alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
180713 SCH ORD RE DOT REIMBURSEMENT.DOCX VERSION JULY 13, 2018 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

----------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: PROMESA 

 Title III 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered) 

et al., 

 Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x 

ORDER SCHEDULING BRIEFING OF URGENT MOTION TO COMPEL 

THE PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY TO COMPLY 

WITH THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDED ORDERS SETTING PROCEDURES 

FOR INTERIM COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF PROFESSIONALS

 The Court has received and reviewed the Urgent Motion to Compel the Puerto 

Rico Department of Treasury to Comply with the First and Second Amended Orders Setting 

Procedures for Interim Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses of Professionals (the 

“Motion”) filed by the Official Committee of Retired Employees of the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (the “Movant”). (Docket Entry No. 3513 in Case No. 17-3283.) Opposition papers 

to the Motion must be filed by July 20, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. (Atlantic Standard Time). 

Movant’s reply papers must be filed by July 22, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. (Atlantic Standard Time). 

 

1

 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax 

Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last 

Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation 

Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last 

Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); and (v) Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority 

(“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax 

ID: 3747). (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to 

software limitations). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3518 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 08:28:20 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
180713 SCH ORD RE DOT REIMBURSEMENT.DOCX VERSION JULY 13, 2018 2 

The Court will hear oral argument on the Motion in connection with the Omnibus Hearing 

scheduled for July 25, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. (Atlantic Standard Time). 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 13, 2018 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 United States District Judge 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3518 Filed:07/16/18 Entered:07/16/18 08:28:20 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-11-0330 SAT Date: 4/26/2011 Print Date: 8/3/2012

Related cases : Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 2

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: Yes Exposure based testing (health): May Fit HPV Category Ecotox: Yes
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ;

P 2 Rec Comments : Comment: N o Commen t
Keywords : Keywords: SOLV IRR-E,S,L,GI SOLV NEURO SENS-S,L IMMUNO MUTA UNCERT ONCO AQUATOX-A,C
Summary of Assessment :

Fate :Fate Summary: P-11-0330 FATE: Estimations for typical MW 92 Liquid with MP = -94.9 C (M for typical) log Kow = 2.73 (M for typical) S = 526 mg/L at 25 C (M for typical) VP = 28.4 torr at 25 C (M for typical) BP = 80-162 C (M for mixture), 111 °C (M for typical) H = 6.64E-3 (E) log Koc = 2.37 (E) log Fish BCF = 1.47 (E) log Fish BAF = 1.58 (E) POTW removal (%) = 75-90 via sorption, stripping and biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 1 hrs Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 4 da Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 25 hr via OH radical PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = moderate

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is good all routes, based on physical/chemical p roperties. There are concerns for solvent irritation and solvent neurotoxicity. There is also concern for dermal and respiratory sensitization, based on information in the PMN MSDS. There are also concerns for immunotoxicity and mutagenicity based on There is also uncertain concern for oncogenicity based on

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 24 daphnid 48-h LC50 15 green algal 96-h EC50 8.7 fish

_ chronic value 2.6 daphnid

_ chronic value 1.8

algal

_ chronic value 3.6
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for neutral organic chemicals; SAR chemical class = hydrocarbon; MW 92; log Kow = 2.54 (EPI), 2.73 (M, ); liquidwith unknown mp (P); S = 530 mg/L at 25 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 180

SARs neutral organic chemicals SAR Class hydrocarbon new chemicals category: neutral organics Ecotox Category

