alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2

May 3, 2013

Craig Glazer

V.P., Federal Government Policy

glazec@pjm.com

(202) 423-4743

VIA EMAIL

U.S. Department of Energy

Email: expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov

RE: Ex Parte Communication, Docket EERE-2012-BT-STD-0022

To whom it may concern;

On May 2, representatives from PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., the National Rural Electric 

Cooperatives Association, the Edison Electric Institute and the American Public Power 

Association held a meeting with members of the Department of Energy’s General Counsel and 

the Office of Energy Efficiency to discuss next steps associated with the referenced docket 

pertaining to residential electric storage water heaters.

The purpose of this meeting was to explore next steps associated with this rulemaking 

given the comments received and the public record and to address issues associated with the role 

of utilities in implementing some of the suggested conditions to any proposed waiver.

Sincerely,

/s/ Craig Glazer 

Attached below: List of attendees 
2

Attendees:

Name Organization

Kathleen Hogan

Roland J. Risser

Ari Altman

Ashley Armstrong

Dan Cohen

John Cymbalsky

Department of Energy

Craig Glazer PJM Interconnection

Jay Morrison

David Mohre

Julie Barkemeyer

Keith Dennis

NRECA

Alex Hofmann APPA

Steven Rosenstock EEI
047P16

#### State v. Raymond Lee Crook, Jr.

Def’s *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-458)

Denied
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHI N GTO N , D . C . 20460

Eric P . Youngdale DuP ont Fluoroproducts Chestnut Run Plaza P.O. B ox 29 15 974 Ce ntre Road Wilmington. De laware 19805 

# APR 2 2 

# 2015 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

Re: Comp leteness Dete rmin ati o n for S AP ubmission for R-44 9A ( Opte on XP40) in Refri ge ra ti o n a nd A ir Co nditi o nin g Dear Mr. Youngdale: Thank you for DuPont's subm issio n t o the Environmental Pro t ec ti o n Agency (E PA) for R-44 9A ( Opt eon 

### ® XP 40) in ref ri ge ration a nd a ir cond iti on in g . EPA es t ab li s hed the S ig nificant New A lternatives Policy (SNJ\P) program to impl e ment section 6 12 of th e C lean Ai r Act. Your s ubmi ss io n r ece i ve d on August 6, 20 14 has been rev iewed for co mpletene ss. We ha ve found th e infonnation to be complete. Here i s a s umm a ry of inf o rmation concerning yo ur submission: S ub stitute name: R-449 A (Op t eo n ® XP40) Pe rc en t Compositio n: 24.3 % HFC- 32 24 . 7 % 1-IFC -125 25.3% 1 1FO-l234yf 25.7% II FC-134a Substance(s) the s ub s titut e will replace: R-40 2A, R-4028. R-4 04A. R- 407 A . R-407 C. R-407F and R- 507A Sec t o r : Refrigeration a nd Ai r Conditio nin g End -u ses: Re t ai l food r ef

ri ge r a ti o n, refri ge rated transport. commercial ice machin es, cold storage warehouses. indu s trial proce ss r e frigeration and industr ia l process ai r- cond iti oning. New or R e tr o fit usage: Retr o fit s and New Equipment Date r eceived: Aug ust 6. 2014 Date of most recent inf orma ti on received: November 24 . 20 14

Internet Address (URL) • hnp //www epa gov Rc c y c led i Recy c tablc • Pnn1eo w1th Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100"· Postconsumer Process Chlonne Free Recycled PaperStatus of s ubmi ss ion: Co mpl e t e Your sub mi ss ion was complete as of Nove mb e r 24 , 2014. Fo r pu rp oses of th e SNAP program , Opteo n XP 40 ma y be so ld and imp orted in the re frigeratio n and a ir cond iti on in g e nd u ses described above as of February 22, 20 1 5. We n o t e that DuP o nt mu st also comp ly with 40 CFR 72 1 . 1 0 1 82. If you ha ve quest ions abou t yo ur s ubmission , pl ease contac t m e at (2 0 2) 343-9624 o r Wozniak.gerald @. epa.gov .

