alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15803]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 121 / Thursday, June 22, 2000 / 
Notices

[[Page 38807]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Oregon Coast Provincial Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Oregon Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet 
on July 20, 2000, at the Bureau of Land Management, 1717 Fabry Road SE, 
Salem, Oregon. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. 
Agenda items to be covered include (1) Information sharing among PAC 
members; (2) BLM/OHV strategy; (3) Pacific Coast Initiative; (4) 
Willamette Restoration Initiative; and (5) Coast Range Association long 
rotation forestry. Two fifteen-minute open public forums are scheduled 
at 11:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. Interested citizens are encouraged to 
attend. The committee welcomes the public's written comments on 
committee business at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joni Quarnstrom, Public Affairs 
Specialist, Siuslaw National Forest, 541-750-7075, or write to the 
Forest Supervisor, Siuslaw National Forest, P.O. Box 1148, Corvallis, 
Oregon 97339.

    Dated: June 12, 2000.
Gloria D. Brown,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 00-15803 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations found on pages F-3 and F-4 of the company's
form 10-KSB for the year and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         510,713
<SECURITIES>                                 4,702,315
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,357,641
<PP&E>                                         130,399
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,493,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,326
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           373
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,396,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,493,157
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,202,759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,138,804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,237,330)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,237,330)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,164,712
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,072,618)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.47)

</TABLE>
No. 11-9524.

#### Prowler *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 102-39.55 When should I offer property I am exchanging or selling under the exchange/sale authority to other Federal agencies or State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASP)? If you have property to replace which is eligible for exchange/sale, you should first, to the maximum extent practicable, solicit: ( a ) Federal agencies known to use or distribute such property. If a Federal agency is interested in acquiring and paying for the property, you should arrange for a reimbursable transfer. Reimbursable transfers may also be conducted with the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Architect of the Capitol and any activities under the Architect's direction, the District of Columbia, and mixed-ownership Government corporations. When conducting a reimbursable transfer, you must: ( 1 ) Do so under terms mutually agreeable to you and the recipient.
( 2 ) Not require reimbursement of an amount greater than the estimated fair market value of the transferred property.
( 3 ) Apply the transfer proceeds in whole or part payment for property acquired to replace the transferred property; and
( b ) State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASPs) known to have an interest in acquiring such property. If a SASP is interested in acquiring the property, you should consider selling it to the SASP by negotiated sale at fixed price under the conditions specified at § 102-38.125 of this title. The sales proceeds must be applied in whole or part payment for property acquired to replace the transferred property.
[66 FR 48614, Sept. 21, 2001, as amended at 69 FR 11539, Mar. 11, 2004. Redesignated at 73 FR 50880, Aug. 29, 2008]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          14,511
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                       400
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,358
<PP&E>                                          16,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  87,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,988
<BONDS>                                          6,297
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,468
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,602
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,355
<SALES>                                        199,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               199,869
<CGS>                                          154,007
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  154,007
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,229
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   120
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,029
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,773
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,773
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY
2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF
AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: November 18, 2009 Meeting with Denso in Southfield, MI

FROM: Brian Nelson

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472

DATE: March 15, 2010



### ______________________________________________________________________________

On November 18, 2009, we met with Denso at th eir North American Engineering Division in Southfield, MI to discuss ai r conditioning-related topics in the September 28, 2009 Proposed Rulemaking To Establish Light-Duty Gree nhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Topics included a gene ral discussion of credits for improving air conditioning system efficiency, how to define ‘improved’ air conditioning components, and the

A/C CO2 Idle Test.

In addition, we were given a tour of the air conditioning test f acility and equipment at this

location.

Attendees from Denso were: Kwangtaek Hong Bryan Styles

Attendees from EPA were: Tony Fernandez

Brian Nelson
013P16

#### Landover Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Thomas B. Sanders, Anna B. Sanders; Sanders Equipment Company, Inc.; and Sanders Development

1. Defs’ Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-1337)

1. Allowed 01/15/2016

2. Defs’ Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2.*
# Comments on: 22-1580: In Re REZANEZHAD GATABI [OPINION], Nonprecedential
No. 11-8648.

No. 11-9003.

No. 11-9023.

No. 11-9056.

#### Ferguson *v.*Avelo Mortgage, LLC. Schulman *v.*Attorney’s Title Insurance Fund, Inc. Saghir *v.*Grievance Committee for the 2d, 11th, and 13th Judicial Districts. Ferguson v. Avelo Mortgage, LLC.

