alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 25475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10896]



[[Page 25475]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Chicago Operations Office, Office of Industrial Technologies 
(OIT); Amendment to the Notice of the Glass Industry of the Future 
Solicitation

AGENCY: Chicago Operations Office, DOE.

ACTION: Amendment to Notice of Solicitation Availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Notice of Solicitation Availability issued by the Chicago 
Operations Office, DOE, that appeared in the Federal Register, Volume 
65, No. 21, on Tuesday, February 1, 2000 is amended to eliminate the 
requirement for teaming arrangements as a qualification criterion.

DATES: The complete solicitation document was made available on April 
11, 2000 on the Internet by accessing the DOE Chicago Operations Office 
Acquisition and Assistance Group Home Page at http://www.ch.doe.gov/business/ACQ.htm under the heading ``Current Solicitations'', 
Solicitation No. DE-SC02-00CH11037. Applications are due on June 12, 
2000. Awards are anticipated by February 1, 2001 pending availability 
of funding.

ADDRESSES: Completed applications must be submitted to: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Chicago Operations Office, Attn: David E. Ramirez, Bldg. 
201, Communications Center, Room 168, 9800 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, 
IL 60439-4899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Ramirez at (630) 252-2133; by 
mail at U.S. Department of Energy, 9800 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 
60439-4899; by facsimile at (630) 252-5045; or by electronic mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e68287908f82c894878b8f94839ca6858ec8828983c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0c4c1d6c9c48ed2c1cdc9d2c5dae0c3c88ec4cfc58ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Notice of Solicitation Availability 
issued by the Chicago Operations Office, DOE, that appeared in the 
Federal Register, Volume 65, No. 21, on Tuesday, February 1, 2000 
required, in part, that applicants propose a teaming arrangement of at 
least two glass industry companies. That requirement was eliminated as 
a qualification criterion from the solicitation which was issued on 
April 11, 2000. However, teaming arrangements are still desired and 
will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criterion 
identified in the solicitation.

    Issuance: Issued in Argonne, Illinois on April 18, 2000.
John D. Greenwood,
Manager, Acquisition and Assistance Group.
[FR Doc. 00-10896 Filed 5-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 27.161 Trim control. The trim control— ( a ) Must trim any steady longitudinal, lateral, and collective control forces to zero in level flight at any appropriate speed; and
( b ) May not introduce any undesirable discontinuities in control force gradients.
[Doc. No. 5074, 29 FR 15695, Nov. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 27-21, 49 FR 44433, Nov. 6, 1984]
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

and the Chief Financial Officer

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 Cost Plus, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Barry J. Feld, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Jane L. Baughman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/    Barry J. Feld                      
|Barry J. Feld                             
|Chief Executive Officer and President     
|(Principal Executive Officer)             
|                                          
|August 27, 2010                           
|                                          
|/s/    Jane L. Baughman                   
|Jane L. Baughman                          
|Executive Vice President,                 
|Chief Financial Officer                   
|(Principal Financial & Accounting Officer)
|                                          
|August 27, 2010
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/19

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.48 N 77.37 W Meters AGL
§ 25.854 Lavatory fire protection. For airplanes with a passenger capacity of 20 or more: ( a ) Each lavatory must be equipped with a smoke detector system or equivalent that provides a warning light in the cockpit, or provides a warning light or audible warning in the passenger cabin that would be readily detected by a flight attendant; and
( b ) Each lavatory must be equipped with a built-in fire extinguisher for each disposal receptacle for towels, paper, or waste, located within the lavatory. The extinguisher must be designed to discharge automatically into each disposal receptacle upon occurrence of a fire in that receptacle.
[Amdt. 25-74, 56 FR 15456, Apr. 16, 1991]
**Exhibit 32.2 to 2009 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1)**

 

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

In connection with the Form10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31, 2009 of Convergys Corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Earl C. Shanks,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: 

 

(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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report. 

 

 

August 6, 2010 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Convergys Corporation and will be retained by Convergys Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) and shall notbe considered filed as part of the Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1).
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 87 (Thursday, May 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25947-25948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,011 and NAFTA-3527]

Cooper Energy Services, Grove City, PA; Notice of Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By letter of January 31, 2000, the petitioners request 
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of 
Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and North American Free Trade Agreement-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) application to workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notices were signed 
on January 14, 2000, and published in the Federal Register on February 
4, 2000 (65 FR 5690) and (65 FR 5691), respectively.
    The petitioners present evidence that some of the production 
performed by workers at the subject firm has been shifted to Canada and 
is returning to the United States.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of

[[Page 25948]]

Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 27th day of April 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-11109 Filed 5-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-03-M
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6965

DAVID EDWARD MOORE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA;

ATTORNEY GENERAL ROY COOPER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CA-03-375)

Submitted: November 30, 2005 Decided: December 15, 2005

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Edward Moore, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

David Edward Moore, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of

a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will

not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Dikegulac Sodium Registration Review Focus Meeting Held.

