alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Christopher Bolduc
To: Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; adelaski@standardsasap.org ; ahofmann@publicpower.org; amarantan@navigant.com ; artrosenfeld@gmail.com ; august.esch@gmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com ; brian.coffey@navigant.com ; bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com ; bsmith@federalpacific.com ; Caitlin.Johnson@navigant.com ; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com ; chad.kennedy@us.schneider-electric.com ; charlied@uss.org ; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com ; Cla_Silcox@nema.org ; cstephens@neea.org ; Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; dave.millure@metglas.com ; DYoung@energy-solution.com ; eduardorobles@eaton.com ; Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com ; gbf1@pge.com ; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov ; greg.coulter405@gmail.com ; James.Lass@cleco.com ; Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.com ; Jeremiah.Freeman@ee.doe.gov ; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com ; jerry.schoen@aksteel.com ; jhodge@howard-ind.com ; Jim.creevy@nema.org ; Jim.Raba@ee.doe.gov; jmauer@standardsasap.org ; Joh_Caskey@nema.org ; john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; jrossetti@mlgw.org ; kcoughlin@lbl.gov ; kwinder@mleainc.com; maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; mark.stoering@xcelenergy.com ; matthew.nardotti@navigant.com ; mhyland@appanet.org ; mrivest@navigant.com ; mwaltner@nrdc.org ; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com ; phil@pjharter.com ; phopkinson@hvolt.com ; pkumar@publicpower.org ; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com ; rgreeson@federalpacific.com ; richardparkerdc@gmail.com ; rick.anderson@faypwc.com ; robert.saint@nreca.coop ; rroy@nrdc.org ; ScottB@lvmetals.com ; snadel@aceee.org ; srosenstock@eei.org ; tballo@earthjustice.org ; Teckman@nwcouncil.org; thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com ; vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com ; wes.patterson@us.abb.com; zhimei.luo@navigant.com Subject: Use of ZDMH as a core material
Date: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:29:57 AM
Attachments: 111013 Distribution of Core Steel Grade.pptx



## All,

In the October 13, and 14 meetings there were several side conversation regarding the current availability of ZDMH steel. What I've been able to gather is that ZDMH steel is an excellent material for transformer cores, but is not reliably available to manufactures in the North American market.

Information provided by Wes Patterson of ABB (attached) shows no (or close to none) shipments using this material. Is ABB's experience with ZDMH shared among other manufactures? Does this apply to both MV and LV manufacturers? Can other manufactures provide similar information to ABB's?

If ZDMH is currently not a viable material for manufacturers I propose a change to the LCC to reflect this. In the basecase the LCC will be modified to filter out transformer designs that use ZDMH. This will result in more transformers designs that use M3 and M2 steels being selected.

Thank you, -- Chris

---- Chris Bolduc Energy Efficiency Standards Group Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory t. 416-535-7546 c. 647-832-4021
#### THE AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, Respondent, *v.*JOHN Z. WESTERVELT, Jr., Impleaded, etc., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.

The only question presented by this appeal was whether or not the referee erred in rejecting a counter-claim set up by the defendant. The General Term *held,*that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the claim, and affirmed the report.

*Hayward & Crawford,*for the appellant.

*Moody B. Smith,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Daniels, J.

Davis, P. J., and Brady, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 384.4 [Reserved]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 12, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 12, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0003. UTILICOM SUPPLY ASSOCIATES, LLC v. TERRA TECH, INC. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 19CV0993
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4840

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries

Cooperative Management Act.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4840

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4840 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Atlantic Coastal Fish3 eries Act of 2000’’.

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF ATLANTIC COASTAL FISH5 ERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT ACT.

6 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

7 811 of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Manage8 ment Act (16 U.S.C. 5108) is amended to read as follows:

9 ‘‘SEC. 811. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

10 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—To carry out this title, there are

11 authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fis12 cal years 2001 through 2005.

13 ‘‘(b) COOPERATIVE STATISTICS PROGRAM.—

14 Amounts authorized under subsection (a) may be used by

15 the Secretary to support the Commission’s cooperative

16 statistics program.

