alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 105-55.003 Antitrust, fraud, tax, interagency claims, and claims over $100,000 excluded. ( a ) The standards in this part relating to compromise, suspension, and termination of collection activity do not apply to any debt based in whole or in part on conduct in violation of the antitrust laws or to any debt involving fraud, the presentation of a false claim, or misrepresentation on the part of the debtor or any party having an interest in the claim. The standards of this part relating to the administrative collection of claims do apply, but only to the extent authorized by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a particular case. Upon identification of a claim based in whole or in part on conduct in violation of the antitrust laws or any claim involving fraud, the presentation of a false claim, or misrepresentation on the part of the debtor or any party having an interest in the claim, the General Services Administration (GSA) will promptly refer the case to the GSA Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG has the responsibility for investigating or referring the matter, where appropriate, to DOJ for action. At its discretion, DOJ may return the claim to GSA for further handling in accordance with the standards of this part.
( b ) This part does not apply to tax debts.
( c ) This part does not apply to claims between GSA and other Federal agencies.
( d ) This part does not apply to claims over $100,000.
#### § 301-10.8 What is my liability if, for personal convenience, I travel by an indirect route or interrupt travel by a direct route?

Your reimbursement will be limited to the cost of travel by a direct route or on an uninterrupted basis. You will be responsible for any additional costs.
1

Ogulei, David

From: Nancy L Paddock <nancy.paddock@veoliaes.com>

Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 8:29 AM

To: Ogulei, David

Cc: Dennis J Warchol

Subject: Title V Revisions

Attachments: Emissions Calcs from Application from Veolia 12-9-13.xlsx; A4 Form PTE Summary(1 of 2)

rev5clean.doc; A5 Form PTE Summary(2 of 2)rev5clean.doc; cUnit 3 (1 of 2)rev5.doc; aUnit 2 

(1 of 2)rev5.doc; lDrum Crusherrev5.doc; eUnit 4 (1 of 2)rev5.doc; Veolia Page 18rev5 

clean.pdf

David,

We've corrected errors/typos and hopefully all the numbers add up now. We've also addressed 

organic compounds as HAPs. Your spreadsheet has been modified as well, hopefully you'll find this 

helpful. Attached you will find the following; let's see if these items will get the job done for us!

1. Your spreadsheet with our updates in RED.

2. Revised FORM PTE’s 

3. Revised FORM EMISS’s for Unit2, Unit3, Unit4 and Drum Crusher

4. Revised Page 18 from the Narrative. 

Let me know if you need anything else.

Nancy Paddock 

Environmental Engineering Specialist 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, IL 62201 

618.271.2804 (x-115) 

618.271.2128 (fax) 

 

Nancy.Paddock@VeoliaES.com

www.VeoliaES.com

 

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may 

contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If 

you are not the intended recipient, please communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the 

original message and delete it from all computers.
S90A0668.

#### IN THE MATTER OF: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 1419.

(388 SE2d 683)

Per curiam.

J. W. Smith, the coroner of Bibb County, filed an original petition with this Court, in which he challenged the jurisdiction of the Judicial Qualifications Commission (Commission) to entertain several complaints about him in *Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 1419.*Smith contends that the 1983 Ga. Constitution does not give the Commission jurisdiction over coroners. We ordered the Commission to temporarily suspend its proceedings against Smith, and directed Smith and the Commission to file briefs with us, addressing the issue of the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Article VI of the 1983 Ga. Constitution pertains to the judicial *832branch of state government. Article VI, Sec. VII, Pars. VI-VIII, establish the Commission, and give it the power to discipline, remove, or cause the involuntary retirement of “judges.” However, Pars. VI-VIII do not indicate whether coroners were intended by the drafters of those paragraphs to be deemed “judges” for purposes of Commission jurisdiction. Moreover, we find that no other provision of Article VI unambiguously indicates that coroners are to be treated as “judges” within the meaning of Article VI. See Art. VI, Sec. VII, Pars. I and III.

Decided February 22, 1990.

*Hugh M. Dorsey, Jr.,*for Judicial Qualifications Commission.

*Groover & Childs, Denmark Groover, Jr.,*for Smith.

It is our opinion that the jurisdiction of the Commission should be construed as encompassing only persons who are clearly intended to be within its jurisdiction. Accordingly, inasmuch as we have concluded that nothing in Article VI clearly indicates that coroners are intended to be overseen by the Commission, we hold that coroners are not “judges” within the meaning of that term as it is used in Art. VI, Sec. VII, Pars. VI-VIII.1

We therefore further hold that the petitioner, J. W. Smith, is not within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and we direct the Commission to terminate its *Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 1419.*

*Inquiry terminated.*

*All the Justices concur. .*

1

 We pretermit the question whether coroners should be considered to be “judges” in any other context. But see generally *Kilgore v. R. W. Page Corp.,*259 Ga. 556 (385 SE2d 406) (1989).
#### § 60-50.6 Severability.

