alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF 

### ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Janice K. Brewer Governor 1110 West Washington Street • Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 771-2300 • www.azdeq.gov Benjamin H. Grumbles Director December 28, 2009

Ms. Laura Yoshii Acting Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 Mail Code ORA-l 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 RE: Pintl**;~~~y,,~rea** Boundary Recommendations-Request for Additional Time

# Dear~ Arizona requests a 30-day extension oftime to submit its initial round ofdesignation recommendations, pursuant to Section 107(d) ofthe Clean Air Act, for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for 24-hour PM IO and annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas in Pinal County. Ifyou have questions or need more information, please contact me at (602) 771-2203 or Nancy Wrona, Air Quality Division Director, at 771-2308. Sincerely,

Benjamin H. Grumbles Director

Northern Regional Office Southern Regional Office 1801 W. Route 66 • Suite 117· Flagstaff, AZ. 86001 400 West Congress Street· Suite 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701 (928) 779-0313 (520) 628-6733 Printed on recycledpaper
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 27.1
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITS REPORT ON 
FORM 10-K/A-1, FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN 
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             700
<SECURITIES>                                    71,702
<RECEIVABLES>                                      484
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,506
<PP&E>                                             103
<DEPRECIATION>                                      57
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,437
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,932
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,875
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,976
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,138
<INCOME-TAX>                                       221
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,917
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,917
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.61
        

</TABLE>
#### Stacia Cullen, as Administratrix, etc., *v.*Frederick O. Norton.

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

*Filed May 27, 1889.)*

Negligence—Fellow servants—Question eor the jury.

Where, in an action brought to recover for alleged negligence of de* fendant, resulting in death of plaintiff's intestate, who was employed by defendant in his quarry, the evidence was conflicting as to whether the explosion, which caused the injury, resulted solely from the negligence of defendant’s workmen employed in drilling near the unexploded hole, or from the concussion caused by the drilling, irrespective of any negligence of a workman, or from the sparks flying from the steam drill, *Held,*that it was for the jury to say whether the negligence of the workmen was the sole cause of the explosion.

Motion for reargument. For statement of facts see 22 N. Y. State Rep., 221.

*J. N. Fiero,*for motion; *D. M. De Witt,*opposed. ¡

Landon, J.

*Hussey*v. *Coger*(21 N. Y. State Rep., 848) is a case in. which the place where the plaintiff’s intestate worked was made dangerous only because of the negligence of his fellow-workman above him. The hatch fell because a workman, who ought to have taken hold of one corner of it neglected to do so. The injury, therefore, resulted primarily from the negligence of fellow-workmen. In the case at bar, the explosion may have resulted solely from the negligence of the defendant’s workmen employed in drilling near the unexploded hole, or from the concussion caused by the drilling, irrespective of any negligence of a workman, or from the sparks flying *104from the steam drill. It would be for the jury to say whether the negligence of the workmen was the sole cause of the explosion.

In *Roach*v. *Jackson Architectural Works*(14 N. Y. State Rep., 583) the injury resulted from the careless manner in which a shoe under the derrick was placed. The act of placing it was servants’ work, no matter by whom performed. Here the place where the plaintiff’s intestate was put to work was dangerous, not only because the servants higher up on the wall might be careless, but also in spite of their utmost care; and as the jury might have found the injury was due to the place, and not to the carelessness of the workmen, the case should have been submitted to them.

The defendant urges that he cannot safely appeal to the court of-appeals. We, of course, cannot state what the practice of that court is. But as we simply hold that the case ought to have been submitted to the jury, we decide no question of fact, and’an appeal to the court of appeals will be unembarrassed by such a question. Beargument denied.

Learned, P. J., and Ingalls, J., concur.
[No. 27979-7-II.

Division Two.

December 13, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Kina Rae Clark, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 01-1-01086-5, Anna M. Laurie, J., entered September 22, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, C.J., concurred in by Armstrong and QuinnBrintnall, JJ.
#### § 1915.1501 COVID-19.

The requirements applicable to shipyard employment under this section are identical to those set forth at 29 CFR 1910.501.

[86 FR 61554, Nov. 5, 2021]
# EUR-Lex - 31999D0514 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999D0514

**1999/514/EC: Commission Decision of 23 July 1999 setting the date on which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC (notified under document number C(1999) 2500) **

*
Official Journal L 195 , 28/07/1999 P. 0042 - 0042 *

COMMISSION DECISION

of 23 July 1999

setting the date on which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export scheme may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC

(notified under document number C(1999) 2500)

(1999/514/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market(1), as last amended by Directive 92/118/EEC(2),

Having regard to Council Decision 98/256/EC of 16 March 1998 concerning emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy, amending Decision 94/474/EC and repealing Decision 96/239/EC(3), as last amended by Commission Decision 98/692/EC(4), and in particular Article 6(5) thereof,

(1) Whereas Article 6(5) of Decision 98/256/EC requires the Commission to set the date on which dispatch of products referred to in this Article may commence, after having carried out Community inspections and after having informed the Member States;

(2) Whereas inspections carried out by the Commission services in the United Kingdom from 12 to 16 April 1999, in particular to assess the system of veterinary checks pursuant to Articles 6 and 7 and Annex III to Decision 98/256/EC, have shown that the conditions are complied with satisfactorily; whereas a follow-up inspection has been planned;

(3) Whereas at the time of adoption of Decision 98/692/EC, the Commission undertook to present, in accordance with its normal practice for inspection reports, to the Member States convened in the Standing Veterinary Committee, the results of the inspection referred to in Article 6(5) and the consequences it draws from them; whereas this presentation has taken place; whereas therefore, the date is set at 1 August 1999,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The date referred to in Article 6(5) of Decision 98/256/EC shall be 1 August 1999.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 July 1999.

For the Commission

Erkki LIIKANEN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13.

(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.

(3) OJ L 113, 15.4.1998, p. 32.

(4) OJ L 328, 4.12.1998, p. 28.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                            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 Annual Report of Jupiter Marine International
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended July 28, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Carl Herndon, 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:

         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.



Date:  November 8, 2007


/s/ Carl Herndon
----------------
Carl Herndon
Chief Executive Officer
§ 1910.251 Definitions. As used in this subpart: ( a ) *Welder* and *welding operator* mean any operator of electric or gas welding and cutting equipment.
( b ) *Approved* means listed or approved by a nationally recognized testing laboratory. Refer to § 1910.155(c)(3) for definitions of listed and approved, and § 1910.7 for nationally recognized testing laboratory.
[55 FR 13696, Apr. 11, 1990, as amended at 61 FR 9240, Mar. 7, 1996; 72 FR 71070, Dec. 14, 2007]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12460]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Physics; Notice of Meeting

    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 Physics (1208).
    Date and Time: June 9, 2000 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Department of Physics, Princeton University.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Bradley D. Keister, Program Director for 
Nuclear Physics, Room 1015N, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd, Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306-1891.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning the activities of the Princeton group in the development 
and Construction of the Borexino Solar neutrino detector.
    Agenda: To hear presentations and write recommendations 
concerning the activities of the Princeton group development and 
Construction of the Borexino Solar neutrino detector.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or Confidential nature, including 
technical information; information on personnel and proprietary data 
for Present and future subcontracts. These matters are exempt under 
5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 12, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12460 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
EXHIBIT 23



Consent of Independent Public Accountants

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports dated February 17, 1997, included in the company's 1996 Annual Report to
Stockholders  and  incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K and on page 28 of
this Form 10-K, into the company's  previously filed Registration  Statements on
Form  S-8  File  Nos.  33-18268,  33-24274,  and  33-50949,  and  the  company's
previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3 File Nos. 2-78952, 33-5473,
and 33-66112.



                                                (ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP)
                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  March 27, 1997
§ 1620.20 Pay differentials claimed to be based on extra duties. Additional duties may not be a defense to the payment of higher wages to one sex where the higher pay is not related to the extra duties. The Commission will scrutinize such a defense to determine whether it is bona fide. For example, an employer cannot successfully assert an extra duties defense where: ( a ) Employees of the higher paid sex receive the higher pay without doing the extra work;
( b ) Members of the lower paid sex also perform extra duties requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility;
( c ) The proffered extra duties do not in fact exist;
( d ) The extra task consumes a minimal amount of time and is of peripheral importance; or
( e ) Third persons (i.e., individuals who are not in the two groups of employees being compared) who do the extra task as their primary job are paid less than the members of the higher paid sex for whom there is an attempt to justify the pay differential.
#### § 1202.2 Interpretation of mediation agreements.

Under section 5, Second, of title I of the Railway Labor Act, in any case in which a controversy arises over the meaning or application of any agreement reached through mediation, either party to said agreement, or both, may apply to the National Mediation Board for an interpretation of the meaning or application of such agreement. Upon receipt of such request, the Board shall, after a hearing of both sides, give its interpretation within 30 days.
EXHIBIT 

| Name of Subsidiary                        |   | State/Province of    Incorporation |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                                      |   |                               |
| Lance      Mfg. LLC (1)                   |   | North      Carolina                |
|                                      |   |                               |
| Caronuts,      Inc. (1)                   |   | North      Carolina                |
|                                      |   |                               |
| Vista      Bakery, Inc. (1)               |   | North      Carolina                |
|                                      |   |                               |
| Cape      Cod Potato Chip Company LLC (1) |   | Massachusetts                      |
|                                      |   |                               |
| Lanhold      Investments, Inc. (1)        |   | Delaware                           |
|                                      |   |                               |
| Tamming      Foods Ltd. (2)               |   | Ontario                            |
|                                      |   |                               |
| Fresno      Ventures, Inc. (1)            |   | North      Carolina                |
|                                      |   |                               |
| Archway      Bakeries, LLC (3)            |   | North      Carolina                |
|                                      |   |                               |
| North      State Cookies, LLC (3)         |   | North      Carolina                |
|                                      |   |                               |
| Brent      & Sam’s, Inc. (4)    |   | Arkansas                           |

| (2) | Subsidiary      of Lanhold Investments, Inc., which owns 100% of the outstanding voting      equity securities. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (3) | Subsidiary      of Lance Mfg. LLC, which owns 100% of the outstanding voting equity      securities. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (4) | Subsidiary      of North State Cookies, LLC, which owns 100% of the outstanding voting      equity securities. |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40514

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FORTION RIOS-MARTINEZ, true name Fortino Rios-Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant

c/w No. 16-40513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FORTINO RIOS MARTINEZ, also known as Rafael Rios Martinez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-1365-1

USDC No. 5:08-CR-1081-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 25, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40514 Document: 00513848746 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2017
No. 16-40514

c/w No. 16-40513

2

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Fortino Rios-Martinez appeals his most recent conviction and sentence 

for illegal reentry as well as the revocation of his term of supervised release 

imposed in his 2008 illegal reentry case. He argues that the district court erred 

by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

We review for an abuse of discretion, considering the factors set forth in 

United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). See United States 

v. London, 568 F.3d 553, 562-63 (5th Cir. 2009). Rios-Martinez testified under 

oath during rearraignment that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and that he 

was satisfied with the Assistant Federal Public Defender’s performance, and 

these “solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.” 

United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 649 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). Rios-Martinez’s unsupported 

assertions that he was coerced to reenter the United States and to plead guilty 

are not sufficient to assert his innocence, especially since he does not attempt 

to address the aforementioned sworn testimony. See London, 568 F.3d at 563.

In his motion to withdraw his plea below, Rios-Martinez estimated that 

his jury trial would take two days, which is not so insubstantial as to 

“necessitate a finding that there is no inconvenience to the district court.” 

McKnight, 570 F.3d at 650. He does not address, much less challenge, the 

district court’s holdings that the remaining Carr factors weigh against him, 

nor does he brief adequately his assertion that the revocation of his supervised 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 16-40514 Document: 00513848746 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2017
No. 16-40514

c/w No. 16-40513

3

release must be vacated. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 

1993); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8).

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-40514 Document: 00513848746 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/25/2017
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–011 2014

113th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 113–153 

AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR MONTHLY BASIC PAY 

INCREASES 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN FOR MONTHLY BASIC PAY INCREASES 

FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES, PURSUANT TO 

37 U.S.C. 1009(e) 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2014.—Referred to the Committee on Armed Services and 

ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, August 29, 2014. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: I am transmitting an alternative plan for 

monthly basic pay increases for members of the uniformed services 

for 2015. 

I am strongly committed to supporting our uniformed service 

members, who have made such great contributions to our Nation 

over the past decade of war. As our country continues to recover 

from serious economic conditions affecting the general welfare, 

however, we must maintain efforts to keep our Nation on a sustainable fiscal course. This effort requires tough choices, especially 

in light of budget constraints. 

Accordingly, I have determined it is appropriate to exercise my 

authority under section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to 

set the 2015 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent. This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2015 Budget and it will not 

materially affect the Federal Government’s ability to attract and 

retain well-qualified members for the uniformed services. 

The adjustments described above shall take effect on January 1, 

2015. 

Sincerely, 

BARACK OBAMA. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00058-CV

Daniel L. Pancamo

v.

Calhoun County

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 1 of Calhoun County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2015-CV-76

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 26, 2018
[Nos. 49433-3-I; 50232-8-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### *In the Matter of the Estate*of Raymond Rentfrow.

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 00-4-01306-7, Carlos Velategui, Km Prochnau, and Stephen Gaddis, JJ. Pro Tern., entered March 7, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.