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Secure Digital Music Initiative (``SDMI'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 4, 1999, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Secure Digital Music 
Initiative (``SDMI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership status. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Bose Corporation, Framingham, MA; Canadian Audiotrak, 
Toronto, Canada; Casio, Tokyo, Japan; Cinram International, Inc., 
Scarborough, Ontario, Canada; Digital River Inc., Eden Prairie, MN; 
Gemplus Corporation, Montgomeryville, PA; General Instrument, Horsham, 
PA; Intervu, Inc., San Diego, CA; Lexar Media, Inc., Fremont, CA; Media 
Fair, Inc., Monterey Park, CA; Micronas Semiconductors, Inc., San Jose, 
CA; Nokia UK Limited, London, England; Packard Bell NEC, Inc., 
Sacramento, CA; Philips, Briarcliff Manor, NY; Plug 'n Play 
Technologies, Inc., Hauppauge, NY; Portal Player, Inc., Saratoga, CA; 
Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Tampa, FL; Qdesign, Vancouver, B.C., Canada; 
Saehan Information Systems Co., LTD, Seoul, South Korea; Softlock 
Services, Rochester, NY; Sonic Foundry, Inc., Madison, WI; SpectraNet 
Communications, Inc.--ThrottleBox, Johnson City, NY; Sun Microsystems, 
Palo Alto, CA; Telian Corporation, Kyonggi, South Korea; WavePhore, 
Phoenix, AZ; and Xerox Corp., Rochester, NY have been added as parties 
to this venture. Also Emusic.com, Inc., Redwood City, CA has change its 
name to GoodNoise Corporation.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Secure Digital Music Initiative 
(``SDMI'') intends to file additional written notification disclosing 
all changes in membership.
    On June 28, 1999, Secure Digital Music Initiative (``SDMI'') filed 
its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. A notice 
has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-12044 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Charles Rogas, Appellant.

(Argued June 3, 1936;

decided July 8, 1936.)

*Harry Elegant*and *Ella Bernard*for appellant.

*William F. X. Geoghan, District Attorney (Henry J. Walsh*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
#### Joseph WESTENBERG et al., Appellants, v. John F. ENGLISH et al., Appellees.

No. 15484.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued April 5, 1960.

Decided April 14, 1960.

Mr. J. Benjamin Simmons, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Mr. Joseph DuCoeur, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for the Board of Monitors. Mr. Raymond G. Larroca, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for the Board of Monitors.

Mr. Godfrey P. Schmidt, New York City, entered an appearance for appellee Manning and certain other appellees.

Before Edgerton, Wilbur K. Miller and Fahy, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

THe appeal is from an order of the District Court denying the motion of ap_ pellants, as members of five different local unions of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-housemen and Helpers of America, to intervene and to file a third party complaint in the main case of Cunningham v. English, D.C., 175 F.Supp. 764. The third party complaint filed with the motion to intervene, aside from a general prayer for relief, sought only injunctive and related relief having the purpose of *276removing Lawrence T. Smith and Martin F. O’Donoghue as Monitors, and to prevent payment of the fees and expenses of the Board of Monitors pending hearing of the third party complaint on its merits.

We think the holding of the District Court that the movants had failed to make the required showing with respect to alleged inadequacy of representation, especially when we consider the limited character of the proposed third party complaint, and that they “have likewise failed to exhibit circumstances which would cause the Court in its discretion to allow permissive intervention,” cannot be held by us to be erroneous. Cf. Distinti v. Cunningham, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 272 F.2d 528; Cunningham v. O’Donoghue, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 394, 278 F.2d 274. It follows that a case for intervention for the purposes sought was not made under either Rule 24(a) or (b), Fed.R.Civ.P 28 U.S.C.A.

rmec“
#### § 18.11 Definitions.

For purposes of these rules, these definitions supplement the definitions in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551.

*Calendar call* means a meeting in which the judge calls cases awaiting hearings, determines case status, and assigns a hearing date and time.

*Chief Judge* means the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the United States Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges and judges to whom the Chief Judge delegates authority.

*Docket clerk* means the Chief Docket Clerk at the Office of Administrative Law Judges in Washington, DC. But once a case is assigned to a judge in a district office, *docket clerk* means the docket staff in that office.

*Hearing* means that part of a proceeding consisting of a session to decide issues of fact or law that is recorded and transcribed and provides the opportunity to present evidence or argument.

*Judge* means an administrative law judge appointed under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 3105.

*Order* means the judge's disposition of one or more procedural or substantive issues, or of the entire matter.

*Proceeding* means an action before the Office of Administrative Law Judges that creates a record leading to an adjudication or order.