Summary 

On July 24, 2014 the OPP registration review team met with representatives from USDA, 

PBI/Gordon and ArborSystems to discuss current use and usage, and sales data of dikegulac 

sodium. Dikegulac sodium is a growth regulator registered to prevent flowering and undesired fruit 

sets, to retard growth, and to promote lateral branching. Currently, it is registered for use on 

hedges, shrubs, trees, and groundcovers in a number of residential, public, and industrial settings. 

The docket is scheduled to open in December 2014. 

Participants

BEAD: Carl Chen, Cynthia Doucoure, Arnet Jones

EFED: Brian Anderson, Jean Holmes, Greg Orrick, Elyssa Arnold

HED: Bridgett Bobowiec, Yvonne Barnes

PRD RMIB2: Matthew Manupella, Cathryn Britton 

RD: Heather Garvie

PBI/Gordon: Jim Kunstman

Arborsystems: Kim Davis 

USDA: Ted Rogers

Agenda Topics

1. BEAD

 Discussion of current usage information , for dikegulac sodium including:

o pounds a.i. applied or sold annually 

o average a.i. application rate

o average # of applications per year

o breakdown of use by application method

o describe the primary uses (e.g., In nurseries? Greenhouses? Ornamentals in yards? 

Any particular species?)

o Is use expected near water? Could use be restricted near water bodies?

 What is the geographic distribution of dikegulac sodium use in the U.S.?

 Given what appears to be relatively low usage, how important is this chemical to the nursery 

and floriculture sector in the U.S.?

2. EFED

 Are the registrants aware of any similar chemicals on the market? (e.g., chemicals that are 

expected to have similar toxicity profiles in particular)

 Are the registrants aware of any fate or ecotox studies that have not been previously 

submitted to the Agency?

 Has the registrant encountered any concerns from users about exposure of pollinators to 

dikegulac-sodium?
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ ___________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 14, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 127912(28) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, RANDALL G. PAIGE (Deceased), Justices Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 127912 v COA: 256451 WCAC: 03-000085 CITY OF STERLING HE IGHTS, Self-Insured, and ACCIDENT FUND COMPANY, Defendants-Appellants.

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by pl aintiff-appellee to adjourn the oral argument on the application for leave to a ppeal is considered and it is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to plac e this case on the Apr il 2006 session calendar for argument.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 14, 2006

Clerk
# Euroopan unionin C 68A/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2490
  doi:10.3000/17252490.CA2011.068.fin |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 68A |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 54. vuosikerta3. maaliskuu 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2490

doi:10.3000/17252490.CA2011.068.fin

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 68A

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

54. vuosikerta3. maaliskuu 2011

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | Oikaisuja |
| 2011/C 068A/01 | Oikaistaan ilmoitus avoimista kilpailuista EPSO/AST/112/10 — hallintoavustajat (AST 3) (EUVL C 341 A, 16.12.2010) | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

Oikaisuja

2011/C 068A/01

Oikaistaan ilmoitus avoimista kilpailuista EPSO/AST/112/10 — hallintoavustajat (AST 3) (EUVL C 341 A, 16.12.2010)

(EUVL C 341 A, 16.12.2010)

1

Luettelo EUVL:n C A -sarjassa julkaistuista kilpailuista

Jäljempänä luettelo kuluvana vuonna julkaistuista C A -lehdistä.

Mikäli toisin ei mainita, EUVL on julkaistu kaikkina kieliversioina.

| 19 | (PL) |
| --- | --- |
| 24 | |
| 35 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 37 | (PL/RO) |
| 60 | |
| 68 | |

19

(PL)

24

35

(DE/EN/FR)

37

(PL/RO)

60

68

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

Oikaisuja

| 3.3.2011 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 68/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2011

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 68/1

---

Oikaistaan ilmoitus avoimista kilpailuista EPSO/AST/112/10 — hallintoavustajat (AST 3)

(
  Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti C 341 A, 16. joulukuuta 2010
  )

(2011/C 68 A/01)

IV.2 jakson sivulla 3:

Korvataan:

| ”Koe d) | ammatilliset valmiudet:


  tarkkuus ja huolellisuus | arvostelu: 0–20 pistettä


  vaadittu vähimmäispistemäärä: 10 pistettä |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Koe e) | ammatilliset valmiudet:


  priorisointikyky ja järjestelmällisyys | arvostelu: 0–20 pistettä


  vaadittu vähimmäispistemäärä: 10 pistettä” |

”Koe d)

ammatilliset valmiudet:

tarkkuus ja huolellisuus

arvostelu: 0–20 pistettä

vaadittu vähimmäispistemäärä: 10 pistettä

Koe e)

ammatilliset valmiudet:

priorisointikyky ja järjestelmällisyys

arvostelu: 0–20 pistettä

vaadittu vähimmäispistemäärä: 10 pistettä”

seuraavasti:

| ”Koe d) | ammatilliset valmiudet:


  tarkkuus ja huolellisuus | arvostelu: 0–20 pistettä |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Koe e) | ammatilliset valmiudet:


  priorisointikyky ja järjestelmällisyys | arvostelu: 0–20 pistettä |
| | Kokeista d ja e on saatava yhteensä vähintään 20 pistettä.” |

