alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SF O

Sa n Francisc o Internationa l Airpor t

Marc h 4 , 201 0 P.O . Bo x809 7 Sa n Francisco , C

A 9412 8 Te l 650.821.500 0 Fa x650.821.500 5 www.flysfo.co m

ArRPOR T COMMISSIO N CIT Y AN D COUNT V O F SA N FRANCISC O GAVI N NEVVSO M

MWO H LARR Y MAZZOL A P«fS/DE^ T LIND A S . CRAYTO N V i a PRESIDEN T CARY L IT O ELEANO R JOHN S RICHAR D J . auGGENHIM E

JOH N L . MARTI N AmPOR T DIRECTO R Th e Honorabl e Raymon dH . LaHoo d

Secretar y U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 Docke t DOT-OST-2010-003 4 Dea r Mr . Secretary : O n behal f o f th e Sa n Francisc o International Airport , I writ e i n suppor t o f th e Department

o f Transportation' s expeditiou s consideratio n o f th e pendin g American Airlines/Japan Airline s applicatio n fo r antitrus t immunit y an dpropose djoin t busines s agreement , pursuan t t o th e same standard s applie dby DO T to other allianc e application s b

y U.S . airlines . Worldwid e alliances , suc h a s oneworld , hav e prove n beneficial fo r th e aviatio n industr

y an dfo r passengers . Airline s secure marketin g an doperational efficiencies , airport s obtai n more efficient us e o f facilities , an dpassenger s stan dto benefi t throug h lower

fare s an dmore seamles s global airline s connections . Increase d allianc e competitio n wil l in tur n enhanc e th e benefit s o f

th e Department' s Ope n Skie s polic y - first

b y solidifyin g U.S . - Japan Ope n Skies , the n b y servin g a s a foundatio n fo

r furthe r liberalizatio n acros s Asia . DO T ha s in th e pas t

supporte dglobal airlin e alliance s tha t enhanc e consumer welfar e an dcompetition . I

n th e interes t

o f our region' s travelin g publi c an di n th e interes t o f acompetitiv e global marketplac e fo r ai r travel , w e urg e th e Departmen t t o ac t a s promptl y a s possibl e o n th e American Airlines/Japa n Airline s request . Ver y trul y yours , 

## A r ^ ' 1 \ h JohVL . Marti n Airpor t Directo r P.O . Bo x 809 7 SanFrancisco,CA . 9412 8 John.Martin@t1ysfo.co m
§ 60-4.4 Affirmative action requirements. ( a ) To implement the affirmative action requirements of Executive Order 11246 in the construction industry, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs previously has approved affirmative action programs commonly referred to as “Hometown Plans,” has promulgated affirmative action plans referred to as “Imposed Plans” and has approved “Special Bid Conditions” for high impact projects constructed in areas not covered by a Hometown or an Imposed Plan. All solicitations for construction contracts made after the effective date of the regulations in this part shall include the notice specified in § 60-4.2 of this part and the specifications in § 60-4.3 of this part in lieu of the Hometown and Imposed Plans including the Philadelphia Plan and Special Bid Conditions. Until the Director has issued an order pursuant to § 60-4.6 of this part establishing goals and timetables for minorities in the appropriate geographical areas or for a project covered by Special Bid Conditions, the goals and timetables for minorities to be inserted in the Notice required by 41 CFR 60-4.2 shall be the goals and timetables contained in the Hometown Plan, Imposed Plan or Special Bid Conditions presently covering the respective geographical area or project involved.
( b ) Signatories to a Hometown Plan (including heavy highway affirmative action plans) shall have 45 days from the effective date of the regulations in this part to submit under such a Plan (for the director's approval) goals and timetables for women and to include female representation on the Hometown Plan Administrative Committee. Such goals for female representation shall be at least as high as the goals established for female representation in the notice issued pursuant to 41 CFR 60-4.6. Failure of the signatories, within the 45-day period, to include female representation and to submit goals for women or a new plan, as appropriate, shall result in an automatic termination of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program's approval of the Hometown Plan. At any time the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs terminates or withdraws its approval of a Hometown Plan, or when the plan expires and another plan is not approved, the contractors signatory to the plan shall be covered automatically by the specifications set forth in § 60-4.3 of this part and by the goals and timetables established for that geographical area pursuant to § 60-4.6 of this part.
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 March 31, 2009 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


May 8,
2009
No. 11-150.