Should a court of competent jurisdiction hold any provision(s) of this part to be invalid, such action will not affect any other provision of this part.

[88 FR 51735, Aug. 4, 2023]
EXHIBIT 32.a



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 operations of the registrant.



|               |  |                            
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:          |  |                            
|March 20, 2007 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|               |  |                            
|               |  | John P. Manning            
|               |  | Principal Executive Officer
|               |  |                            
|               |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.6

LOGO



| |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                                                         
| |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  |  |  | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Chartered
Accountants One Lombard Place, Suite 2300 Winnipeg,
Manitoba Canada R3B 0X6 Telephone +1 (204) 926
2400 Facsimile +1 (204) 944 1020

November 2, 2006

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of
CanWest Global Communications Corp. of our report dated November 2, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 40-F. We also consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of our comments by auditors on Canada-US reporting difference dated November 2,
2006.

Chartered Accountants

Winnipeg, Canada



PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the Canadian firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and
the other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.
§ 0.505 Fees and charges. ( a ) The Commission has designated a contractor to make copies of Commission records and offer them for sale (See § 0.465).
( b ) An hourly fee is charged for recovery of the direct costs of searching for requested documents (See § 0.466).
#### § 102-42.95 How do we report gifts and decorations as excess personal property?

You must complete a Standard Form (SF) 120, Report of Excess Personal Property, and send it to the General Services Administration, Utilization and Donation Program Division (QSCA), Washington, DC 20406. Conspicuously mark the SF 120, “FOREIGN GIFTS AND/OR DECORATIONS”, and include the following information:

| Entry | Description |
| --- | --- |
| (a) Identity of Employee | Give the name and position of the employee. |
| (b) Description of Item | Give a full description of the gift or decoration, including the title of the decoration. |
| (c) Identity of Foreign Government | Give the identity of the foreign government (if known) and the name and position of the individual who presented the gift or decoration. |
| (d) Date of Acceptance | Give the date the gift or decoration was accepted by the employee. |
| (e) Appraised Value | Give the appraised value in United States dollars of the gift or decoration, including the cost of the appraisal. (The employing agency must obtain a commercial appraisal before the gift is offered for sale to the employee.) |
| (f) Current Location of Item | Give the current location of the gift or decoration. |
| (g) Employing Agency Contact Person | Give the name, address, and telephone number of the accountable official in the employing agency. |
| (h) Purchase Interest or Donation Recommendation | Indicate whether the employee wants to buy the gift, or whether the employee wants the gift or decoration donated to an eligible donee through GSA's surplus donation program. Document this interest in a letter outlining any special significance of the gift or decoration to the proposed donee. Also provide the mailing address and telephone number of both the employee and the proposed donee. |
| (i) Administration | Give the Administration in which the gift or decoration was received (for example, Clinton Administration). |
| (j) Multiple Items | Identify each gift or decoration as a separate line item. Report multiple gift items that make up a set (for example, a tea set, a necklace and matching earrings) as a single line item. |

[65 FR 45539, July 24, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 2396, Jan. 15, 2009]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.20002 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart: ( a ) *Appropriate legal authorization.* The term *appropriate legal authorization* means: ( 1 ) A court order signed by a judge or magistrate authorizing or approving interception of wire or electronic communications; or
( 2 ) Other authorization, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2518(7), or any other relevant federal or state statute.
( b ) *Appropriate carrier authorization.* The term *appropriate carrier authorization* means the policies and procedures adopted by telecommunications carriers to supervise and control officers and employees authorized to assist law enforcement in conducting any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information.
( c ) *Appropriate authorization.* The term *appropriate authorization* means both appropriate legal authorization and appropriate carrier authorization.
( d ) *LEA.* The term *LEA* means law enforcement agency; e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a local police department.
( e ) *Telecommunications carrier.* The term *telecommunications carrier* includes: ( 1 ) A person or entity engaged in the transmission or switching of wire or electronic communications as a common carrier for hire;
( 2 ) A person or entity engaged in providing commercial mobile service (as defined in sec. 332(d) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d))); or
( 3 ) A person or entity that the Commission has found is engaged in providing wire or electronic communication switching or transmission service such that the service is a replacement for a substantial portion of the local telephone exchange service and that it is in the public interest to deem such a person or entity to be a telecommunications carrier for purposes of CALEA.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsSwing-arm beam erector (SABER) concept for single astronaut assembly of space structureResults are presented of tests conducted to evaluate a mobile work station/assembly fixture concept that would mechanically assist an astronaut in the on-orbit manual assembly of erectable truss-beams. The concept eliminates astronaut manual translation by use of a motorized work platform with foot restraints. The tests involved assembly of a tetrahedral truss-beam by a test subject in simulated zero gravity (neutral bouyancy in water). A three-bay truss-beam was assembled from 30 aluminum struts with quick-attachment structural joints. The results show that average on-orbit assembly rates of 2.1 struts per minute can be expected for struts of the size employed in these tests.Document ID19850010705Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsWatson, J. J.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Heard, W. L., Jr.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Jensen, J. K.*(Kentron International, Inc.)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1985Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.60:2379NASA-TP-2379L-15886Accession Number85N19015Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-53-43Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850010705.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: NITRO FLUIDS L.L.C.,