17 ‘‘(c) REPORTS.—

18 ‘‘(1) ANNUAL REPORT TO THE SECRETARY.—

19 The Secretary shall require, as a condition of pro20 viding financial assistance under this title, that the

21 Commission and each State receiving such assistance

22 submit to the Secretary an annual report that pro23 vides a detailed accounting of the use of the assist24 ance.

25 ‘‘(2) BIENNIAL REPORTS TO THE CONGRESS.—

26 The Secretary shall submit biennial reports to the
3

•HR 4840 EH

1 Committee on Resources of the House of Represent2 atives and the Committee on Commerce, Science,

3 and Transportation of the Senate on the use of Fed4 eral assistance provided to the Commission and the

5 States under this title. Each biennial report shall

6 evaluate the success of such assistance in imple7 menting this title.’’.

8 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.—

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—Such Act is amended—

10 (A) in section 802(3) (16 U.S.C. 5101(3))

11 by striking ‘‘such resources in’’ and inserting

12 ‘‘such resources is’’; and

13 (B) by striking section 812 and the second

14 section 811.

15 (2) AMENDMENTS TO REPEAL NOT AF16 FECTED.—The amendments made by paragraph

17 (1)(B) shall not affect any amendment or repeal

18 made by the sections struck by that paragraph.

19 (3) SHORT TITLE REFERENCES.—Such Act is

20 further amended by striking ‘‘Magnuson Fishery’’
4

•HR 4840 EH

1 each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Magnuson-Ste2 vens Fishery’’.

Passed the House of Representatives September 12,

2000.

Attest:

Clerk.
Argued and submitted May 20, 1994,

affirmed April 12, 1995

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Gisela M. Stephens, Claimant. DIANE’S FOODS and Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation, *Petitioners, v.*Gisela M. STEPHENS, *Respondent.*

(WCB 92-10499; CA A81346)

893 P2d 573

Jerry K. Brown argued the cause for petitioners. On the brief were Charles L. Lisle and Cummins, Brown, Goodman, Fish *&*Peterson, P.C.

Randy Elmer argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Law Offices of Michael B. Dye.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Landau* and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*

 Landau, J., *vice*Rossman, P. J., retired.

*708PER CURIAM

In this workers’ compensation case, employer seeks review of an order of the Board reversing the referee’s order that reduced claimant’s permanent partial disability (PPD) to zero. The Board reinstated the determination order award of 29 percent PPD because employer had failed to request reconsideration of that award under ORS 656.268(5).

Employer’s only argument is that ORS 656.268 is a jurisdictional statute under which reconsideration is a prerequisite to the Board’s acquiring jurisdiction to conduct a hearing. It argues that it does not matter which party initially requests reconsideration of the determination order and that it may properly raise any objections to the determination order award of PPD at the hearing. We rejected this same argument in *Duncan v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp.,*133 Or App 605, 894 P2d 477 (1995), in which we held that failure of a party to request reconsideration of a determination order will bar that party’s subsequent challenge to the determination order award at a hearing.

Affirmed.
(logo)  Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.  One Lincoln Center   telephone (315) 474-8541
                                  Syracuse, New York   facsimile (315) 473-1385
 

        a professional services firm




Board of Directors
Agway, Inc.
333 Butternut Drive
DeWitt, New York 13214

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

We have read  management's  justification  for the change in accounting from the
Last-In First-Out (LIFO) method of inventory  valuation for the liquid petroleum
products to the First-In First-Out (FIFO) method contained in the Company's Form
10-Q for the quarter ended  December 31, 1996.  Based on our reading of the data
and  discussion  with Company  officials  of the business  judgment and business
planning factors relating to the change, we believe  management's  justification
is reasonable. Accordingly, in reliance on management's determination as regards
elements of judgement  and business  planning,  we concur that the newly adopted
accounting   principle   described   above  is   preferable   in  the  Company's
circumstances to the method previously applied.

We have not audited any financial  statements  of Agway,  Inc. as of any date or
any period  subsequent to June 30, 1996, nor have we audited the  application of
the change in accounting principle disclosed in Form 10-Q of Agway, Inc. for the
three months ended December 31, 1996;  accordingly,  our comments are subject to
revision on completion of an audit of the financial  statements that include the
accounting change.


