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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (1198)                    

*Date and Time:*                         May 24-25, 2000; 8 a.m.-5:00 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, Room 830, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA                     

*Type of Meeting:*                         Part-Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Richard J. Anderson, Senior Science Advisor, Office of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, Room 875, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 306-1683.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To carry out Committee of Visitors (COV) review, including examination of decisions on proposals, reviewer comments, and other privileged materials                    

*Public Sessions:*                         May 24; 8 am-10 am; May 25; 3:00 pm-4:00 pm—Presentation of Committee of Visitors findings including outcomes under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research Program and provide assessment of program level technical and managerial matters pertaining to proposal decisions and program operations.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         Proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

      ( print page 26242)    
Dated: May 2, 2000.

Karen J. York, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-11270  Filed 5-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### MAY COAL CO v ROBINETTE, Admr.

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21334.

Decided Mar. 6, 1929

Syllabus by

ALLEN, J.

DECEDENTS’ ESTATES-Actions (10 B)

(220 E) Sections 10770 and 10772, General Code, give an independent right of action for benefit of the persons named in Section 10772, where death has resulted from the injuries, to recover for such pecuniary injury resulting from such death, where such right arises fronj an act. neglect or *174default, such] as would have entitled such person to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, if death had not ensued.

2. The two actions, although prosecuted by the same personal representative, are not in the same right, and hence a judgment for the defendant in one case is not a bar to a recovery in the other.

Marshall, CJ, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ, concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1


INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of 

Forstmann & Company, Inc. (Debtor-in-Possession):

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed balance sheet of Forstmann &
Company, Inc. (Debtor-in-Possession) as of January 28, 1996 and the related
condensed statements of opertions and cash flows for the thirteen weeks ended
January 28, 1996 and January 29, 1995 and the condensed statement of changes in
shareholders' equity (deficit) for the thirteen weeks ended January 28, 1996.
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying
analytical procedures to financial data, and making inquiries of persons
responsible for financial and accounting matters.  It is substantially less in
scope than an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the
financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to such condensed financial statements for them to be in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.

The accompanying condensed financial statements have been prepared assuming that
the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Notes 1 and 5 to
the condensed financial statements, the Company was in violation of
substantially all of its debt agreements at January 28, 1996, has experienced a
significant decline in operating results and has filed for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Such conditions raise
substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.
Management's plan concerning these matters are also described in Note 1.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the balance sheet of Forstmann & Company, Inc. as of October 29, 1995
and the related statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows
for the fifty-two weeks then ended (not presented herein); and in our report
dated January 26, 1996, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial
statements and included an explanatory paragraph concerning matters that raise
substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. In
our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed balance
sheet as of October 29, 1995 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in
relation to the balance sheet from which it has been derived.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
March 12, 1996
Atlanta, Georgia
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 (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 result of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Nancy E. CoyleNancy E. CoylePresident (Principal Executive Officer)Date: August 14, 2008
    By:
    /s/ Lonnie RothbortLonnie RothbortChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) 22
§ 13.8 Multiemployer plans or other funds, plans, or programs. ( a ) A contractor may fulfill its obligations under Executive Order 13706 and this part jointly with other contractors—that is, as though all of the contractors are a single contractor—through a multiemployer plan that provides paid sick leave in compliance with the rules and requirements of Executive Order 13706 and this part. Regardless of what functions the plan performs, each contractor remains responsible for any violation of the Order or this part that occurs during its employment of the employee.
( b ) Nothing in this part prohibits a contractor from providing paid sick leave through a fund, plan, or program. Regardless of the manner in which a contractor provides paid sick leave or what functions any fund, plan, or program performs, the contractor remains responsible for any violation of the Order or this part with respect to any of its employees.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of ETI Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul Lanham, President and Principal Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company.