”Koe d)

ammatilliset valmiudet:

tarkkuus ja huolellisuus

arvostelu: 0–20 pistettä

Koe e)

ammatilliset valmiudet:

priorisointikyky ja järjestelmällisyys

arvostelu: 0–20 pistettä

Kokeista d ja e on saatava yhteensä vähintään 20 pistettä.”

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                          1000
       
<S>                                    <C>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JAN-30-1999                 JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         AUG-02-1998                 FEB-01-1998 
<PERIOD-END>                           OCT-31-1998                 OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                 1,612                       0
<SECURITIES>                           52,586                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                          12,276                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                           0                           0
<INVENTORY>                            129,909                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       204,051                     0
<PP&E>                                 156,951                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                         88,227                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         281,751                     0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  47,082                      0
<BONDS>                                60,915                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0                           0
<PREFERRED>                            20,000                      0
<COMMON>                               58                          0
<OTHER-SE>                             134,702                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           281,751                     0
<SALES>                                95,682                      273,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       95,682                      273,298
<CGS>                                  72,894                      207,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          28,948                      85,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       233                         (105)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1121                        3343
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (6,393)                     (19,065)
<INCOME-TAX>                           (2,621)                     (7,817)   
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (3,772)                     (11,248)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0                           0
<CHANGES>                              0                           0
<NET-INCOME>                           (3,772)                     (11,248)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (0.23)                      (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (0.23)                      (0.70)
        


</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00137-CV

Texas Department of Public Safety, Appellant

v.

Susan Erard-Coupe, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 00-3459, HONORABLE JULIE H. KOCUREK, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

Appellant Texas Department of Public Safety has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal,

to which appellee Susan Erard-Coupe has no objection. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: April 26, 2001

Do Not Publish
No. 16,435.

#### Roberts et al. *v.*The Farmers’ and Merchants’ Bank of Attica, Ind., et al.

Filed April 4, 1894.

From the Fountain Circuit Court.

*C. M. MeCabe*and *J. Bingham,*for appellants.

H. *H. Dochterman, I. E. Schoonover*and *L. P. Miller,*for appellees.

Howard, C. J.

The parties, issues, pleadings, rulings of court, assignments of error, and arguments in this case are almost precisely the same as in the case No. 16,436, of the same title, 136 Ind. 154. All the questions here raised having been passed upon in that case, and decided in favor of the appellees, the same course must be taken here. On the authority of that case, therefore, the judgment in this pase is affirmed.

McCabe, J., took'no part in the decision of this case.
§ 152.213 Grant closeout requirements. ( a ) *Program income.* Sponsors or planning agencies that are units of local government shall return all interest earned on advances of grant-in-aid funds to the Federal Government in accordance with a decision of the Comptroller General (42 Comp. Gen. 289). All other program income (gross income) earned by grant-supported activities during the grant period shall be retained by the sponsor and, if required by the grant agreement— ( 1 ) Be added to funds committed to the project by the FAA and the sponsor and used to further eligible program objectives; or
( 2 ) Be deducted from the total project cost for the purpose of determining the net costs on which the Federal share of costs will be based.
( b ) *Financial reports.* The sponsor or planning agency shall furnish, within 90 days after completion of all items in a grant, all reports, including financial performance reports, required as a condition of the grant.
( c ) *Project completion.* When the project for airport development or planning is completed in accordance with the grant agreement, the sponsor or planning agency may apply for payment for all incurred costs, as follows: ( 1 ) *Airport development.* When allowability of costs can be determined under § 152.203, payment may be made to the sponsor if— ( i ) A final inspection of all work at the airport site has been made jointly by the appropriate FAA office and representatives of the sponsor and the contractor, unless that office agrees to a different procedure for final inspection; and
( ii ) The sponsor has furnished final “as constructed” plans, unless otherwise agreed to by the Administrator.
( 2 ) *Airport planning.* When the final planning report has been received and accepted by the FAA.
( d ) *Property accounting reports: Airport development projects.* The sponsor of an airport development project shall account for any property acquired with grant funds or received from the United States, in accordance with the provisions of Attachment N of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102 (42 FR 45828).
( e ) *Final determination of U.S. share.* Based upon an audit or other information considered sufficient in lieu of an audit, the Administrator determines the total amount of the allowable project costs and makes settlement for any adjustments to the Federal share of costs.