*Representative* means any person permitted to represent another in a proceeding before the Office of Administrative Law Judges.
§ 1602.49 Preservation of records made or kept. ( a ) Any personnel or employment record (including but not necessarily limited to requests for reasonable accommodation, application forms submitted by applicants and other records having to do with hiring, promotion, tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, or termination, rates of pay or other terms of compensation, and selection for training) made or kept by an institution of higher education shall be preserved by such institution of higher education for a period of two years from the date of the making of the personnel action or record involved, whichever occurs later. In the case of the involuntary termination of an employee, the personnel records of the individual terminated shall be kept for a period of two years from the date of termination. Where a charge of discrimination has been filed, or a civil action brought against an institution of higher education by the Commission or the Attorney General, the respondent shall preserve similarly at the central administrative office of the institution of higher education, at the central office of a separate campus or branch, or at the individual school which is the subject of the charge or action, where more convenient, all personnel records relevant to the charge or action until final disposition thereof. The term “personnel records relevant to the charge,” for example, would include personnel or employment records relating to the person claiming to be aggrieved and to all other employees holding positions similar to that held or sought by the person claiming to be aggrieved; it would also include application forms or test papers completed by an unsuccessful applicant and by all other candidates for the same position as that for which the person claiming to be aggrieved applied and was rejected. The date of “final disposition of the charge or the action” means the date of expiration of the statutory period within which a person claiming to be aggrieved may bring an action in the United States District Court, or, where an action is brought against an institution of higher education by a person claiming to be aggrieved, the Commission, or the Attorney General, the date on which such litigation is terminated.
( b ) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to application forms and other preemployment records of non-student applicants for positions known to non-student applicants to be of a temporary or seasonal nature.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3046-0040) [40 FR 25188, June 12, 1975, as amended at 46 FR 63268, Dec. 31, 1981; 56 FR 35756, July 26, 1991]
M E M O RAND U M

DA TE : M a y

2, 201 5

T O : F il e / R

u l e m a k i n g D o c k e t

E P A- R 09 -OA R

- 2015

- 0 4 89 ( 80 F R 51147, A u g us t 24, 2015 )

F R O M : I d a li a P ere z , E P A R e g i o n 9, R u l e s Off i c e

R E : C a ll w it h A R B r e g ar d i n g qu e s ti ons on P r op 1 B do c u m e n t a ti on

AR B P a rt i c i p a n t: A us ti n H i c ks

E P A R e g i o n 9 P a rt i c i p a n t: I d a li a P e r e z

.

I d a li a P ere z a t E P A R e g i on 9 ca ll e d A us ti n H i c k a t A R B on 5 / 2 / 16 t o c l ar i f y w h y t h e P r op 1 B

do c u m e n t a ti on re c e i v e d on 4 / 19 / 16 h a d a d i ffe r e n t i d e n ti f

i ca ti on t h a n t h e Equ i p m e n t P r o j ec t I D

.

M r

. H i c ks b r i ef

l y d i s c us s e d t h e d i ff

e re n c e s a nd s a i d h e w ou l d f u r t h e r c l ar i f

y v i a e m a il

.
§ 1471.430 How do I check to see if a person is excluded or disqualified? You check to see if a person is excluded or disqualified in two ways: ( a ) You as an agency official must check the *EPLS* when you take any action listed in § 1471.425.
( b ) You must review information that a participant gives you, as required by § 1471.335, about its status or the status of the principals of a transaction.
§ 91.135 Operations in Class A airspace. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each person operating an aircraft in Class A airspace must conduct that operation under instrument flight rules (IFR) and in compliance with the following: ( a ) *Clearance.* Operations may be conducted only under an ATC clearance received prior to entering the airspace.
( b ) *Communications.* Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each aircraft operating in Class A airspace must be equipped with a two-way radio capable of communicating with ATC on a frequency assigned by ATC. Each pilot must maintain two-way radio communications with ATC while operating in Class A airspace.
( c ) *Equipment requirements.* Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft within Class A airspace unless that aircraft is equipped with the applicable equipment specified in § 91.215, and after January 1, 2020, § 91.225.
( d ) *ATC authorizations.* An operator may deviate from any provision of this section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility having jurisdiction of the airspace concerned. In the case of an inoperative transponder, ATC may immediately approve an operation within a Class A airspace area allowing flight to continue, if desired, to the airport of ultimate destination, including any intermediate stops, or to proceed to a place where suitable repairs can be made, or both. Requests for deviation from any provision of this section must be submitted in writing, at least 4 days before the proposed operation. ATC may authorize a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight.
[Doc. No. 24458, 56 FR 65659, Dec. 17, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 91-314, 75 FR 30193, May 28, 2010]
#### § 100.605 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.

