alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### Stout, Alan

From: Giuliano, Julia [ mailto:giuliano.julia@epa.gov ]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 11:38 AM
To: jfwilliams@cpsc.gov ; Kumagai, Mark; Ahuja, Manjit@ARB; MacPherson, Ang us@ARB; Benjamin, Michael@ARB
Cc: Passavant, Glenn; Jackson, Cleophas Subject: EPA proposed Portable fuel container regulatatory changes

Hello all, Below are the changes EPA is proposing to make to t he portable fuel container regulations (the changes are in red font):

PART 59—NATIONAL VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL

PRODUCTS



### 1001. The authority citation for part 59 continues to rea d as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7511b(e).

Subpart F—[Amended]



### 1002. Section 59.611 is amended by revising paragraph (c) (1)(ii) to read as follows: §59.611 What evaporative emission requirements ap ply under this subpart?
* * * * * (c) The following general requirements also apply f or all portable fuel containers subject to the stan dards of this subpart: (1) Prohibited controls. The following controls are prohibited: (i) For anyone to design, manufacture, or install e mission control systems so they cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to public health, welfare, or saf ety while operating. (ii) For anyone to design, manufacture, or install emission control systems with features that disable , deactivate, reduce effectiveness, or bypass the emission controls, eit her actively or passively. For example, you may not include a manual vent that the operator can open to bypass emission controls. You may ask us to allow such features if needed for safety reasons or if the features operate during emission tests described in subpart F of this part. For example, you may include an integrated or external manually activate d device in the portable fuel container’s design to temporarily relieve pressure, provided that the device is in place duri ng emission testing.
* * * * *



### 1003. Section 59.623 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: §59.623 What must I include in my application?
* * * * * (a) Describe the emission family's specifications a nd other basic parameters of the emission controls. List each distinguishable configuration in the emission famil y. Include descriptions and part numbers for all de tachable components such as spouts and caps and describe any devices designed for pressure reli ef, if applicable

. * * * * *



### 1004. Section 59.625 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6 ) to read as follows: §59.625 How do I select emission families?
* * * * * (b) Group containers in the same emission family if they are the same in all the following aspects: (1) Type of material (including pigments, plasticiz ers, UV inhibitors, or other additives that may aff ect control of emissions). (2) Production method. (3) Spout and cap design. (4) Gasket material and design.2 (5) Emission control strategy. (6) Strategy for pressure relief

. * * * * *

Life's too short. Eat dessert first!

Julia Giuliano Mechanical Engineer Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Compliance Division giuliano.julia@epa.gov
734-214-4865
435A96-5

#### State v. Walic Christopher Thomas (DEATH)

1. Def’s Motion to Stay PWC

1.

2. Def’s PWC to Review the Decision of the Superior Court of Guilford County

2.

3. Def's *Pro Se*Motion to Withdraw All Appeals

3. Dismissed 12/15/2010

4. State’s Motion for Leave to Substitute Counsel of Record

4. Allowed 06/12/2013

5. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Ineffective Assistance of Post Conviction Counsel

5. Dismissed 12/18/2014

6. Kathym Vandenberg and Marvin Sparrow’s Motion to Withdraw

6. Allowed 11/05/2015

7. Def’s Motion to Authorize IDS to Appoint Substitute Counsel

7. Allowed 11/05/2015
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 6, 2016

a0503 

# Order

Clerk May 6, 2016

151793 & (56)(58)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151793

COA: 320033

Kalamazoo CC: 2013

- 000062

- FC

MICHAEL DIABOLIS GRIFFIS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to include supplemental authority is DENIED.

The application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2015 judg ment of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand is DENIED.
No. 11-9477.

#### Satterfield *v.*Johnson et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner to expedite consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
          the registrant's consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 1999 and
          consolidated statement of operations for the six months ended
          June 30, 1999, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
          financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000006494
<NAME>                     ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         10,425,570
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,184,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                      202,251
<INVENTORY>                                     7,486,331
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               22,101,716
<PP&E>                                          2,499,758
<DEPRECIATION>                                    384,635
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 53,526,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,189,619
<BONDS>                                         1,470,154
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                     7,160,068
<COMMON>                                        6,616,269
<OTHER-SE>                                     33,877,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   53,526,424
<SALES>                                         8,988,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                8,988,214
<CGS>                                           6,291,390
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,291,390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                6,131,217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (142,337)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,502,980)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,502,980)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,502,980)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (.27)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                        SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                                   40,668
<SECURITIES>                                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            21,454
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                692
<INVENTORY>                                                              18,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                         81,213
<PP&E>                                                                   66,617
<DEPRECIATION>                                                           40,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          114,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    22,194
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                                  3,742
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                               87,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            114,614
<SALES>                                                                 145,158
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                        146,295
<CGS>                                                                   116,705
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                           132,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          13,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              4,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                       8,894
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                              8,894
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                              2.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                              2.38
        