#### Moore *v.*USC University Hospital, Inc., et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3739-3740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1644]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    Consistent with Departmental policy, 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Robert 
Odabashian, et al. was lodged with the United States District Court for 
the Western district of Tennessee on December 17, 1999 (95-2361 G/Bre). 
The United States filed a First Amended Complaint pursuant to Section 
107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA''), as amended, against five 
defendants, including Chevron Chemical Company, LLC (``Chevron''). The 
First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants are liable under 
Section 107 of CERCLA for costs incurred by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency during a cleanup of the Pulvair 
Corporation Superfund Site in Millington, Tennessee. The proposed 
Consent Decree settles the liability of Chevron. Under the Consent 
Decree, Chevron agrees to reimburse the United States in the amount of 
$100,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044; and 
refer to United States v. Robert Odabashian, et al., DOJ Ref. #90-11-3-
1474.
    The proposed settlement agreement may be examined at the Office of 
the United States Attorney, Suite 410, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, 
TN 38103, and at the office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303. A copy of the 
proposed Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the 
Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, 
Washington, D.C. 20044. In requesting a copy please refer to the 
referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $4.25 (25 cents

[[Page 3740]]

per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Walker Smith,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-1644 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4392 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4392

 To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
to authorize the distribution of Federal surplus property to nonprofit 
   organizations providing assistance to the hungry and the indigent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 1994

 Mr. McCurdy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
to authorize the distribution of Federal surplus property to nonprofit 
   organizations providing assistance to the hungry and the indigent.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO DISTRIBUTE SURPLUS PROPERTY TO CERTAIN 
              NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

    Subparagraph (B) of section 203(j)(3) of the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 484(j)(3)(B)) is amended 
by inserting ``, or to nonprofit organizations which are exempt from 
taxation under such section and provide assistance to the hungry or the 
indigent, for the purpose of providing such assistance'' after ``for 
any such purpose)''.