\s\               Paul LanhamPaul LanhamPresident

May 22, 2003

----
# Draft Life

**- Cycle Cost, Payback Period Analysis Results** 

**for Medium Voltage Liquid**

**- Immersed Transformers** 

**for Discussion**

Custom Efficiency Sensitivities for Design Lines 1 – 5

Prepared for the Medium Voltage Distribution

Transformers Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group

November 4, 2011

# Custom Efficiency Sensitivities for Design Lines 1 - 5

**Design Line 1**  **2 3**  **4 5** 

Custom Efficiency 99.13% 98.96% 99.47% 99.13% 99.47%

**Life**

**- cycle Cost Results** 

Transformers with Net Increase in LCC (%) 28.20% 31.74% 4.11% 0.08% 10.88%

Transformers with Net LCC Savings (%) 71.80% 66.35% 94.51% 99.01% 88.94%

Transformers with No Impact on LCC (%) 0.00% 1.91% 1.38% 0.91% 0.18%

Mean LCC Savings ($) 207 112 3692 1357 14034

Median LCC Savings ($) 104 48 2590 1034 14218

**Payback Period Results**

Mean Payback (Years) 21.8 2.6 6.0 0.3 6.3

Median Payback (Years) 16.8 0.04 5.3 0.0 3.1

Transformers having Well Defined Payback (%) 97.90% 61.10% 96.43% 98.99% 92.72%

Transformers having Undefined Payback (%) 2.10% 38.90% 3.57% 1.01% 7.28%

Mean Retail Cost ($) 2,292 1,364 8,965 5,855 28,671

Mean Installation Costs ($) 2,183 1633 4,231 3,962 8,407

Mean Operating Costs ($) 202 123 1,099 570 2,687

Mean Incremental First Cost ($) 218 0 743

- 50 2,039

Mean Operating Cost Savings ($) 17 4 191 54 642

Payback of Average Transformer 13.2 0.0 3 .9

- 0.9 3.2

Core Material Selection

M12

M6

M5 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

M4 0.00% 0.00%

M3 41.00% 0.01% 88.25% 91.74% 0. 00%

M2 0.00% 91.50% 0.00% 7.25% 0.00%

H0

ZDMH 50.90% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.93%

SA1 8.10% 8.49% 11.75% 1.01% 87.07%
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1827

GARY JONES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. PAUL GRAZIANO; MELISSA FRENTZ; ROBIN MACK; TAMEKA STEVENS , Defendants

- Appellees , and MARK SCURTI; ROBERT COOPER , Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv
- 02478

- GLR )

Submitted : December 22, 2017 Decided: January 11, 2018

Before TRAXLER, KING, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Gary Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Blackburn Riley, BLACKBURN RILEY LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublish ed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Gary Jones appeals the district court’s order entering judgment for Defendants in this civil action arising out of an eviction from public housing . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for appointment of
counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Graziano , No.
1:16

- cv
- 02478

- GLR (D. Md. Aug. 3, 2016 & June 23, 2017 ) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 100.540 Employment.

No qualified individual with handicaps shall, on the basis of handicap, be subject to discrimination in employment under any program or activity conducted by the agency. The definitions, requirements, and procedures of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), as established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 29 CFR part 1613, shall apply to employment in federally conducted programs or activities.
#### § 100.607 Form of payment.

These procedures are directed primarily at the recovery of money or, when a contractual basis exists, the NLRB may demand the return of specific property or the performance of specific services.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS ROBERTO LEMUS RIVERA, AKA

Luis Lemusrivera,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 15

- 70582

Agency No. A206

- 408

- 429

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 11, 2019 **

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Luis Roberto Lemus Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 70582

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Lemus Rivera does not challenge the agency’ s

dispositive bases fo r denying his claims for asylu m, withholding of removal, and

relief under CAT. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir.

2013) (issues not speci fically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are

waived).

We do not consider the ma terials Lemus Rivera references in his opening

brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955,

963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc)

.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lemus Rivera’s contention s that he

established a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador and a

political opinion because he did not raise th is claim before the BIA

. See Barron v.

Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 67 7

- 7 8 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review

claims not presented to the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### John Westerbeke et al., Respondents, *v.*Bank of Huntington and Trust Company, Defendant, and Arthur H. Turner, Appellant.

(Submitted October 9,1936;

decided October 23, 1936.)

*594
      *Irving Smith*for appellant.

*Frederick W. Tuck, Jr.,*for respondents.

*595Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER-2356-000]

      ( print page 31155)    
Take notice that on April 28, 2000 Entergy Services, Inc., acting as agent for Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (collectively, the Entergy Operating Companies), tendered for filing a Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and a Network Operating Agreement, both between Entergy Services, Inc., as agent for the Entergy Operating Companies, and Cleco Utility Group, Inc. 

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protets should be filed on or before May 19, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr., 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-12216  Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
From: Jordan, Deborah

Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 4:42 PM

To: Wehling, Jefferson; Ungvarsky, John

Subject: December 3, 2014, conversation with Larry Greene

On December 3, 2014, Larry Greene confirmed during a telephone conversation that he strongly favors

our finalizing our action on Sacramento’s ozone plan without revising at this time the “safety margin” in

the 2018 NOx motor vehicle emissions budget.