</TABLE>
§ 302-7.302 What is the maximum weight allowance for a UAB shipment? The maximum weight allowance your agency may grant for a UAB shipment is— ( a ) Up to 350 pounds actual weight (including the weight of the luggage or packing material) for the employee and each immediate family member 12 years of age and over; or
( b ) Up to 175 pounds actual weight (including the weight of the luggage or packing material) for each immediate family member under 12 years of age.
§ 302-11.401 Under what conditions may we authorize or approve a residence transaction expense allowance? You may authorize or approve a residence transaction expense allowance when an employee is performing a permanent change of station in the interest of the Government and has signed a service agreement (other than a new appointee or an employee assigned under the Government Employees Training Act (5 U.S.C. 4109.); and ( a ) The old and new official stations are located in the United States; or
( b ) The employee has completed an agreed upon tour of duty overseas and is returning to the United States to an official station that is at least 50 miles away from the employees last official station in the United States; or
( c ) When the employee has been permanently assigned to a temporary official station.
#### § 302-9.208 If I retain my POV at my post of duty after conditions change to make use of the POV no longer in the best interest of the Government, may I transport it at Government expense from the post of duty at a later date?

Yes, your agency will pay the transportation costs not to exceed the cost of transporting it to the authorized destination, provided you otherwise meet all conditions for transporting a POV.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10064

Conference Calendar

 

JERRY DALE DIEMER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT ET AL.,

Defendants,

JIM BOWLES,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CV-1284

- - - - - - - - - -

August 21, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Dale Diemer, #676401, appeals from the district

court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the

defendant, Dallas County Sheriff Jim Bowles, in Diemer’s civil

rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Diemer

argues that the district court erred by granting Bowles’ motion
No. 96-10064

- 2 -

and dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and

the briefs of the parties and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM for essentially the same reasons set forth

by the district court. Diemer v. Dallas County Sheriff’s Dept et

al., No. 3:94-CV-1284 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
#### Boyd, Appellant, *v.*Miller.

*Equity*— Equity *practice*— Findings *by trial judge*— Evidence—Review.

. On a bill in equity to restrain the defendant from trespassing over a narrow strip of land which the plaintiff claims to own, but which the defendant avers is a portion of a public road, the trial judge’s finding *326that the strip was a portion of a public road will not be reversed if there is no manifest error, and the finding is based upon sufficient evidence.

July 15, 1914:

Argued March 3, 1914.

Appeal, No. 17, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1912, No.'2, dismissing bill in equity in case of Ira Boyd et al. v. William F. Miller.

Before Rice, P. J., Orlady, Head, Porter, Henderson, Kephart and Trexler, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Strauss, J.

The opinion, of the Superior Court states the case.

*Error assigned*was decree dismissing the bill.

*J. Q. Creveling,*for appellants.

*G. J. Clark,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

Plaintiffs brought a bill in equity to restrain the defendant from trespassing over a narrow strip of land which they claimed to own and which strip defendant must cross if he wishes to have access to a public road.

The question in the case is, does this narrow strip of land belong to the plaintiffs, with the right of possession, or is it embraced within the lines of the public road? The court found the strip was included in the road and dismissed the bill.

There are nineteen assignments of error. They need not be considered separately. We need only determine whether the court properly ascertained the location of the road.

The court found that the center line of the road as reported by the viewers in 1852 was one rod from the township line; that there was no physical reason why the road should not have been opened with its center on a straight line and parallel with the township line; *327that the road as originally laid out is marked on the ground by fence lines and that the cartway gives no evidence of any considerable amount of work having been done upon it and consists of little more than ruts made by wagons passing over virgin soil and that there never was a strip of land left between the road as laid out and the township line and no evidence that any portion of the land between the township line and the cartway was ever inclosed, or adversely used by the plaintiffs.

