmulgee, for defendant in error.

RILEY, J.

Plaintiff below, defendant in error, sought and secured a judgment in damages in the amount of $160 against defendant for injury to livestock and fowls resulting from negligence of defendant in permitting salt water and other deleterious substances to escape from four small oil wells and flow onto lands upon which plaintiff held an agricultural lease and upon which the wells of defendant were located. Defendant relied upon contributory negligence.

A witness, Homer Treat, testified he saw plaintiff’s cow drink of the salt water and that she died in four or five days, and plaintiff testified that he had called to the attention of defendant the negligent condition, without result. He was employed as pumper by the defendant, but did not have charge of the premises insofar as the oil and gas lease was concerned.

The issue of contributory negligence is, under constitutional provision, art. 23, sec. 6, a question of fact for the jury.

The evidence showed that the salt water flowing from these oil wells was not confined and under control as required by law. Pure Oil Co. v. Gear, 183 Okla. 489, 83 P. 2d 389. Therefore, there was no error in overruling defendant’s demurrer to the evidence of plaintiff, nor in refusing to direct an instructed verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

WELCH, C, J., CORN, V. C. J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, DAVISON, and HURST, JJ., concur. GIBSON and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.
Exhibit 99.1

                          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 Quarterly Report of Westerbeke Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 25, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John H. Westerbeke, Jr., Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive 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; and

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

      By:  /s/ John H. Westerbeke, Jr.
           ----------------------------
               John H. Westerbeke, Jr.
               Chairman of the Board, President and
               Chief Executive Officer

February 18, 2003
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Electroglas, Inc. of our report dated January 27, 1998 (except for Note 12,
as to which the date is February 13, 1998), included in the 1997 Annual Report
to Stockholders of Electroglas, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Electroglas, Inc.
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-69668) pertaining to the 1993 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan and 1993 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-95052) pertaining to the 1993 Long-Term Stock
Incentive Plan of Electroglas, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-35023) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan and Stock Options
Granted Pursuant to Agreements made between Electroglas, Inc. and Certain
Employees of Knights Technology, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-28327) pertaining to the Knights Technology, Inc. 1987 Stock Option Plan
and Employment Agreement with each of Tom Sherby, Ken Huang, Mary Korn and
Ankush Oberai, and the Registration Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-24587) of
Electroglas, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 27,
1998 (except for Note 12, as to which the date is February 13, 1998), with
respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by
reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to
the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Electroglas, Inc.


                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


San Jose, California
March 30, 1997


                                       18
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ EDWARD KEITH DEMBRY, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. DON HUDSON, Warden, USP Leavenworth, Respondent - Appellee. No. 21-3016 (D.C. No. 5:20- CV-03279-JWL) (D. Kan.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MORITZ , BALDOCK , and EID , Circuit Judges. **

________________ _________________ Proceeding pro se, Petitioner Edward De mbry filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the District of Kansas. This applicati on is one of a series of collateral attacks Dembry has filed on his conviction, including at least three § 2255 applications; a rule 60(b) motion, which was cons trued as an unauthorized s econd or successive § 2255 application; a Motion for Audita Querela, which was again construed as a § 2255

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, a nd collateral estoppel. It ma y be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and appella te record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 6, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 motion; six § 2241 applicati ons raising § 2255 claims; a nd many appeals therefrom. All of Dembry’s attempts to obtain post-c onviction relief have been unsuccessful. In the present petition, Dembry raises ma ny of the same claims he raised in his prior collateral attacks. Sp ecifically, he argues the senten cing court misclassified him as an armed career criminal and thereby erroneously enhanced his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). He also argues he is actually innocent in light of Rehaif v. United
States , 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). In a well-reasone d order, the district court competently explained why Dembry’s cl aims properly arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Dembry did not show §

