alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.1307 Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA. ( a ) *Location.* The following area is a safety zone: All portions of Elliott Bay bounded by the following coordinates: Latitude 47°37′22′′ N, Longitude 122°22′06′′ W; thence to Latitude 47°37′06′′ N, Longitude 122°21′45′′ W; thence to Latitude 47°36′54′′ N, Longitude 122°22′05′′ W; thence to Latitude 47°37′08′′ N, Longitude 122°22′27′′ W; thence returning to the origin. This safety zone resembles a square centered around the barge from which the fireworks will be launched and begins 100 yards from the shoreline of Myrtle Edwards Park. Floating markers will be placed by the sponsor of the fireworks display to delineate the boundaries of the safety zone [Datum NAD 1983].
( b ) *Effective dates.* This section is effective annually on July fourth from 9:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. unless otherwise specified by Federal Register notice.
( c ) *Regulation.* In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, puget sound, Seattle, WA.
[CGD13-95-007, 60 FR 61482, Nov. 30, 1995, as amended by CGD13-97-015, 62 FR 39445, July 23, 1997]
[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: Annualreport fy ...**
 
2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc Number:ID 1.27:N 15/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000637430
 
December 4, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          20,486
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  389,127
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,655
<INVENTORY>                                     14,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               487,797
<PP&E>                                         377,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                 169,397
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,459,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          297,434
<BONDS>                                        420,416
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           495
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,495,293
<SALES>                                        510,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               510,439
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  460,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,818)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,630
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,794
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,836
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,836
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53


</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

583 

KA 10-01433 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND LINDLEY, JJ. 

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KEVIN NATER-VAZQUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci,

Jr., J.), entered June 9, 2010. The order determined that defendant

is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he

is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant contends that County Court

erred in agreeing with the recommendation of the Board of Examiners of

Sex Offenders that an upward departure from the presumptive risk level

was warranted inasmuch as the court relied upon factors already taken

into account by the risk assessment instrument. That contention is

raised for the first time on appeal and thus is not preserved for our

review (see People v Staples, 37 AD3d 1099, lv denied 8 NY3d 813). In

any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit.

Entered: April 27, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Argued and submitted November 30, 1994,

affirmed January 4,

petition for review denied March 21, 1995 (320 Or 598)

#### Representative Tom BRIAN, *Petitioner, v.*OREGON GOVERNMENT ETHICS COMMISSION, *Respondent.*

(CA A78275)

888 P2d 129

Marc D. Blackman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Ransom, Blackman & Weil.

John T. Bagg, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Haselton, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*374PER CURIAM

On remand from the Supreme Court, 319 Or 151, 874 P2d 1294 (1994), we consider the merits of petitioner’s arguments disputing the propriety of the respondent Commission’s inclusion of the “Opinion” section in its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Order in this case. We reject those arguments. *See Garton v. Real Estate Commissioner,*127 Or App 340, 342-43, 873 P2d 359, *rev den*320 Or 109 (1994).

The Commission’s inclusion of the opinion section may have been gratuitous, and even imprudent. Nonetheless, we view that section as merely describing evidence before the hearings officer, not findings of fact in support of the Commission’s ultimate conclusion. Its inclusion did not render the order internally inconsistent. *Goracke v. Benton County,*68 Or App 83, 88, 683 P2d 106 (1984).

The Commission was not obliged to craft its order “in the form petitioner would like.” *Garton v. Real Estate Commissioner, supra,*127 Or App at 342. Its only obligation was to include findings of fact, consisting of “a concise statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings as to each contested issue of fact and as to each ultimate fact required to support the * * * order,” and conclusions of law. ORS 183.470(2). It did so.

Affirmed.
AIDD Help American Vote Act (PAVA) Awards for the States/Territories

FY 2016 Annual Allocation

2/2/2016

State/Territory

AIDD Help 

American Vote Act 

(PAVA)

Alabama $70,000

Alaska $70,000

Arizona $70,000

Arkansas $70,000

California $347,490

Colorado $70,000

Connecticut $70,000

Delaware $70,000

District of Columbia $70,000

Florida $178,151

Georgia $90,425

Hawaii $70,000

Idaho $70,000

Illinois $115,350

Indiana $70,000

Iowa $70,000

Kansas $70,000

Kentucky $70,000

Louisiana $70,000

Maine $70,000

Maryland $70,000

Massachusetts $70,000

Michigan $88,746

Minnesota $70,000

Mississippi $70,000

Missouri $70,000

Montana $70,000

Nebraska $70,000

Nevada $70,000

New Hampshire $70,000

New Jersey $80,044

New Mexico $70,000

New York $176,834

North Carolina $89,051

North Dakota $70,000

Ohio $103,830

Oklahoma $70,000

Oregon $70,000

Pennsylvania $114,514

Rhode Island $70,000

South Carolina $70,000

South Dakota $70,000

Tennessee $70,000

Texas $241,409

Utah $70,000

Vermont $70,000

Virginia $74,565

Washington $70,000

West Virginia $70,000

Wisconsin $70,000

Wyoming $70,000

American Samoa $35,000

Guam $35,000

Puerto Rico $70,000

Virgin Islands $35,000

TOTAL $4,605,409
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet 

Kentucky Division for Air Quality 

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

Appendix H.6 

VISTAS SO2 Control Cost 

Information for Century 

Aluminum of Kentucky 

 

Appendix H.6 - 1 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
[This page intentionally left blank.]