/s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Syracuse, New York
January 7, 1997
§ 84.15 Horizontal sectors. ( a ) ( i ) In the forward direction, sidelights as fitted on the vessel shall show the minimum required intensities. The intensities shall decrease to reach practical cut-off between 1 and 3 degrees outside the prescribed sectors.
( ii ) For sternlights and masthead lights and at 22.5 degrees abaft the beam for sidelights, the minimum required intensities shall be maintained over the arc of the horizon up to 5 degrees within the limits of the sectors prescribed in Rule 21 (§ 83.21 of this chapter). From 5 degrees within the prescribed sectors the intensity may decrease by 50 percent up to the prescribed limits; it shall decrease steadily to reach practical cut-off at not more than 5 degrees outside the prescribed sectors.
( b ) ( i ) All-round lights shall be so located as not to be obscured by masts, topmasts or structures within angular sectors of more than 6 degrees, except anchor lights prescribed in Rule 30 (§ 83.30 of this chapter), which need not be placed at an impracticable height above the hull, and the all-round white light described in Rule 23(e) (§ 83.23(e) of this chapter), which may not be obscured at all.
( ii ) If it is impracticable to comply with paragraph (b)(i) of this section by exhibiting only one all-round light, two all-round lights shall be used suitably positioned or screened to appear, as far as practicable, as one light at a minimum distance of one nautical mile.
Note 1 to paragraph ( b)(ii)
:
Two unscreened all-round lights that are 1.28 meters apart or less will appear as one light to the naked eye at a distance of one nautical mile.
[79 FR 37921, July 2, 2014, as amended by USCG-2016-0498, 82 FR 35080, July 28, 2017]
#### § 74.01-1 Claim for damage, destruction, or displacement.

Whenever an aid to navigation is damaged, destroyed, or displaced from its station, a claim shall be made on behalf of the United States.

[CGFR 70-7, 35 FR 4048, Mar. 4, 1970, as amended by USCG-2020-0304, 85 FR 58277, Sept. 18, 2020]
#### FRANKLIN H. PERSON, Appellant, *v.*A. PARDEE and others, Respondents.

*S&i'vice of summons*— *when sel aside*— *attendance as a witness.*

The service of a summons upon a non-resident while attending as a witness, in good faith, the trial of an action in one of the courts of this State, is irregular and will be set aside. *(Leaver*v. *Robinson,*3 Duer, 622; *Merrrül*v. *George,*23 How., 331.)

*478Appeal from an order made at the Special Term setting aside the service of the summons in this action.

*Hart & Mo Quire,*for the appellant. *H. G. Moalc,*for the respondents.

Opinion

*per Curiam.*

Present — Learned, P. J., Boardman and Bocees, JJ.

Order affirmed with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements for printing.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 215 (Tuesday, November 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 66616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27029]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice: 2012-0537]

Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or 
Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 Million; 25 Day Comment Period

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Notice of 25 day comment period regarding an application for 
final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess 
of $100 million.

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

    Reason for Notice: This Notice is to inform the public, in 
accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import 
Bank of the United States (``Ex-Im Bank''), that Ex-Im Bank has 
received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or 
financial guarantee in excess of $100 million (as calculated in 
accordance with Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter). Comments received 
within the comment period specified below will be presented to the Ex-
Im Bank Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction.
    Reference: AP085158XX.
    Purpose and Use: Brief description of the purpose of the 
transaction:

To support the export of commercial aircraft to South Africa

    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the 
items being exported:

The aircraft will be used to provide short-haul passenger air service 
within South Africa and between South Africa and nearby African 
countries.

    To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the items being 
exported are not expected to produce exports or provide services in 
competition with the exportation of goods or provision of services by a 
United States industry.
    Parties:
    Principal Supplier: The Boeing Company.
    Obligor: Comair Limited.
    Guarantors: N/A.
    Description of Items Being Exported: Boeing 737 aircraft.
    Information on Decision: Information on the final decision for this 
transaction will be available in the ``Summary Minutes of Meetings of 
Board of Directors'' on  http://www.exim.gov/articles.cfm/board%20minute.
    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not 
include confidential or proprietary business information; information 
which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or 
information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by 
supplying information that competitors could use to compete with 
companies in the United States.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 3, 2012 to be 
assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction 
by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-27029 Filed 11-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-CV-81589-RAR

RUTH LORQUET,

Petitioner,

v.

