alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Record of Contacts **FDMS Docket No. FAA**  **- 20**  **11 -**  **1416 Contacts.**  With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response Transport Canada Robert Farinas

(613) 952 - 4379 8/1/11 No Objections

Bom bar dier Aerospace Alexandre St Arnaud 855 - 5001 Ext 28482 8/1/11 No Objections Regional Airline Association Connie Arnold

202 - 367 - 1252 Arnold@raa.org 8/1/11 No O bjections
1

MEMORANDUM 

To: Sewage Sludge Incinerator Docket 

From: Amy Hambrick, US EPA 

Date: November 23, 2010 

Subject: Meeting with NACWA, November 18, 2010 from 12:00-1:30 pm (D201) 

Attendance 

EPA NACWA ERG 

Amy Hambrick Robert Dominak Roy Oommen 

Ketan Patel Chris Hornbeck Amber Allen 

Robin Dunkins Doug McWilliams 

Wendy Blake 

Peter Tsirigotis 

Eric Ginsburg 

Peter Westlin 

NACWA requested a follow up meeting with EPA held on November 18, 2010. NACWA 

provided EPA with a general verbal overview of their major comments on the SSI proposed rules. 

 NACWA communicated to EPA that they will be submitting a comprehensive document to the 

SSI Docket with their complete list of comments.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

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

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this AnnualReport of LiquidGolf Holding Corporation. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2003 and 2002,and its results of operations for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2003. 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version 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 staffupon request. 

 

Date: March 26, 2004 

 

/s/ AllanWoodlief
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                 8,360
<SECURITIES>                         299,970
<RECEIVABLES>                         22,745
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                           75,262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     406,336
<PP&E>                               728,117
<DEPRECIATION>                      (136,987)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     1,804,406
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                790,288
<BONDS>                              971,728
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                          100,000
<COMMON>                             204,200
<OTHER-SE>                           217,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       1,084,325
<SALES>                                2,442
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2,442
<CGS>                                     58
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,328,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     (55,031)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  (1,325,800)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (1,380,831)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                      (1,380,831)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.04)



</TABLE>
§ 1640.9 Processing of complaints or charges of employment discrimination filed with a designated agency and either a section 504 agency, the EEOC, or both. ( a ) *Designated agency processing.* A designated agency shall investigate and process a complaint that has been filed with it and with the EEOC, a section 504 agency, or both, when either of the following conditions is met: ( 1 ) The designated agency determines that it has jurisdiction over the complaint under title II and that neither the EEOC nor a section 504 agency (other than the designated agency, if the designated agency is also a section 504 agency) has jurisdiction over the complaint; or
( 2 ) The designated agency determines that it has jurisdiction over the complaint under section 504 and the complaint meets the requirements for processing by a section 504 agency set forth in § 1640.8(a)(2).
( b ) *Referral by a designated agency.* A designated agency that has jurisdiction over a complaint solely under title II (and not under section 504) shall forward a complaint that has been filed with it and with the EEOC, a section 504 agency, or both, to either the EEOC or to a section 504 agency, as follows: ( 1 ) If the designated agency determines that the EEOC is the sole agency, other than the designated agency, with jurisdiction over the complaint, the designated agency shall forward the complaint to the EEOC for processing under title I; or
( 2 ) If the designated agency determines that the section 504 agency is the sole agency, other than the designated agency, with jurisdiction over the complaint, the designated agency shall forward the complaint to the section 504 agency for processing under section 504; or
( 3 ) If the designated agency determines that both the EEOC and a section 504 agency have jurisdiction over the complaint, the designated agency shall forward the complaint to the EEOC if it determines that the complaint solely alleges employment discrimination against an individual, or it shall forward the complaint to the section 504 agency if it determines that the complaint meets the requirements for processing by a section 504 agency set out in § 1640.8(a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii).
#### § 18.607 Who may impeach.

The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 25, 2019 .

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00756 - CV IN RE ALEX NEAL , Relator O rigi nal Proceeding from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 199 - 83919 - 2018 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Partida

- Kipness, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Partida

- Kipness Alex Neal has filed an original application for writ of ha beas corpus in this Court challenging his conviction for attempted obstruction or retaliation. We do not have jurisdiction to consider an original application for writ of habeas corpus filed in a criminal proceeding. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 1 1.05; T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(d); In re Ayers , 515 S.W.3d 356, 356

– 57 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)
. Accord ingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

190756F.P05 /Robbie Partida

- Kipness/ ROBBIE PARTIDA

- KIPNESS JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0291

_________________

WILFRED L. DOLL and CHERI L. DOLL,

 Plaintiffs, Counter Defendants,

 Appellees and Cross Appellants,

 v.

