alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
August 20, 2015

Mr. Jeff Fierberg

2724 Lafayette Street

Denver, CO 80205

Dear Mr. Fierberg :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request , posted to the public docket on March 24, 2015, filed in

D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 0731 , but we are unable to process your request any further. Your

petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation Administra tion (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
### Reconnaissance of the hydrology of the Little Lost River basin, Idaho

By: Maurice John MundorffH. C. BroomChabot Kilburn

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1539Q

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 180 

Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the Idaho Potato Commission and 

designating May 2007 as ‘‘Idaho Potato Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2007 

Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. CRAIG) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

MAY 10, 2007 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 70th anniversary of the Idaho Potato Commission and designating May 2007 as ‘‘Idaho Potato 

Month’’. 

Whereas the State of Idaho produces roughly one-third of all 

the potatoes grown in the United States, harvesting an 

average of 12,000,000,000 to 14,000,000,000 pounds annually; 

Whereas the State of Idaho’s unique climate of warm days, 

cool nights, mountain-fed irrigation, and rich volcanic soil 

is conducive to growing world-renowned potatoes; 

Whereas Idaho potatoes are top-selling and highly recognized 

potatoes in the United States due to their consistently 

great taste, versatility, and nutritional content; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

SRES 180 ATS 

Whereas the Idaho potato ‘‘brand’’ is recognized throughout 

the world for its high quality and is an identifying characteristic of the great State of Idaho; 

Whereas May 2007 marks the 70th consecutive year that 

Idaho potatoes have been promoted by the Idaho Potato 

Commission, an Idaho potato industry group responsible 

for generating attention for the numerous attributes of 

Idaho potatoes; 

Whereas the Idaho Potato Commission is recognized nationally and internationally as a top promotional authority 

for Idaho’s potatoes and potato products; 

Whereas the Idaho Potato Commission’s requirement, since 

1959, that only potatoes grown in the State of Idaho are 

allowed to wear the ‘‘Grown in Idaho’’ Federal certification mark contributed toward the creation of a distinctive, enduringly successful, and popular brand for the 

Russet Burbank potato variety; and 

Whereas Idaho’s potato industry contributes approximately 

$2,700,000,000 to the State economy and employs 

39,000 residents: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes the 70th anniversary of the 

3 Idaho Potato Commission; and 

4 (2) designates May 2007 as ‘‘Idaho Potato 

5 Month’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
§ 776.2 Employee basis of coverage. ( a ) The coverage of the Act's wage and hours provisions as described in sections 6 and 7 does not deal in a blanket way with industries as a whole. Thus, in section 6, it is provided that every employer shall pay the statutory minimum wage to “each of his employees who is engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” It thus becomes primarily an individual matter as to the nature of the employment of the particular employee. Some employers in a given industry may have no employees covered by the Act; other employers in the industry may have some employees covered by the Act, and not others; still other employers in the industry may have all their employees within the Act's coverage. If, after considering all relevant factors, employees are found to be engaged in covered work, their employer cannot avoid his obligations to them under the Act on the ground that he is not “engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” To the extent that his employees are so engaged, he is himself so engaged.[9]
( b ) In determining whether an individual employee is within the coverage of the wage and hours provisions, however, the relationship of an employer's business to commerce or to the production of goods for commerce may sometimes be an important indication of the character of the employee's work.[10] It is apparent, too, from the 1949 amendment to the definition of “produced” and its legislative history that an examination of the character of the employer's business will in some borderline situations be necessary in determining whether the employees' occupation bears the requisite close relationship to production for commerce.[11]
Footnotes -
776.2
[9] *Kirschbaum* v. *Walling,* 316 U.S. 517. See also *Walling* v. *Jacksonville Paper Co.,* 317 U.S. 564; *McLeod* v. *Threlkeld,* 319 U.S. 491; *Mabee* v. *White Plains Pub. Co.,* 327 U.S. 178.
[10] *Borden Co.* v. *Borella,* 325 U.S. 679; *10 E. 40th St. Bldg. Co.* v. *Callus,* 325 U.S. 578; *Armour & Co.* v. *Wantock,* 323 U.S. 126; *Donovan* v. *Shell Oil Co.,* 168 F. 2d 229 (C.A. 4); *Hertz Driveurself Stations* v. *United States,* 150 F. 2d 923 (C.A. 8); *Horton* v. *Wilson & Co.,* 223 N.C. 71, 25 S.E. 2d 437.
[11] H. Mgrs. St., 1949, pp. 14, 15; Sen. St. 1949 Cong. Rec. 15372.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                       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 Longview Fibre Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-K"),
I, L. J. McLaughlin, Sr. Vice President-Finance, Secretary and Treasurer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
         or 78o(d)); and

(2)      The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
         of the Company.

Dated:  January 21, 2004


L. J. MCLAUGHLIN
L. J. MCLAUGHLIN
Sr. Vice President-Finance,
Secretary and Treasurer
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

36 38 40 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 05/31 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03521

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
#### § 778.407 The nature of the section 7(f) contract.