Cc: Ms. Mar y E. Kohan DuP ont Flu o roproduc t s Chestnut Run Plaza P .O. B ox 29 15 974 Ce ntre Road Wilmin gto n , DE 1980 5 Sincerely . Gerald Wo z ni ak A ltemat i ves a nd Emi ss i o n s R ed u c ti o n Br anch Stratosphe ri c Prote ction Di v i s ion
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,979
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             792
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    119,799
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,742
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,761
<LOANS>                                        142,623
<ALLOWANCE>                                        756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 275,320
<DEPOSITS>                                     144,802
<SHORT-TERM>                                    39,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              7,503
<LONG-TERM>                                     26,451
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                      57,518
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 275,320
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 10,795
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,476
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   336
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,607
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,176
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,573
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,034
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      235
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,651
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,868
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,868
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,051
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .760
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .720
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   6.780
<LOANS-NON>                                        831
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    175
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   590
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       69
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  756
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            756
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41102-41103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16784]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental Program To Stimulate 
Competitive Research; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 
92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel for the Experimental Program to 
Stimulate Competitive Research (1198).
    Date/Time: August 25, 2000; 8 am-5 pm.
    Place: Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston, 4610 Fairfax, 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Richard J. Anderson, Senior Science Advisor, 
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), 
National Science Foundation, Suite 875, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230. (703) 306-1683.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning EPSCoR Infrastructure Improvement proposals submitted to 
the NSF EPSCoR program for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reasons for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information

[[Page 41103]]

concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters 
are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in 
the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 28, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-16784 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### § 15.13 Incidental radiators.

Manufacturers of these devices shall employ good engineering practices to minimize the risk of harmful interference.
#### § 24.301 Narrowband PCS subject to competitive bidding.

Mutually exclusive initial applications for narrowband PCS service licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.

[67 FR 45367, July 9, 2002]
p.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

103) IV-C-69 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:56 AM Sheet 103 of 232 
EL2_ 

0-87-J . ± 

'JCZ - ©-

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

FEB I r : !'' 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Honorable Chic Hecht 

United States Senate 

Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Senator Hecht: 

Thank you for passing along the comments of your 

constituents concerning EPA's proposal to require onboard 

refueling emission controls and proposed gasoline volatility 

regulations. Be assured that these comments will be considered 

in the next phase of our rulemaking process. We will also be 

placing them in the public dockets for the rulemaking. 

Thank you again for your concern in this matter. 

Sincerely yours, 

"'.

 L0:

. E DY 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

cc: Docket A-87-11 

Docket A-85-21
#### § 0.317 Record of action taken.

The application, authorization, and other appropriate files of the Enforcement Bureau are designated as the Commission's official records of action taken pursuant to authority delegated under §§ 0.311 and 0.314, and shall constitute the official Commission minutes entry of such actions. The official records of action are maintained by the Reference Information Center.

[88 FR 21431, Apr. 10, 2023]
9 June 2016

191P16

#### Owen D. Leavitt v. State of North Carolina

1. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

1. Denied 05/19/2016

2. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP14-977)

2. Dismissed

3. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for PDR

3. Dismissed

4. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

4. Allowed

5. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion to Reconsider Denial of Petition for *Writ of Habeas Cmpus*

5. Denied 06/01/2016
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4192 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4192

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 20 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 3000 
  Veterans Drive in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, as the ``Arturo R. 
                     Watlington, Sr. Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office building located at 3000 Veterans 
Drive in Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Arturo R. Watlington, Sr. Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the Arturo R. Watlington, Sr. Post 
Office.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 1994.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

UMBANET, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-2556

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:16-cv-00682-JRG, 

Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

BRIAN BECK, Spence, P.C., Chicago, IL, argued for 

plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by WILLIAM CORY 

SPENCE. 

 PRATIK A. SHAH, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. 

Also represented by ZE-WEN JULIUS CHEN; CHARLES 

EVERINGHAM, IV, Longview, TX. 

______________________ 
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, O’MALLEY and 

STOLL, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 December 10, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
#### § 24.15 License period.

Licenses for service areas will be granted for ten year terms from the date of original issuance or renewal.
**Docket Number: FAA -**  **2012 -**  **0414**

**Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  9/29/2011 **Regional Airline Association** 9/29/2011 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  9/29/2011 **ATA M Lopez**  9/29/2011
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4459 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4459

To provide for retroactive award of the Navy Combat Action Ribbon based 
upon participation in ground or surface combat as a member of the Navy 
 or Marine Corps during the period between July 4, 1943, and March 1, 
                                 1961.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 1994

 Mr. McNulty introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for retroactive award of the Navy Combat Action Ribbon based 
upon participation in ground or surface combat as a member of the Navy 
 or Marine Corps during the period between July 4, 1943, and March 1, 
                                 1961.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of 
the Navy shall provide for retroactive award of the Navy Combat Action 
Ribbon (established by Secretary of the Navy Notice 1650, dated 
February 17, 1969) with respect to participation in ground or surface 
combat during any period after July 4, 1943, and before March 1, 1961 
(the date of the otherwise applicable limitation on retroactivity).