Appendix H.6 - 2 

Kentucky Regional Haze SIP
VISTAS SO2 Control Cost Information for Century Aluminum of Kentucky LLC*

FIPSST FIPSCNTY State County Plant ID Point ID Point Description SIC SIC Description Source 

21 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 009 3 Ovens-Anode Baking Furnace 3334 Primary Production of Aluminum 21 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 009 3334 Primary Production of Aluminum Primary Metals Ind21 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 023 Roof Vents-Shielded Pot Rooms 3334 Primary Production of Aluminum 21 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 024 Potlines 1-4 3334 Primary Production of Aluminum 21 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 024 3334 Primary Production of Aluminum Primary Metals Ind21 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 0P5 Potline 5 3334 Primary Production of Aluminum 21 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 0P5 3334 Primary Production of Aluminum Primary Metals Ind

*VISTAS used the USEPA's AirControlNet database, modified for the VISTAS emission inventories, to determine the costs for incremental SO2 control measures for Non-EGUs.

1 
VISTAS SO2 Control Cost Information for Century Aluminum of Kentucky LLC*

FIPSST FIPSCNTY State County Plant ID Point ID

21 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 00921 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 00921 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 02321 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 02421 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 02421 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 0P521 091 Kentucky Hancock Co 2109100004 0P5

*VISTAS used the USEPA's AirControlNet database, modified for the VISTAS emission inventories, to determine the costs for incremental SO2 control measures for Non-EGUs.

2002 Base Year

SO2 Emissions (TPY) SO2 Emissions (TPY) CE Tons Reduced CE Total Cos

459 586 0 0 0 $0 

459 586 0 410 70 $17,74

262 335 0 0 0 $0 

4,985 6,366 0 0 0 $0 

4,985 6,366 0 4,456 70 $63,30

1,329 1,697 0 0 0 $0 

1,329 1,697 0 1,188 70 $27,34

2018 Base Case Control S

2
EXHIBIT 

31.2 

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Jay Isco, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of MotivNation, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005.

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theCompany as of, and for, the periods presented in the quarterly report. 

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have: 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which the quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in the quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by the quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

c) disclosed in the quarterly report any change in the Company's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; 

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions)

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company'sauditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls overfinancial reporting. 

Dated: June 23, 2005                                                                                                                        By:  */s/Jay Isco                           *
                                                                                                                                                                   Jay Isco, Chief Financial Office
§ 151.31 Where to find requirements applying to oceangoing ships carrying Category A, B, C, and D NLS. ( a ) The requirements for oceangoing ships carrying NLSs listed in §§ 151.47 and 151.49 are in §§ 151.33 through 151.45.
( b ) The requirements for oceangoing ships carrying NLSs listed in Table 151.05 of 46 CFR part 151 and Table 1 of 46 CFR part 153, which are not listed in § 151.47 or § 151.49, are in 46 CFR parts 98, 151, and 153.
( c ) Alternatives to the requirements in this part for oceangoing ships carrying NLSs are in 46 CFR part 153.
( d ) Procedures for obtaining permission to carry an NLS not listed in § 151.47, § 151.49, Table 151.05 of 46 CFR part 151, or Table 1 of 46 CFR part 153 are in 46 CFR 153.900(c).
```

[House Document 111-32]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - - House Document 111-32

 
     CERTIFICATION FOR AN EXPORT TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THEPRESIDENTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES

                              transmitting

  CERTIFICATION THAT THE EXPORT OF ONE CONTINUOUS MIXER TO BE USED TO 
  MANUFACTURE CONDUCTIVE POLYMER COMPOUNDS TO BE FURTHER PROCESSED TO 
 MAKE CIRCUIT PROTECTION DEVICES, ONE JET MILL TO BE USED FOR PARTICLE 
   SIZE REDUCTION OF PIGMENTS AND OTHER POWDER PRODUCTS FOR COSMETIC 
 FORMULATIONS, AND ONE FILAMENT WINDING CELL TO BE USED TO MANUFACTURE 
FIBERGLASS ASSEMBLY SHELTER POLES FOR USE IN TENTS AND SHELTERS IS NOT 
 DETRIMENTAL TO THE U.S. SPACE LAUNCH INDUSTRY AND WILL NOT MEASURABLY 
   IMPROVE THE MISSILE OR SPACE LAUNCH CAPABILITIES OF THE PEOPLE'S 
       REPUBLIC OF CHINA, PURSUANT TO PUB. L. 105-261, SEC. 1512

   April 22, 2009.--Message and accompanying papers referred to the 
         Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed
To the Congress of the United States:
    In accordance with the provisions of section 1512 of the 
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 1999 (Public Law 102-261), I hereby certify to the 
Congress that the export of one continuous mixer to be used to 
manufacture conductive polymer compounds to be further 
processed to make circuit protection devices, one jet mill to 
be used for particle size reduction of pigments and other 
powder products for cosmetic formulations, and one filament 
winding cell to be used to manufacture fiberglass assembly 
shelter poles for use in tents and shelters is not detrimental 
to the U.S. space launch industry, and that the material and 
equipment, including any indirect technical benefit that could 
be derived from these exports, will not measurably improve the 
missile or space launch capabilities of the People's Republic 
of China.

                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, April 21, 2009.

                                  