This part contains no information collection requirements, and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.*)
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION
 
 
 Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Columbus McKinnon Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material  respects,  the  financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 Dated:  May 28, 2010
 
 
 /s/ Timothy T. TevensTimothy T. TevensChief Executive Officer/s/ Karen L. HowardKaren L. HowardChief Financial Officer
#### Stephen Hasbrouck, App’lt, *v.*Josephine L. Disbrow, Resp’t.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,*

*Filed May 13, 1889.)*

1. Pleading—When leave to serve supplemental answer denied.

The allowance of a supplemental answer is not a matter of strict right, and when it appears that such a permission to plead will work injustice, it will be denied.

2. Same—When supplemental plea will not be granted.

Where it appeared that the matters contained in a complaint were pleaded as a counter-claim in a suit subsequently brought in another county by the defendant, in which judgment by default passed against the plaintiff; that the default was taken by consent, but the apparent adjudication against the present claim flowing from such default was overlooked, *Meld,*that leave to Ule a new plea should not be granted.

Appeal from order of the Kings special term, granting leave to serve a supplemental answer.

*Francis Larkin,*for app’lt; *James Flynn,*for resp’t.

Pratt, J.

The allowance of a supplemental answer is not a matter of strict right.

When it is made to appear that such permission to plead will work injustice, it will be denied.

Examining the case before us, we find that the matters contained in the complaint were pleaded as a counter-claim in a suit subsequently brought in another county, by defendant, in which judgment by default passed against this plaintiff; the record of which is now sought to be pleaded in bar to the present action.

Ordinarily such defenses are greatly favored, as the public time should not be wasted upon controversies once determined. But in the present case the question apparently adjudicated has not in fact been passed upon.

The negotiations which led to the taking of the default without disposition are not disputed, and it is entirely clear that the apparent adjudication against the present claim flowing from such default was overlooked. Had it been perceived, this claim. would have been withdrawal from the record in that action, and the present question would never have arisen.

Under these circumstances leave to file a new plea should not be granted. What effect the judgment will have, if *429offered in evidence without being pleaded, is not before the court, and need not be discussed.

A certain measure of strictness may have its advantages; but the court will not, if it can be avoided, visit upon a litigant the loss of a claim of $8,000, because an attorney momentarily lost sight of a remote consequence of an arrangement in which the opposite party surrendered nothing.

Order appealed from reversed, with ten dollars costs and ■disbursements in this court, and ten dollars costs of special term.

All concur.
§ 16.21 Pre-complaint resolution. ( a ) Except for those persons filing under 49 CFR 26.105(c), prior to filing a complaint under this part, a person directly and substantially affected by the alleged noncompliance shall initiate and engage in good faith efforts to resolve the disputed matter informally with those individuals or entities believed responsible for the noncompliance. These efforts at informal resolution may include, without limitation, at the parties' expense, mediation, arbitration, or the use of a dispute resolution board, or other form of third party assistance. The FAA Airports District Office, FAA Airports Field Office, FAA Regional Airports Division responsible for administering financial assistance to the sponsor, or the FAA Office of Civil Rights will be available upon request to assist the parties with informal resolution.
( b ) Except for complaints filed under 49 CFR 26.105(c), a complaint will be dismissed under § 16.27 unless the person or authorized representative filing the complaint certifies that: ( 1 ) The complainant has made substantial and reasonable good faith efforts to resolve the disputed matter informally prior to filing the complaint; and
( 2 ) There is no reasonable prospect for practical and timely resolution of the dispute.
( c ) The certification required under paragraph (b) of this section, shall include a brief description of the party's efforts to obtain informal resolution but shall not include information on monetary or other settlement offers made but not agreed upon in writing by all parties. Such efforts to resolve informally should be relatively recent and be demonstrated by pertinent documentation. There is no required form or process for informal resolution, but in each case the requirements to resolve the matter informally must meet the requirements of this paragraph.
[Doc. No. 27783, 61 FR 54004, Oct. 16, 1996, as amended at Amdt. 16-1, 78 FR 56143, Sept. 12, 2013]