From the facts as above found and others that appear in the case, the learned court was convinced that the supervisors, when they laid out the road, followed the center line as established by the viewers paralleling and distant one rod from the township line. Having found that the strip in dispute was included within the boundaries of the road as originally opened, and there being enough evidence in the case to sustain this finding the decision of the court in favor of the defendant should not be disturbed: Com. v. Jackson, 10 Pa. Superior Ct. 524; Com. v. Plymouth Twp., 19 Pa. Superior Ct. 408; Furniss v. Furniss, 29 Pa. 15.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 109-45.301-51 Export/import clause.

The following clause shall be included in all sales invitations for bid:

Personal property purchased from the U.S. Government may or may not be authorized for export/import from/into the country where the personal property is located. If export/import is allowed, the purchaser is solely responsible for obtaining required clearances or approvals. The purchaser also is required to provide to the appropriate party DOE's export control guidance if the property is resold or otherwise disposed.
#### § 102-75.375 What happens once a State, or political subdivision, certifies that it needs a surplus power transmission line and the right-of-way acquired for its construction to meet the requirements of a public or cooperative power project?

Generally, once a State or political subdivision certifies that it needs a surplus power transmission line and the right-of-way, the disposal agency may sell the property to the state, or political subdivision thereof, at the fair market value. However, if a sale of a surplus transmission line cannot be accomplished because of the price to be charged, or other reasons, and the certification by the State or political subdivision is not withdrawn, the disposal agency must report the facts involved to the Administrator of General Services, to determine what further action will or should be taken to dispose of the property.
[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:****Study for prediction ofrotor/wake/fuselage interference [electronic resource] /**
 
SuDoc Number:NAS 1.26:177340/

Item Number:0830-H-14 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000878470
 
Parts: 01 | 02
 
April 17, 2020
§ 301-71.105 Must we issue a travel authorization in advance of travel? Yes, except when advance authorization is not possible or practical and approval is in accordance with § 301-2.1, § 301-2.5, or § 304-3.13. However, the following always require advance authorization: ( a ) Use of reduced fares for group or charter arrangements;
( b ) Payment of a reduced rate per diem;
( c ) Acceptance of payment from a non-Federal source for travel expenses (see chapter 304 of this title); and
( d ) Travel expenses related to attendance at a conference.
[FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55706, Sept. 12, 2022]
EXHIBIT 35.2

Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Item 1123

Pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB, a review of the Exela Technologies, Inc. activities during the year ended December 31, 2019 (the
Reporting Period) and of its performance under the servicing agreement between Exela and American Express (the Servicing Agreement) has been made under the undersigned officers supervision. To the
best of such officers knowledge, based on such review, Exela has fulfilled its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|/s/ Thomas K. Dolan
Thomas K. Dolan
|SVP Information Security and Risk  

February 5, 2020
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                                                                      ----------

                          AMERICAN PRECISION INDUSTRIES
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
           (Shares and dollars in thousands except per share amounts)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                          ------------------------
                                                           March 31,      April 4,
                                                            1998           1997
                                                          -----------   ----------
<S>                                                         <C>           <C>   
Net Income                                                  $1,559        $1,885
                                                            ======        ======
Weighted average common shares outstanding (basic)           7,443         7,317

Incremental shares from assumed conversions:
       Stock options and warrants                              403           358
       Series B convertible preferred stock                  1,539          --
                                                            ------        ------
Weighted average common shares outstanding (diluted)         9,385         7,675
                                                            ======        ======
Earnings per share:
       Basic                                                $ 0.21        $ 0.26
       Diluted                                              $ 0.17        $ 0.25
</TABLE>


                                       17
#### § 301-30.2 What is considered to be “family” with respect to emergency travel?

“Family” includes any member of your immediate family, as defined in § 300-3.1. However, your agency may, on a case-by-case basis, expand this definition to include other members of your and/or your spouse's or domestic partner's extended family.

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15966, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Amdt. 2010-06, 75 FR 67631, Nov. 3, 2010]
No. 10-11082.

#### Newsome *v.*Uy et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-11061.

#### Sulecki *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-23-00126-CR

DESMOND DAJUAN SANDERS, JR.,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 90th District 

Court

of Young County (CR11766)

July 6, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Chief 

Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
# Comments on: 17-2218: VIVINT, INC. v. ALARM.COM INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential