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

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

53) ll-B-28 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:53 AM Sheet 53 of 276 
7 P.2 

m 

II-B-28 

M 

!"'-{\

 M I 2 1891 m 

•<n 

NOTE: A signed copy of this item was not available. 
/ *.; ; 

« ^ IP,?% 

2.22 lT~0-2$ 

P.3 

\ r

"i «o^° 

/ 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

/ASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

28 1986 OFFICE o r 

Alt AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Construction Activities Prior to Issuance of a PSD 

Permit with Respect to "Begin Actual Construction" 

FROM: Director 

Stationary Source Compliance pivision 

Office of Air Quality Planning'and Standards 

TO:l Robert R. DeSpain, Chief 

Air Programs Branch, Region VIII 

This memorandum addresses the interpretation of "begin 

actual construction" as it refers to construction activities 

which may occur, or are prohibited prior to issuance of a 

PSD permit under 40 CFR 52.21(i). The Control Programs 

Development Division of OAQPS, the Office of General Counsel, 

and the Air Enforcement Division of the Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance Monitoring were consulted in the development 

of this memorandum, and all three offices concur with its 

content. 

Section 165(a) of the Clean Air Act states that "[n]o 

major emitting facility...may be constructed...unless -

(1) a permit has been issued...[and various other requirements are satisfied]." Section 165 requirements, then, 

apply to major emitting facilities, i.e. major stationary 

sources. However, the PSD regulations at §52.21(i)(l) state 

that,

 B[n]o stationary source or modification...shall begin 

actual construction without a permit which states that the 

stationary source or modification...[has met various requirements]." The terra "begin actual construction" at §52.2Kb) (11) 

in the PSD regulations refers to "construction activities 

on an emissions unit." Emissions unit is defined at §52.21 

(b)(7) as "...any part of a stationary source which emits 

»or would have the potential to emit any pollutant subject 
P.4 

"•••£• 

source or modification (i.e. the source or modification 

would not serve in accordance with its original intent, 

except for inclusion of th"> Rmiseior.g unit), the PSD permit 

must be obtained before construction on the entire source 

commences. 

The policy statement from 1978 reflects the current 

policy on the types of construction activities which are prohibited, or aay occur at risk to the owner prior to issuance 

of a PSD perait. Language changes in the regulations after 

this guidance was issued did not alter EPA's interpretation 

of what a! source may do prior to obtaining a PSD permit. 

you** 

at PTS: 382-?2875. 

X£ ya&have any questions? please contact Sally M. Parrell 

Edward E. Reich 

cc: Kirt Co**:OAQPS 

Gregory Foot©, OGC 

Douglas A. Johns, DOJ 

Judith Katz, OECS8 

Tim Osag, Region VIII 

NSR Regional Contacts
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2010 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2010

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow States to regulate tow 
                           truck operations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2009

Mr. Moran of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow States to regulate tow 
                           truck operations.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State and Local Predatory Towing 
Enforcement Act''.

SEC. 2. REGULATION OF TOW TRUCK OPERATORS.

    Section 14501(c)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
by striking ``the price of'' and all that follows through 
``transportation is'' and inserting ``the regulation of tow truck 
operations''.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 
      ( print page 10780)    
*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Mental Health Special Emphasis Panel, Dissertation Research.                     

*Date:*                         March 27, 2007.                     

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Aileen Schulte, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Mental Health, NIH, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Room 6140, MSC 9608, Bethesda, MD 20892-9608, 301-443-1225,                         *aschulte@mail.nih.gov*.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.242, Mental Health Research Grants; 93.281, Scientist Development Award, Scientist Development Award for Clinicians, and Research Scientist Award; 93.282, Mental Health National Research Service Awards for Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS) 

Dated: March 5, 2007. 

Anna Snouffer, 

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 07-1125 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2004 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 201
111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2004

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2009

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

                            November 4, 2009

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 4282 Beach Street in Akron, Michigan, as the ``Akron Veterans 
                        Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. AKRON VETERANS MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4282 Beach Street in Akron, Michigan, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Akron Veterans Memorial Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Akron 
Veterans Memorial Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 201

111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2004

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 4282 Beach Street in Akron, Michigan, as the ``Akron Veterans 
                        Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            November 4, 2009

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### § 7.4 Option to acquire foreign rights.

In any case where it is determined that all domestic rights should be assigned to the Government, it shall further be determined, pursuant to Executive Order 9865 and Government-wide regulations issued thereunder, that the Government shall reserve an option to require the assignment of such rights in all or in any specified foreign countries. In case where the inventor is not required to assign the patent rights in any foreign country or countries to the Government or the Government fails to exercise its option within such period of time as may be provided by regulations issued by the Commissioner of Patents, any application for a patent which may be filed in such country or countries by the inventor or his assignee shall nevertheless be subject to a nonexclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the Government for all governmental purposes, including the power to issue sublicenses for use in behalf of the Government and/or in furtherance of the foreign policies of the Government.