Petitioner

______________________

2021-130

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-

cv-00125-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before REYNA, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Nitro Fluids, L.L.C.’s notice that 

the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Texas has granted Nitro’s motion to transfer this case to 

the United States District Court for the Southern District 

of Texas, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Nitro’s petition for a writ of mandamus is denied as 

moot.

Case: 21-130 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 03/29/2021
2 IN RE: NITRO FLUIDS L.L.C.

March 29, 2021

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s32

Case: 21-130 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 03/29/2021
Exhibit 32.2



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Daou Systems,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Roberts, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(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 operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ John A. Roberts                  
|John A. Roberts                      
|Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
|March 30, 2005
# Comments on: 22-1226: ROYAL BRUSH MANUFACTURING, INC. v. US [ERRATA], Nonprecedential
536 P.2d 754

#### Riley MATHESON and Muriel Matheson, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Gary S. HARRIS and Frank D. Maughan, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 11728.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June 13, 1975.

Herman E. Bedke, Burley, for appellants.

Thomas H. Church, Burley, for respondents.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is taken from the summary judgment granted respondents Matheson pursuant to I.R.C.P. 56. The primary issue before the district court was whether an earnest money agreement for the sale of land would support the alleged buyers’ demand for either specific performance or damages upon sellers’ refusal to convey. The lower court held that the agreement in question was too ambiguous to support any remedy sought by the counterclaim of appellants Harris and Maughan.

The agreement in question is ambiguous as to the description of the land in question, the assumption of a non-existent outstanding mortgage, and the method of acceptance. This Court held in Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974) that ambiguous earnest money agreements will not support an award of specific per*760formance or damages. A contract does not exist if any portion of the proposed terms is unsettled. C. H. Leavell and Co. v. Grafe and Associates, Inc., 90 Idaho 502, 414 P.2d 873 (1966). Since several terms of the document are clearly ambiguous, the agreement confers no rights in appellants.

We affirm the judgment of the district court that appellants take nothing by their action.

Costs to respondents.
# Comments on: 20-2048: COLICELLI v. DVA [OPINION], Nonprecedential
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1603 Conduct of random selection.

The random selection probabilities will be calculated in accordance with the formula set out in rules §§ 1.1621 through 1.1623.

[48 FR 27202, June 13, 1983, as amended at 48 FR 43330, Sept. 23, 1983]
#### § 302-2.23 May I receive an advance of funds for my travel and transportation expenses?

Yes, you may receive an advance of funds for your travel and transportation expenses, as prescribed by your agency, except for overseas tour renewal agreement travel.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18336, Apr. 1, 2011, and further redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2014-01, 79 FR 49644, Aug. 21, 2014]
§ 302-7.9 What are the time limits for the temporary storage of authorized HHG shipments? ( a ) *For CONUS to CONUS shipments.* The initial period of temporary storage at Government expense may not exceed 60 days. You may request additional time, up to a maximum of 90 days, and you must make such a request prior to the expiration of the original 60 days. This extension must be approved by the agency official designated for such requests. Under no circumstances may temporary storage at Government expense for CONUS to CONUS shipments exceed a total of 150 days.
( b ) *For shipments that include an OCONUS origin or destination.* The initial period of temporary storage at Government expense may not exceed 90 days. You may request additional time, up to a maximum of 90 days, and you must make such a request prior to the expiration of the original 90 days. This extension must be approved by the agency official designated for such requests. Under no circumstances may temporary storage for shipments at Government expense that include an OCONUS origin or destination exceed a total of 180 days.
[FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18340, Apr. 1, 2011]