App. Div., Super. Ct. Cal., County of Los Angeles;

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist.;

App. Div., Sup. Ct. Ñ. Y., 2d Jud. Dept.; and

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied. Petitioners are allowed until May 21, 2012, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 123 (Monday, June 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39387-39388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16074]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6721-9]


Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Disposal 
Injection Restrictions; Petition for Exemption--Class I Hazardous Waste 
Injection; E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Final Decision on Injection Well No Migration 
Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that an exemption to the land disposal 
restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act has been granted to E. I. du 
Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. (Dupont), for five Class I injection 
wells located at Dupont's White Pigment and Mineral Products DeLisle 
Plant in DeLisle, Mississippi. As required by 40 CFR Part 148, the 
company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the 
Environmental Protection Agency by petition and supporting 
documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be 
no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as 
long as the waste remains hazardous. This final decision allows the 
underground injection by Dupont, of the specific restricted hazardous 
wastes identified in the exemption, into five Class I hazardous waste 
injection wells (Plant Wells 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) at the DeLisle, 
Mississippi facility, until December 31, 2020, unless EPA moves to 
terminate the exemption under provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. As required 
by 40 CFR 148.22(b) and 124.10, a public notice was issued February 29, 
2000. A public hearing was held March 30, 2000 at the DeLisle 
Elementary School. The public comment period closed on April 13, 2000. 
No comments were received at the public hearing and the only comment 
letter received prior to the close of the comment period was from 
Dupont. These comments were not of a significant nature and EPA has 
determined that its reasons for granting the exemption as set forth in 
the proposed decision remain valid. This

[[Page 39388]]

decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative 
appeal.

DATES: This action is effective as of May 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and all pertinent information 
relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 4, Water Management Division, Ground Water/
Drinking Water Branch, Ground Water & UIC Section, Atlanta, GA 30303-
8960.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Bartlett, Chief Ground Water & 
UIC Section, EPA Region 4, telephone (404) 562-9478.

    Dated: June 14, 2000.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 00-16074 Filed 6-23-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-12716

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:17-cr-00030-CAR-CHW-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRIS RIVERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(January 11, 2019)

Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal 

waiver in Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert, 

Case: 18-12716 Date Filed: 01/11/2019 Page: 1 of 2 
2

997 F.2d 1343, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced 

if it was made knowingly and voluntarily); United States v. Bascomb, 451 F.3d 

1292, 1297 (11th Cir. 2006) (appeal waiver “cannot be vitiated or altered by 

comments the court makes during sentencing”); United States v. Grinard-Henry, 

399 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2005) (waiver of the right to appeal includes 

waiver of the right to appeal difficult or debatable legal issues or even blatant 

error).

Case: 18-12716 Date Filed: 01/11/2019 Page: 2 of 2
----

----

----

|   | (a) | At all times      hereafter, Executive will not disparage or criticize, orally or in      writing, the business, products, policies, decisions, directors, officers      or employees of the Corporation or any of its operating divisions,      subsidiaries or affiliates to anyperson. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | At all times      hereafter, the Corporation and its officers, directors, employees and      agents will not disparage or criticize, orally or in writing,      Executive. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
Exhibit 32.1











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 Quarterly Report of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



































s/Robert A. Paul


Robert A. Paul


Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


November 5, 2010
[Cite as Parks v. Webb, 2018-Ohio-1716.]

{¶1} On December 6, 2017, requester Michael Parks made a public records 

request to respondent Patricia Webb, Clerk, Pickaway County Board of Commissioners 

(PCBC) for the minutes of the December 5, 2017 PCBC meeting “in whatever format 

they are in at the time of this email.” (Response, Exh. A.) Webb provided Parks with a 

copy of the minutes in PDF format, although Webb kept the minutes in DOC (Microsoft 

Word) format. (Response, Exh. B.) On December 13, 2017, Parks responded: “The 

record sent is not what I requested.” (Id.) On December 18, 2017, Pickaway County 

Administrator Brad Lutz emailed Parks that the requested records had been provided as 

required by law (Response, Exh. C.), incorporating by reference previous 

correspondence in which he advised that “[i]t is not appropriate nor required by 

sunshine law to send a document that can be edited, such as a Word document.” 

(Complaint at 4.) 