. 2255 is inadequate or ineffectiv e, the court correctly declined to consider the merits of his claims and dismissed the petition. For the purpose of resolving this app eal, we have thoroughly reviewed the district court record and Demb ry’s appellate brief. We di scern no reversible error. Where the district court accurately analyzes an issue, we see no useful purpose in writing at length. Therefor e, exercising jurisdiction unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court’s order dismissing Dembry’s § 2241 pe tition. Dembry’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
§ 51.7 Powers and duties of receiver; disposition of fiduciary and custodial accounts. ( a ) *Marshalling of assets.* In resolving the affairs of an uninsured bank in receivership, the receiver: ( 1 ) Takes possession of the books, records and other property and assets of the uninsured bank, including the value of collateral pledged by the uninsured bank to the extent it exceeds valid and enforceable security interests of a claimant;
( 2 ) Collects all debts, dues and claims belonging to the uninsured bank, including claims remaining after set-off;
( 3 ) Sells or compromises all bad or doubtful debts, subject to approval by a court of competent jurisdiction;
( 4 ) Sells the real and personal property of the uninsured bank, subject to approval by a court of competent jurisdiction, on such terms as the court shall direct; and
( 5 ) Deposits all receivership funds collected from the liquidation of the uninsured bank in an account designated by the OCC.
( b ) *Disposition of fiduciary and custodial accounts.* The receiver for an uninsured bank closes the bank's fiduciary and custodial appointments and accounts or transfers some or all of such accounts to successor fiduciaries and custodians, in accordance with 12 CFR 9.16, and other applicable Federal law.
( c ) *Other powers.* The receiver for an uninsured bank may exercise other rights, privileges, and powers authorized for receivers of national banks under the NBA and the common law of receiverships as applied by the courts to receiverships of national banks conducted under the NBA.
( d ) *Reports to OCC.* The receiver for an uninsured bank shall make periodic reports to the OCC on the status and proceedings of the receivership.
( e ) *Receiver subject to removal; modification of fees.* ( 1 ) The Comptroller may remove and replace the receiver for an uninsured bank if, in the Comptroller's discretion, the receiver is not conducting the receivership in accordance with applicable Federal laws or regulations or fails to comply with decisions of the Comptroller with respect to the conduct of the receivership or claims against the receivership.
( 2 ) The Comptroller may reduce the fees of the receiver for an uninsured bank if, in the Comptroller's discretion, the Comptroller finds the performance of the receiver to be deficient, or the fees of the receiver to be excessive, unreasonable, or beyond the scope of the work assigned to the receiver.
#### Marie F. O'Reilly, Respondent, *v.*Olin J. Stephens, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Arthur Knox, for appellant.

Maurice Meyer, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

We do not think that the circumstances adverted to by the defendant’s counsel, respecting the conduct of the trial, justify the criticism made by him. They certainly cannot be said to have operated to the prejudice of his client, in view of the fact that plaintiff’s evidence, respecting the defendant’s liability, is absolutely without contradiction.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegebioh and O’Gobman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
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 accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Intertek USA, Inc., 2717 Maplewood Dr., Sulphur, LA 70663, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals, and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or 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 accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on September 23, 2008. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2011. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania 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. E9-2501 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
§ 622.19 Service. ( a ) *Service.* Except as otherwise provided in these rules, each party who files papers is responsible for serving a copy thereof upon the presiding officer and upon every other party or the attorney or representative of record of that party. A copy of all papers filed by the presiding officer or the Board, except for the transcript of testimony and exhibits, shall be served upon each of the parties. Service may be by personal service, private delivery service, or by express, certified or regular first-class mail. If a party is not represented, service shall be made at the last known address of the party or an officer thereof as shown on the records of the FCA.
( b ) *Proof of service.* Proof of service of papers filed by a party shall be filed before action is to be taken thereon. The proof shall show the date and manner of service, and may be by written acknowledgment of service, by declaration of the person making service, or by certificate of an attorney or other representative of record. Failure to make proof of service shall not affect the validity of service. The presiding officer may allow the proof to be amended or supplied, unless to do so would result in material prejudice to a party.
Exhibit 10.6





EXHIBIT 10.6
                                  FEE AGREEMENT


THIS AGREEMENT made this 31st day of May, by and between Winmax Trading Group,
Inc. (hereinafter "Client") with a mailing address of 429 Seabreeze Boulevard,
Suite 227, Fort Lauderdale, FL 91764 and telephone number of (954) 523-4500, and
Eileen V. Booth (hereinafter Administrative Assistant).

1.   Client retains Administrative Assistant to assist Client regarding
corporate/securities clerical related matters and authorizes and empowers
Administrative Assistant to do all things reasonably necessary to complete
corporate and securities transactions and agrees to pay Administrative Assistant
for the services rendered on the following terms and conditions:

        a.   On the basis of the time expended by Administrative Assistant, a
             fee shall consist of 5,000 shares of common stock of Winmax Trading
             Group, Inc. All referenced shares shall be registered pursuant to a
             Registration Statement on Form S-8.

        b.   Client shall also be responsible for costs incurred in connection
             with such services, including, but not limited to, long distance
             phone calls, transcripts, photocopies, postage, filing fees, and
             costs of newspaper publications.

2.   Administrative Assistant will render a final statement for services
provided and costs incurred.  If Client disagrees with any charge for fees or
costs, Client must notify Administrative Assistant in writing within ten (10)
days after the date of mailing. Otherwise, all charges are agreed by Client to
be approved and accepted.  All bills are due when rendered.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the date
first mentioned above.

ACCEPTED:

        Eileen V.  Booth                   Winmax Trading Group, Inc.
By: /s/ Eileen V. Booth                    By:   /s/ Ralph Pistor
------------------------------             -----------------------------------
        Administrative Assistant                     Ralph Pistor, President
1 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE 

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498 

 OFFICE OF 

 AIR AND RADIATION 

August 27, 2012 

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with BMW on April 25, 2012 to discuss the EPA/NHTSA Joint Proposed 

Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards for Model Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty 

Vehicles 

FROM: William Charmley, US EPA 

 

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 

This memo documents a meeting between representatives of BMW and EPA to discuss the 

EPA/NHTSA Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards 

for Model Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles. This meeting was held at BMW offices in 

Munich, Germany on April 25, 2012. 

Representatives from BMW included: 

 Peter Langen, President of of Powertrain 

 Chritoph Huss, VP Development Abroad 

 Dr. Cosmas Asam, VP 

 Dr. Christian Cozzarini, Vehicle Regulations and Product Certification 

 Dr. Maik Boeres, Corporate Strategy and Planning, Environment 

 Glenn Schmidt, Head of Steering, Government Affairs 

 Geert Schmitz, Total Vehicle Architecture 

 Thomas King, Development Strategy 

Representatives from EPA included Margo Oge, Chet France, Bill Charmley, and Matt Spears. 

BMW provided EPA with a detailed technical updated on the companies future vehicle product 

plans. The majority of this information included confidential business information. 

BMW provided specific information regarding the NPRM, with respect to the topic of upstream 

emissions for electric vehicles. Attached is the slide which BMW presented on this topic.
2 

EPA QUESTION ON “0-G/MI“ FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

BMW PREFERES COMPANY BASED CAP.

EPA Visit, 25.04.2012 Page 1

Proposed per company cap:

 Zero gram Cap for all vehicles between 2017 and 2021.

 Manufacturer selling > 300k units 2019- 2021 -> have 600k units with 0g in 2022- 2025

 Manufacturer selling < 300k units 2019 – 2021 -> have 200k units with 0g in 2022- 2025

Pros and Cons:

 „Clear Planning certainty in the whole time period of the regulation“

 „Uncertainty how many vehicles industry-wide would take advantage of 0 grams“

NO difference to a industry-wide cap, because max. figure is fixed, lower numbers are possible

 Better planning certainty will give an additional stimulation for xEV investments

Industry wide cap:

 Comparison (industry-wide) of xEV Sales to manufacturers %wise sales in 2019-2020.

 Same %wise sales will be granted in 2022- 2025 in the overall volume of 2mio units.

Pros and Cons:

 Uncoupled to manufacturers product cycles. Big disadvantage for those who are at EoP

in between 2019 and 2021.

 Big advantage for volume manufacturer. Small ratio of xEV of a manufacturers whole sales could lead 

to a big ratio in the industry wide cap.

 Possible discrimination of really innovative technologies. E.g. conversion vehicles could be in a 

shorter timeframe than purpose design products.