```
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.871 Coos Bay.

The draw of the Port of Coos Bay railroad bridge, mile 9.0 at North Bend, shall be maintained in the fully open position, except for the crossing of trains or maintenance.

[USCG-2009-0840, 75 FR 16006, Mar. 31, 2010]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

795 

KA 08-01985 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DESMIN K. DIGGS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

CHARLES T. NOCE, CONFLICT DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY J. CZAPRANSKI

OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County

(Stephen R. Sirkin, A.J.), rendered August 20, 2008. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second

degree, criminal mischief in the second degree (two counts), petit

larceny, assault in the second degree (two counts), reckless

endangerment in the first degree, and leaving the scene of an incident

without reporting (three counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, robbery in the second degree

(Penal Law § 160.10 [3]). Defendant contends that his plea was not

knowing, voluntary and intelligent because the sentence imposed did

not comport with the plea agreement, i.e., he did not receive credit

for cooperating with the prosecutor’s office in an unrelated matter. 

Defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate

the judgment of conviction, and thus he failed to preserve that

contention for our review (see People v Abdallah, 50 AD3d 1312, 1312;

People v Tatro, 8 AD3d 823, 824, lv denied 3 NY3d 682). In any event,

defendant’s contention is without merit. During the plea colloquy,

Supreme Court promised defendant a sentence of nine years’

incarceration upon a plea to 10 of the 11 counts of the indictment,

and defendant indicated that he understood that promise. Also at the

time of the plea, defense counsel sought, and the court agreed to

grant, an adjournment of sentencing to permit defense counsel to

“discuss with the District Attorney’s Office the potential of any type

of credit due” for defendant’s alleged prior cooperation. The court

sentenced defendant to, inter alia, a determinate term of nine years’

incarceration. Inasmuch as the court imposed the promised sentence,

we reject his contention that his sentence violated the terms of his
-2- 795 

KA 08-01985 

plea agreement (see Abdallah, 50 AD3d at 1313; Tatro, 8 AD3d at 824).

The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 99 (c)


                         QUARTERLY AFFIRMATION STATEMENT


         This Quarterly Statement is being provided pursuant to the requirement
of Section 3.07(h)VIII of that certain Indenture dated as of August 21, 2003
between TXU Electric Delivery Transition Bond Company LLC (the "Transition Bond
Company"), as Issuer, and The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee, (as
originally executed and, as from time to time supplemented or amended by one or
more Series Supplements or indentures supplemental thereto entered into pursuant
to the applicable provisions of the Indenture, as so supplemented or amended, or
both, the "Indenture"). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined
herein, shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in Appendix A of the
Indenture.

         I, John M. Casey, hereby certify that I am the Assistant Treasurer of
TXU Electric Delivery Company ("TXUED"), the parent company of the Transition
Bond Company, and the servicer of the transition bonds under that certain Series
2003-1 Transition Property Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 21, 2003 and
that certain Series 2004-1 Transition Property Servicing Agreement dated as of
June 7, 2004 between the Transition Bond Company and TXUED.

         I hereby affirm that, in all material respects, for each materially
significant REP for which TXUED provided electric delivery transmission and
distribution services for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2004, (a)
each REP has been billed in compliance with the requirements outlined in the
Financing Order; (b) each REP has made payments in compliance with the
requirements outlined in the Financing Order; and (c) each REP satisfies the
creditworthiness requirements of the Financing Order.






                                                  /s/  John M. Casey
                                                 --------------------------
                                                        John M. Casey
#### § 95.41 Recipient responsibilities.

The standards contained in this section do not relieve the recipient of the contractual responsibilities arising under its contract(s). The recipient is the responsible authority, without recourse to DOL, regarding the settlement and satisfaction of all contractual and administrative issues arising out of procurements entered into in support of an award or other agreement. This includes disputes, claims, protests of award, source evaluation or other matters of a contractual nature. Matters concerning violation of statute are to be referred to such Federal, State or local authority as may have proper jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this amendment no. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K/A of Array BioPharma Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report.
 Date: November 9, 2010
    /s/ Robert E. ConwayRobert E. ConwayChief Executive Officer