EMMANUEL SANON,

Respondent.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Notice of Compliance,

[ECF No. 32] (“Notice”), filed on February 21, 2023. The Notice states that the minor child has 

been returned to Petitioner in Canada, which “concludes this matter.” Notice at 1. The Court 

having reviewed the Notice, the record, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is 

directed to CLOSE this matter. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 21st day of February, 2023.

 

_________________________________

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 9:22-cv-81589-RAR Document 33 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/21/2023 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Office of the Secretary 

                    The following applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart Q of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 302.1701 et seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures.                           ( print page 37598)                        Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order or, in appropriate cases, a final order without further proceedings.                 

*Docket Number:*                    OST-2000-7446                 

*Date Filed:*                    May 30, 2000                 

*Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:*                    June 20, 2000.                 

*Description:*                    Application of Oneida Airlines, Inc. pursuant to 49 U.S.C.  41101 and subpart B, applies for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity authorizing interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property and mail under 49 U.S.C.  41102.                 

Dorothy Y. Beard, 

Federal Register Liaison.

[FR Doc. 00-15084 Filed 6-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

for himself and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER,

RJ RIVER, LLC, AND ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF STRIKING DOCKET ENTRY NOS. 16 AND 17

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, Defendants, 450 North River Drive, LLC, d/b/a 

Kiki on the River (“Kiki”), RJ River, LLC, (RJ), and Roman Jones (“Jones”) (collectively 

“Defendants”), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the Clerk strike ECF

No. 129, “Notice of Withdrawal of Motion,” per its request at ECF No. 133. Defendants will be 

refiling the Notice of Withdrawal of Motion with the correct signature/login information.

Dated: April 27, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

By: s/ Allan Reiss

Allan Reiss, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 858500

Email: asr@Levinelawfirm.com

LEVINE & PARTNERS, P.A.

3350 Mary Street

Miami, Florida 33133

Telephone: (305) 372-1352

By: s/ Roman Sarangoulis

Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 069779

Email: rey.velazquez@jacksonlewis.com

Roman Sarangoulis, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1011944

Email: roman.sarangoulis@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

One Biscayne Tower

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2023 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

2

Counsel for Defendant, RJ River, LLC 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 577-7600

Counsel for Defendants, 450 North River Drive, 

LLC, Kiki on the River, and Roman Jones

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document is being served on 

April 27, 2023, on all counsel of record on the Service List below via transmission of Notices of 

Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF

s/ Roman Sarangoulis

Roman Sarangoulis, Esq.

SERVICE LIST

Brian Pollock, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 174742

Email: brian@fairlawattorney.com

FAIRLAW FIRM

135 San Lorenzo Ave.

Coral Gables, Florida 33146

Telephone: (305) 230-4884

Counsel for Plaintiff

Reynaldo Velazquez, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 069779

Email: rey.velazquez@jacksonlewis.com

Roman Sarangoulis, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 1011944

Email: roman.sarangoulis@jacksonlewis.com

JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

One Biscayne Tower

2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: 305-577-7600

Counsel for Defendants, 450 North River Drive, 

LLC, Kiki on the River, and Roman Jones

Allan Reiss, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 858500

Email: asr@Levinelawfirm.com

LEVINE & PARTNERS, P.A.

3350 Mary Street

Miami, Florida 33133

Telephone: (305) 372-1352

Counsel for RJ River, LLC

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 134 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/27/2023 Page 2 of 2
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:33 PM

Cc: Wayland, Robertj

Subject: RE: RIA -- IPM Output

Thanks!

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:30 PM

To: Higgins, Cortney

Subject: RE: RIA -- IPM Output

Cortney –

I’ll add this to my laundry list of deliverables to ask Peter about – i.e., when are they coming over to

you. 

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division

Mail Code D243-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Office: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt

*************************************From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:40 PM

To: Wayland, Robertj; Culligan, Kevin

Cc: Elman, Barry

Subject: RIA -- IPM Output

Hi Bob and Kevin,

Can you send the IPM result runs used for the RIA?

Thanks, Cortney