Payment must be made “pursuant to a bona fide individual contract or pursuant to an agreement made as a result of collective bargaining by representatives of employees.” It cannot be a onesided affair determinable only by examination of the employer's books. The employee must not only be aware of but must have agreed to the method of compensation in advance of performing the work. Collective bargaining agreements in general are formal agreements which have been reduced to writing, but an individual employment contract may be either oral or written. While there is no requirement in section 7(f) that the agreement or contract be in writing, it is certainly desirable to reduce the agreement to writing, since a contract of this character is rather complicated and proof both of its existence and of its compliance with the various requirements of the section may be difficult if it is not in written form. Furthermore, the contract must be “bona fide.” This implies that both the making of the contract and the settlement of its terms were done in good faith.
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

19 August 2004

(2004/C 210/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7468

IAN AULDEN CAMPBELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROY A. COOPER, III; FREDERICK HUBBARD,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:07-hc-02201-BO)

Submitted: February 23, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ann Bach Petersen, GLOVER & PETERSEN, PA, Chapel Hill, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant 

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ian Aulden Campbell seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition, and denying reconsideration of that order under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Campbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Gibson v. The St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Company, *Appellant.*

Action by third party on Contract made for his Benefit. Where a debtor abandons his contract and the owner, being indebted to the contractor for work done, pays the laborers, deducting what they owe A., then pays A., deducting what he owes B., all parties thus paid acceding to the arrangement, there is an implied undertaking on the part of the owner to pay B. the amounts thus retained, and B. has a right of action therefor upon the implied promise thus made for his benefit.*

*550*Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.*

Affirmed.

*Wells H. Blodgett*for appellant.

*Thos. Metcalfe*with. *Cline, Jamison & Day*for respondent.

*

This syllabus is taken from 7 Mo. App. 586.

Hough, C. J.

This case has been twice argued, orally, in* this court, and after a careful consideration of the same, by each of the judges sitting therein, we are of opinion that the court of appeals has, in its opinion, satisfactorily disposed of all the questions involved, and the judgment of that court will, therefore, be affirmed.

Judge Ray not sitting.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 18579]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07027]

[[Page 18579]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

State Energy Advisory Board; Open Teleconference

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference call of the State 
Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 
L. 92-463; 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings 
be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, April 18, 2013, from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT). To 
receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's 
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the address or phone number listed 
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gil Sperling, STEAB Designated Federal 
Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585. 
Phone number is (202) 287-1644.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: To make 
recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, 
programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out 
the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy 
Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).
    Tentative Agenda: Receive an update on the activities of the 
STEAB's Taskforces, review follow-up items from the March meeting, and 
provide an update to the Board on routine business matters and other 
topics of interest, and work on agenda items and details for the June 
2013 meeting.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Gil Sperling at the address 
or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must 
be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will 
be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the 
Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site at: 
www.steab.org.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on March 21, 2013.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-07027 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**GulfWar Air Power Survey
 
v1|v2| v3|v4| v5|summaryreport|
 
SuDoc Number:D 301.2:G 95/2/V.1-5
Item Number:0424 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001049328
February 8, 2019
**EXHIBIT 21**

**LABARGE, INC.SUBSIDIARIES (All 100% Owned)**

 
| **Subsidiaries of the Registrant** |        | **State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation** | **Federal Tax I.D.** |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                    |                                      |                                                  |                      |
| LaBarge Electronics, Inc.          |                                      | Missouri                                         | 43-1744941           |
| LaBarge/STC, Inc.                  |                                      | Texas                                            | 76-0499843           |
| LaBarge Acquisition Company, Inc.  |                                      | Missouri                                         | 26-3749784           |
#### NANCY P. GONTOWSKI *v.*WALTER S. GONTOWSKI

(AC 18395)

O’Connell, C. J., and Landau and Stoughton, Js.

Argued December 6

officially released December 28, 1999

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      250,983
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      7,736
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          67,558
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        32,476
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   5,659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 364,412
<COMMON>                                        28,366
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       54,221
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             31,319
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 113,906
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            95,266
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              63,439
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0 
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0 
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    5,152
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        930
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   881
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  84,838
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  364,412
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      170,929
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             9,088
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     139,647
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     148,735
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         22,194
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,993
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  25,187
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         8,709
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,478
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   16,478
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        10,919
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        7,107
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          38,856
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.95
        




</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 18.1









March 31, 2010







The Board of Directors


The LGL Group, Inc.








We are providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-K filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.





We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of The LGL Group, Inc., and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholder’s equity and cash flows for the years then ended and have reported thereon under date of March 31, 2010.  The aforementioned consolidated
financial statements and our audit report thereon are included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.  As stated in Note A to those financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for a portion of its inventories from the last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) method to the first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) method, and states that the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances because FIFO is used
by substantially all of the Company’s competitors.  In accordance with your request, we have reviewed and discussed with Company officials the circumstances, business judgment and planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method was based.





With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, it should be understood that authoritative criteria have not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another acceptable method.  However, for purposes of The LGL Group, Inc.’s compliance with the requirements of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, we are furnishing this letter.





Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management’s business judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is preferable in the Company’s circumstances.








Very truly yours,








/s/ J.H. Cohn LLP





Roseland, New Jersey