                                 <all>
```
No. 11-5215.

#### Granados-Arvizu *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-03-505-CR

ENNIS DEMARCUS JOHNSON  	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 4 OF TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant's “Motion to Dismiss Appeal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  February 26, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4472 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4472

 To provide that the prevailing party in a tort action is entitled to 
         recover attorneys' fees from the nonprevailing party.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 1994

Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that the prevailing party in a tort action is entitled to 
         recover attorneys' fees from the nonprevailing party.

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

SECTION 1. AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES.

    The prevailing party in any civil action brought in a State or 
Federal court for money damages for injury or loss of property or 
personal injury or death caused by a negligent act or omission shall be 
entitled to recover from the nonprevailing party a reasonable 
attorney's fee. If sought by the prevailing party, the court shall 
award an attorney's fee under this section, whether the prevailing 
party is a plaintiff or defendant, unless the court finds special 
circumstances that would render such an award unjust.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' includes the District 
of Columbia.

                                 <all>
```
No. 11-9739.

#### Cano-Medina *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Jacques Garabet MAKSOUDIAN, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 02-73528.

Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 9, 2004.

Decided March 17, 2004.

Before TROTT, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

The Court *sua sponte*changes the caption to reflect the proper Respondent.

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Jacques Garabet Maksoudian petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (2003).

According to Maksoudian, the IJ denied him of his due process rights by failing to *sua sponte*appoint an interpreter to assist Maksoudian’s father during his testimony. Maksoudian asserts that his father’s testimony about his medical condition was crucial evidence explaining the hardship Maksoudian’s parents would face should Maksoudian be removed.

Assuming, without deciding, that the IJ had an obligation to *sua sponte*provide an interpreter for a witness who did not speak English well, Maksoudian was not denied the opportunity to present evidence about his father’s medical condition. Mak-soudian addressed the issue of his father’s medical condition on direct examination, and could have expanded upon that testimony on redirect examination. In the alternative, Maksoudian could have assembled documentary evidence during the generous period allotted to prepare for his hearing. Because he was provided with a full opportunity to present evidence of his father’s medical condition, no violation of Maksoudian’s due process right to present evidence occurred. *See Acewicz v. INS,*984 F.2d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.1993) (finding no due process violation where petitioners were given the opportunity to present evidence).

Moreover, even if the IJ erred by failing to provide for an interpreter for Maksoudi-an’s father, we cannot say on this record that “translation would have made a difference in the outcome of the hearing.” *Ko-tasz v. INS,*31 F.3d 847, 850 n. 2 (9th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). Maksoudian did not establish prejudice because he failed to make an offer of proof of what testimony his father would have given, had the IJ appointed an interpreter. *See Cheo v. INS,*162 F.3d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir.1998).

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Maksou-dian failed to establish exceptional or extremely unusual hardship to his lawful permanent resident parents. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003). Because we lack jurisdiction to address this issue, we need not, and do *268not, address Maksoudian’s other arguments.

PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
-80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

05/30

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
#### Emiliano SANCHEZ-VELASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-71161.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2004.*

Decided March 24, 2004.

Manuel F. Rios, III, Esq., Rios Cantor, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS — District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Emiliano Sanchez-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition in part, and deny the petition in part.

We lack jurisdiction to review whether Sanchez-Velasquez has demonstrated the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for cancellation of removal, *see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003), as well as whether the BIA improperly streamlined this appeal in which only the hardship element, a discretionary factor, is in dispute, see *Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845, 854 (9th Cir.2003).

Sanchez-Velasquez’s constitutional challenge to the BIA’s streamlining regulations, which we have jurisdiction to review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, is foreclosed by *Falcon Carriche,*350 F.3d at 851.

*988The clerk is directed to stay the mandate pending the resolution of *Desta v. Ashcroft,*No. 03-70477 and further order of this Court.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.