His conclusion followed a brief discussion of the various means by which we may hand le a problem with

the “safety margin,” should it arise.
#### MOUSE v CENTRAL SAVINGS & TRUST CO

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21446.

Decided May 22, 1929

Syllabus by

ALLEN, J.

NEGLIGENCE

(370 P3) The mere fact that the intervention of a responsible human being can be traced between the defendant’s alleged wrongful act and. the injury complained of does not absolve him upon the ground of lack of proximate cause if the injury ensued in the ordinary course of events, and if the intervening cause was set in motion by the defendant.

BANKS & BANKING

(70 D3d) Where the record shows that a bank, through mistake or error and though without malice, has refused payment of a check which should have been paid, and that the payee of the check, after consulting, with the hank and making an investigation into the circumstances and after having been assured that the depositor has no account, has thereafter sworn out a warrant for the arrest of the depositor, under which warrant such de*335positor has been confined in the county jail, it is reversible error for the trial court to direct a verdict for defendant upon the ground that as a matter of law such nonpayment of the check is not the proximate cause of the arrest of the depositor.

(70 C3) Under 710-132 GC, the arrest and imprisonment of the depositor because of the non-payment, through mistake or error and though without malice, ■ of a check which should have been paid, con_ stitutes an actual damage.

Robinson, Matthias and Day, JJ, concur.
#### LANE v. ILLINOIS BANKERS LIFE ASSURANCE CO.

No. 29933.

July 16, 1940.

*104 P. 2d 563.*

John W. Hunt, J. W. Bolen, and Tom D. McKeown, all of Ada, for plaintiff in error.

Robert W. Harbison and W. C. Austin, both of Altus, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by transcript from an order of the district court of Johnston county which overruled objections to and confirmed a sheriff’s sale, pending in said court. The appeal is prosecuted here by transcript. This court has held that objections to confirmation of a sheriff’s sale and orders made thereon are not a part of the record unless incorporated in a case-made or bill of exceptions. Vann v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 79 Okla. 17, 191 P. 175; Wiseman v. Lowery, 181 Okla. 607, 75 P. 2d 480. The errors complained of cannot be reviewed; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and RILEY, OSBORN, GIBSON, HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur. CORN, J., absent.
#### Turner *v.*The State.

Violating Prohibition Law.

(Decided February 1, 1916.

70 South. 971.)

1. Appeal and Error; Record; Review. — Where no demurrer to the indictment is set out in the record, and no ruling on demurrer is shown by the judgment of the court, an assignment of error raising such question is not supported by the record.

*302. Indictment and Information; Statutes. — An indictment charging that defendant sold malt liquors contrary to law is sufficient under the direct provisions of § 29%, Acts 1909, p. 90.

3. Intoxicating Liquors; Jury Question. — Where the state’s evidence tended to show a sale by defendant of Schlitz beer, the question as to whether defendant was guilty of selling malt liquors was for the jury.

Appeal from Walker Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. J. J. Curtis.

Will Turner was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Leith & Gunn, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and H. G. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN, J.

(1, 2) The defendant was indicted at the August term, 1914, of the Walker county circuit court for selling “malt liquors contrary to law,” and was tried at the April term, 1915. The demurrer to the indictment, if one was interposed, is not set out in the record, and no ruling on demurrer is shown in the judgment of the court; hence, the argument of counsel predicated on such assumed ruling is inapt. The indictment was sufficient as charging the offense of selling malt liquors and to sustain the judgment of conviction.—Acts Special Session 1909, p. 90, § 291/2; *Arrington v. State,*13 Ala. App. 359, 59 South. 385; *Bush v. State, 12*Ala. App. 260, 67 South. 847; *Harrison v. State,*13 Ala. App. 354, 69 South. 383; *Whalley v. State,*13 Ala. App. 356, 69 South. 384.

(3) The evidence offered by the state tended to show a sale of “Schlitz” beer by the defendant to George Ruff, and was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to authorize the refusal of the affirmative charge.

There is no error in .the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
§ 65.127 Facilities and equipment. No certificated parachute rigger may exercise the privileges of his certificate unless he has at least the following facilities and equipment available to him: ( a ) A smooth top table at least three feet wide by 40 feet long.
( b ) Suitable housing that is adequately heated, lighted, and ventilated for drying and airing parachutes.
( c ) Enough packing tools and other equipment to pack and maintain the types of parachutes that he services.
( d ) Adequate housing facilities to perform his duties and to protect his tools and equipment.
[Doc. No. 1179, 27 FR 7973, Aug. 10, 1962, as amended by Amdt. 65-27, 47 FR 13316, Mar. 29, 1982]