                                 <all>
```
# Comments on: Appointment of New Advisory Council Members
#### § 50-204.71 Safety relief devices for compressed gas containers.

Compressed gas cylinders, portable tanks, and cargo tanks shall have pressure relief devices installed and maintained in accordance with Compressed Gas Association Pamphlets S-1.1-1963 and 1965 addenda and S-1.2-1963.
391P15

#### City of Asheville, a municipal corporation v. State of North Carolina and the Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County

1. Pit’s Motion for Temporary Stay

1. Allowed 11/25/2015

2. Pit’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

*2*

3. Pit’s Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question

3.

4. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          35,081
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   89,165
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,870
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,191
<PP&E>                                          44,853
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,565
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,967
<BONDS>                                         20,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,257
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,565
<SALES>                                        287,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               287,914
<CGS>                                          231,322
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  231,322
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,001
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,050
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,018
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,908
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,110
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,110
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

AMERICAN VANGUARD CORPORATION

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 American Vanguard Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their 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 represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|/s/    ERIC G. WINTEMUTE                                               
|Eric G. Wintemute Chief Executive Officer                              
|                                                                       
|/s/    DAVID T. JOHNSON                                                
|David T. Johnson Chief Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer

August 7, 2009

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 American Vanguard Corporation and will be retained by American Vanguard Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be
considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.
# Comments on: 22-2165: ALTERNATIVE PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS CORP. v. GRIMES [ORDER], Nonprecedential
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
May 20, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 05-50100

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ARTURO SALAS-SALAS
Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, El Paso

--------------------- Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

IT IS ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed mot ion to

vacate the sentence is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed motion to

remand the case to the Western District of Texas, El Paso

Division for resentencing is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s alternative request

for an extension of time to file the Appelle e’s brief 14 daysfrom the denial of Appellee’s motion to vacate and remand is

denied as moot.
§ 101-4.405 Housing. ( a ) *Generally.* A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, apply different rules or regulations, impose different fees or requirements, or offer different services or benefits related to housing, except as provided in this section (including housing provided only to married students).
( b ) *Housing provided by recipient.* ( 1 ) A recipient may provide separate housing on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole: ( i ) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
( ii ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( c ) *Other housing.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, administer different policies or practices concerning occupancy by its students of housing other than that provided by such recipient.
( 2 ) ( i ) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole: ( A ) Proportionate in quantity; and
( B ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( ii ) A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person that provides all or part of such housing to students of only one sex.
#### Lincoln Shoe Manufacturing Company v. George Seifert.

Filed April 4, 1895.

No. 6216.

Corporate Stock: Contract oe Subscription. This case presents the same questions of law and fact as *Lincoln Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Sheldon,*44 Neb., 279, and following that case the judgment oF the district court is reversed.

Error from the district court of Lancaster county» Tried below before Hall, J.

*Thomas C. Hunger,*for plaintiff in error.

*MicJcetts &*Wilson, *contra.*

*537Ragan, C.

The Lincoln Shoe Manufacturing Company sued George Seifert in the district court of Lancaster county on a subscription made by him to the capital stock of the manufacturing company. Seifert demurred to the petition on the grounds that the facts stated therein did not constitute facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The district court sustained this demurrer and dismissed the action of the manufacturing company, and it has prosecuted to this court a petition in error.

The facts of this case are the same as those in *Lincoln Shoe Mfg. Co. v. Sheldon,*44 Neb., 279, and on the authority of that case the judgment of the district court rendered in this is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[House Report 106-671]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-671

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

 
    PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4578, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
         INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

                                _______
                                

   June 12, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 524]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 524, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 4578, 
the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2001, under an open rule. The rule provides 
one hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill. The rule further waives clause 2 of rule XXI 
(prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in an 
appropriations bill) against provisions in the bill except as 
otherwise specified in the rule. The rule also waives clause 
2(e) of rule XXI (prohibiting non-emergency designated 
amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill containing 
an emergency designation) against amendments offered during 
consideration of the bill.
    Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Record 
prior to their consideration will be given priority in 
recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent 
with House rules. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 
may postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and reduce 
voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote 
follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

                                  

```
**Exhibit 10.9**

** **

**Memo**

 

 

**To:****                             ****                Executive Officers**

**                                               ****                Capital Corp of the West/CountyBank**

 

**From:****              ****                Tom Hawker**

 

**Date:****                  ****                February 14, 2001**

 

**Subject:****  ****                Additional Benefits**

 

 

**It is with great pleasure that Iinform you of two significant additional benefits that our Board has approvedfor the Management Team in recognition of the Company’s overallperformance.  The Board has endeavoredto provide our team with benefits on par with our peers that is greatlyappreciated.**

 

**Effective immediatley, you arecovered by a one year severance package in the case of change of control withthat being defined in the same language as your Salary Continuation Plan.  While we do not expect that to be an issue,it is gratifying that our Board has been considerate of this potential.**

 

**We have completed three years ofincreasing earnings and are poised to add number four.  The Board and I are pleased to be able toadd these additional benefits for you in recognition of your contributions toour success.**

 

 

 

----
§ 51-9.404 Refusal of request to amend. ( a ) The Executive Director, or any official acting for him, shall have the authority to issue an initial refusal of a request to amend a record within his custody and shall be responsible for the initial adverse agency determination.
( b ) If the Executive Director, after reviewing the request to amend a record, determines not to amend the record, he promptly shall advise the requester in writing of the determination. The refusal letter ( 1 ) shall state the reasons for refusal,
( 2 ) shall state the requester's right to seek a review of the initial determination, and
( 3 ) shall state the procedures for requesting such review.
#### § 128-1.5002-1 Acquire.

To procure, purchase, or obtain in any manner, except by lease, including transfer, donation or forfeiture, manufacture, or production at Government-owned plants or facilities.