{¶2} On December 20, 2017, requester Michael Parks filed a complaint under 

R.C. 2743.75 alleging denial of timely access to public records in violation of 

R.C. 149.43(B). On March 22, 2018, Special Master Clark issued a report 

recommending that the court GRANT Parks’ claim for production of the requested 

records in the format they were kept by the office at the time of the request. 

{¶3} R.C. 2743.75(F)(2) states, in part: “Either party may object to the report and 

recommendation within seven business days after receiving the report and 

recommendation by filing a written objection with the clerk * * *.” No objections were 

MICHAEL R. PARKS 

 Requester 

 v. 

PATRICIA WEBB 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2017-00995PQ 

Judge Patrick M. McGrath 

ENTRY ADOPTING 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

SPECIAL MASTER 
Case No. 2017-00995PQ -2- ENTRY 

filed by either party. The court determines that there is no error of law or other defect 

evident on the face of the Special Master’s decision. Therefore, the court adopts the 

Special Master’s report and recommendation as its own, including findings of fact and 

conclusions of law contained therein. 

{¶4} Court costs are assessed against the respondent, and respondent is further 

ordered to make payment of twenty-five dollars to requester as recovery of his filing fee 

in this case. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of 

entry upon the journal. 

 

PATRICK M. McGRATH 

Judge 

 

Filed April 17, 2018 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/4/18
§ 109-1.5113 Loss, damage, or destruction of personal property in possession of designated contractors. ( a ) Designated contractors shall report any loss, damage, or destruction of personal property in its possession or control, including property in the possession or control of subcontractors, to the property administrator as soon as it becomes known.
( b ) When physical inventories, consumption analyses, or other actions disclose consumption of property considered unreasonable by the property administrator; or loss, damage, or destruction of personal property not previously reported by the contractor, the property administrator shall require the contractor to investigate the incidents and submit written reports.
( c ) Reports of physical inventory results and identified discrepancies shall be submitted to the property administrator within 90 days of completion of physical inventories. An acceptable percentage of shrinkage for stores inventories shall be determined by the property administrator on a location-by-location basis, based on type and cost of materials, historical data, and other site-specific factors. This determination shall be in writing and be supported by appropriate documentation.
( d ) The contractor's report referenced above shall contain factual data as to the circumstances surrounding the loss, damage, destruction or excessive consumption, including: ( 1 ) The contractor's name and contract number;
( 2 ) A description of the property;
( 3 ) Cost of the property, and cost of repairs in instances of damage (in event actual cost is not known, use reasonable estimate);
( 4 ) The date, time (if pertinent), and cause or origin; and
( 5 ) Actions taken by the contractor to prevent further loss, damage, destruction, or unreasonable consumption, and to prevent repetition of similar incidents.
( e ) The property administrator shall ensure that the corrective actions taken by the contractor under paragraph (d)(5) of this section satisfactorily address system weaknesses.
( f ) The contracting officer shall make a determination of contractor liability with a copy of the determination furnished to the contractor and the property administrator. Costs may be assessed against a contractor for physical inventory discrepancies or other instances of loss of Government property within the terms of the contract. Credit should only be applied if specific items reported as lost can be uniquely identified. General physical inventory write-ons are not to be used as a credit.
( g ) If part of a designated contractor's personal property management system is found to be unsatisfactory, the property administrator shall increase surveillance of that part to prevent, to the extent possible, any loss, damage, destruction or unreasonable consumption of personal property. The property administrator shall give special attention to reasonably ensuring that any loss, damage, destruction or unreasonable consumption occurring during a period when a contractor's personal property management system is not approved is identified before approval or reinstatement of approval.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 770 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 770

 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure that the National 
Labor Relations Board does not decline to assert jurisdiction over the 
                 horseracing and dogracing industries.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1999

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to ensure that the National 
Labor Relations Board does not decline to assert jurisdiction over the 
                 horseracing and dogracing industries.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BOARD JURISDICTION.

    Section 14 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 164) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Notwithstanding any rule or regulation, the Board shall not 
decline to assert jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving the 
horseracing and dogracing industries.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 11-9547.

#### Aldea *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 102-76.90 Who has the authority to waive or modify the standards in § 102-76.65(a)?

The Administrator of General Services has the authority to waive or modify the standards in § 102-76.65(a) on a case-by-case basis if the agency head or GSA department head submits a request for waiver or modification and the Administrator determines that the waiver or modification is clearly necessary.