LITTLE BIG WARM RANCH, LLC, LARRY H. 

SMITH and MARK FRENCH,

 Defendants, Counter Plaintiffs 

 and Appellants.

________________________________________

LEVI DOLL and SHEILA DOLL,

 Intervenors.

O R D E R

_________________

The record was filed for purposes of this appeal on July 3, 2023. The opening brief 

is now overdue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellants shall prepare, file, and serve the 

opening brief on appeal no later than September 29, 2023. Failure to file the brief within 

that time will result in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 31 2023

08/31/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0291
#### MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING COMPANY, Appellant, v. BANK OF WEBSTER GROVES, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

March 5, 1912.

APPELLATE PRACTICE: Failure to File Brief: Dismissal of Appeal. Where appellant’s time for filing his brief is extended by' the court, and he fails to file it within such time, the appeal will be dismissed, under Rule 21 of the St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit *Court.*— Ron. *John W. McElhinney,*Judge.

Appeal dismissed.

*Geo. W. Lubke*and *Geo. W. Lubke, Jr.,*for appellant.

*J. R. Tremblay*for respondent.

*429NORTONI, J.

In this case the finding and judgment were for defendant and plaintiff prosecutes the appeal therefrom to this court.

Plaintiff prepared and filed its abstract of. the record in due time hut omitted to print and file a brief as the rules require. However, when the appeal came on for hearing on February 6, appellant appeared and requested that the court should take it as submitted on briefs and grant it ten days’ time within which to prepare and file its brief and argument. The appeal was thus taken under submission and ten days’ leave from February 6th granted to plaintiff to prepare and file its brief in aid thereof. That time expired on February 15th and no briefs were filed. Defendant at the same time was granted ten days’ time to file its brief after the filing of that for plaintiff. The time granted to defendant has also expired. No briefs have been filed by either party though the leave granted therefor has long since expired, and there is, therefore, no assignment of erro*rs on the record for review. The appeal should, therefore, he dismissed and it is so ordered.

*Reynolds, P^ J.,*and *Caulfield, J.,*concur.
Fw: Revised EGU GHG NSPS proposal

Peter Tsirigotis to

:

Dominic_J._Mancini, nathan_j._frey

Cc

:

RobertJ Wayland, Kevin Culligan, Mary Johnson, Tsirigotis.Peter

From: Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Dominic_J._Mancini@omb.eop.gov, nathan_j._frey@omb.eop.gov

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin Culligan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mary Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Hi (again) Dom and Nathan. The previous redline/strikeout file I sent you was off an interim version of 

the preamble instead of the correct, 11-04-11 version. Attached is the corrected redline version. We 

also corrected a typo (a "The" was missing on pg 72) so I have appended the "clean" version with the 

typo corrected. Sorry for any confusion.

Clean Version:

EO 12866 EGU GHG NSPS proposal FR notice 02_28_12.docx 

Redline Version (02-28-12 version versus 11-04-11 version):

EO 12866 EGU GHG NSPS preamble_02_28_12_v_11_04_11 redline.docx
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 81542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33215]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts; Arts Advisory Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of 
the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be 
held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC, 20506 as follows (ending times are approximate):
    Media Arts (application review): January 24-26, 2012 in Room 716. A 
portion of this meeting, from 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on January 26th, will 
be open to the public for a policy discussion. The remainder of the 
meeting, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on January 24th and 25th, and from 9 
a.m. to 3 p.m. on January 26th, will be closed.
    The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel 
review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial 
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities 
Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to 
the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of 
February 15, 2011, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant 
to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be 
permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion 
of the panel chairman. If you need any accommodations due to a 
disability, please contact the Office of Accessibility, National 
Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days 
prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to these meetings can be 
obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel 
Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC, 20506, or 
call 202/682-5691.

    Dated: December 21, 2011.
Kathleen M. Edwards,
Director, Administrative Services, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2011-33215 Filed 12-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
Exhibit
      31.1





Section
      302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer








I,
      R.
      Thomas Kidd, certify that:





1. I
      have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Greens Worldwide Incorporated.





2. Based
      on
      my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
      a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
      made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
      not
      misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
      report;





3. Based
      on
      my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
      in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4. I
      am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
      have:





a) designed
      such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
      relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made


know to
      us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
      this
      quarterly report is being prepared;





b) evaluated
      the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a
      date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report
      (the


“Evaluation
      Date”); and





c) presented
      in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
      disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the


Evaluation Date;





5. I
      have
      disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and
      the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing
      the equivalent functions):





a) all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
      could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize
      and


report financial
      data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses
      in internal controls; and





b) any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls.





6. I
      have
      indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes
      in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
      internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including
      any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material
      weaknesses.







Date:
      December 15, 2005





/s/
      R.
      Thomas Kidd




R.
      Thomas
      Kidd


President
      and Chief Executive Officer
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

July 2, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-16542

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

BIA Nos. A97-634-732 & A97-634-733

THAIS JOSEFINA DELGADO DE TAGLIAFERRI, 

ANDREA C. TAGLIAFERRI, 

Petitioners, 

versus 

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(July 2, 2007)

Before BARKETT, WILSON, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Thais Delgado de Tagliaferri (“Delgado”) and her daughter Andrea

Tagliaferri, pro se, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of her claims for

asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act

(“INA”) and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). 

On appeal, Delgado argues that the BIA erroneously denied her application

for asylum and withholding of removal and that her credible testimony establishes

past persecution by the Bolivarian Circles against her and her family due to both

her opposition to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and her leadership role in a

Catholic organization. Delgado also argues that the BIA erred in denying her

protection under CAT.

We review de novo the legal determinations of the BIA, and factual findings

are reviewed under the substantial evidence test. D-Muhumed v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,

388 F.3d 814, 817 (11th Cir. 2004). Under the substantial evidence test, we affirm

the BIA’s findings of fact unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. 

Farquharson v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 246 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2001). 

Based upon review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we find that

substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Delgado failed to

establish that she was entitled to asylum. Delgado did not establish that she was
3

qualified for asylum based on past persecution or a well-founded fear of future

persecution. She was also unable to establish her entitlement to withholding of

removal or CAT relief. 

PETITION DENIED.
forms1a2111309ex10-4.htm


    PROMISSORY
NOTE

    


    


    $
5,000.00                                                                                        Dated:  December
13, 2007

    


    Principal
Amount                                $5,000.00                                           State
of New York

    


    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the
undersigned hereby jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Jospeh
C. Passalaqua, the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00), together with interest
thereon at the rate of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.  Said sum
shall be paid in the manner following:

    


    In full upon demand.

    


    All payments shall be first applied to
interest and the balance to principal.  This note may be prepaid, at
any time, on whole or in part, without penalty.  All prepayments shall
be applied in reverse order of maturity.

    


    This note shall at the option of any
holder hereof be immediately due and payable upon the failure to make any
payment due hereunder within 5 days of its due date.

    


    In the event this note shall be in
default, and placed with an attorney for collection, then the undersigned agree
to pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs of collection.  Payments
not made within five (5) days of due date shall be subject to a late charge of 5
% of said payment.  All payments hereunder shall be made to such
address as may from time to time be designated by any holder
hereof.

    


    The undersigned and all other parties
to this note, whether as endorsers, guarantors or sureties, agree to remain
fully bound hereunder until this note shall be fully paid and waive demand,
presentment and protest and all notices thereto and further agree to remain
bound, notwithstanding any extension, renewal, modification, waiver, or other
indulgence by any holder or upon the discharge or release of any obligor
hereunder or to this note, or upon the exchange, substitution, or release of any
collateral granted as security for this note.  No modification or
indulgence by any holder hereof shall be binding unless in writing; and any
indulgence on any one occasion shall not be an indulgence for any other or
future occasion.  Any modification or change of terms, hereunder
granted by any holder hereof, shall be valid and binding upon each of the
undersigned, notwithstanding the acknowledgment of any of the undersigned, and
each of the undersigned does hereby irrevocably grant to each of the others a
power of attorney to enter into any such modification on their
behalf.  The rights of any holder hereof shall be cumulative and not
necessarily successive.  This note shall take effect as a sealed
instrument and shall be construed, governed and enforced in accordance with the
laws of the State first appearing at the head of this note.  The
undersigned hereby execute this note as principals and not as
sureties.

    


    /s/ John F.
Passalaqua

                                                                                         Borrower-
John F. Passalaqua

                               Secretary,
Pegasus Tel, Inc.
§ 1695.3 Good faith cost estimates. ( a ) A good faith effort shall be made, to the extent practicable, to estimate the likely economic cost impact of the guidance document to determine whether the document might be significant. It may, however, be difficult to predict with precision the economic impact of voluntary guidance.
( b ) When determining the likely economic cost impact, the same level of analysis should be given as that required for a major determination under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq.*) and the economic impact on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*).