[27 FR 7987, Aug. 10, 1962]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-110 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MARITIME INTERDICTION 

 Agreement between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and MALTA 

Signed at Valletta June 16, 2004 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
MALTA 

Maritime Interdiction 

Agreement signed at Valletta June 16, 2004; 

 Entered into force January 10, 2008.
Opinion filed July 30 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 08 -0 03 27 -CV

____ ____ __ R EMIGIO A . M AR TINE Z III, A ppellant

V.
TEX AS DE PA RTM ENT OF CR IMINA L JUS TICE ET A L, Ap pellees

On App eal from the 106th Distric t Court
Dawson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 08-09- 18003

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Remigio A. Ma

rtinez I I I sued th e T ex as De partment of Criminal Just ice - I nstitut ional Division, “J ohn/J ane D oe(s) ,” B rad L ivingston, Nathaniel A. Quar terman, a nd L arr y L eF lore seeking injunctive relief

, a declara tory judgme nt, and any other relief to which he might be e ntitled. T h e tr ia l c o u r t d is mi s s e d

w it h p r e ju dic e h is c la im s a s f

r iv o lo u s a n d

f o r w a n t o f ju r is d ic ti o n
. We

a ff ir m. Mart ine z c on te nd s on a pp e a l that the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in dis mis sin g his c a us e s of act io ns , that he sued not only

the TDCJ -I D but also its employ ees in their of ficial c apac ities for alleg ed2

actions committed in the course and scope of their re spective duties, that the tr ial court e rre d by not conducting a live hearing , and that he a s a pro se inmate should not be held to the same sta ndard

as an a ttorney

. Under ly ing his claims in the trial cour t is his pos ition that the date on which one of his sentence s was to commenc e had be en illeg ally chang ed fr om J uly

22, 2003, t o Fe b ru ary

29, 2004. As the State conte nds, the rec ord does not support these c ontentions. None of Ma rtinez’s petit i o n s al l ege d sufficie nt fac ts to establish the waiver of sovere ign immunity

or to establish a fea sible cause of ac tion ag ainst any of the de fenda n t s
. No ne of the petitions establish that jurisdiction lies with t he trial c ourt. Moreove r, the doc uments M ar t i n ez at t ache d to his original petition establishes that he is serving a mi nium of t hree sentenc es: one for ten y ear s beg inning on J uly 22, 2003; another f

or t we n t y y ea rs al so beg inning on July 22, 2003; and, finally , a third for t h i r t y - f i v e y e a r s b e g i n n i n g o n F e b r u a r y 2 9 , 2 0 0 4

. W e n o te tha t T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE ANN . §§ 14.001-.014 (Ve rnon 2002) do not require any ty pe of hearing and that Mar tinez did not

co mp ly w it

h th e r e q u ir e me n ts o f Ch a p te r 1 4

. T e xa s la

w p r o v id e s th a t th e r e is n o b a s is f or dif fe re nti a tin g be tw een l it igant s re pres ent ed b y cou ns el a nd th os e no t r epre sen ted by cou ns el i n ci vil

case s. Mansfield State Bank v . Cohn , 5 73 S.W. 2d 18 1, 18 4- 85 (T e x. 19 78 ); Ibrahim v. Young , 253 S.W .3d 790, 803 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, pet. de n’d). All of Martinez’s conte ntions on appeal ha ve bee n considere d. Eac h is overrule d. The orde r of the tr ial court is af firmed.

PER C URI AM

J uly 30, 2009 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , a n d

S t r a n g e , J.
**Exhibit 32**

 

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 Artificial Life, Inc. (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"), I, Eberhard Schoneburg, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Eberhard Schoneburg

Eberhard Schoneburg

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer

 

August 12, 2009

 

36

 

----
**EXHIBIT 10(iii)(A) 14**

To:         Rich Rawson

From:    Henry Schacht

Date:     February 14, 2001

Re:        Officer Severance Policy

This is a challenging time for our company. While I am confident in our ability to successfully work through the issues we are facing, I am also aware that our current business climate creates an uncertainty and raises concerns that could distract you from the turnaround work at hand. To address such concerns, I’m pleased to inform you that the Board of Directors has approved your eligibility for enhanced severance coverage in the event;

         1         your  employment is terminated by Lucent for reasons other than ‘cause’;  or

         2.       you choose to terminate your employment with Lucent within six months of the hire date of the next CEO; or

         3.       you choose to terminate your employment with Lucent because your reporting relationship to me has changed; or

         4.       you choose to terminate your employment with Lucent on or after April 22, 2002 for any reason.

If you choose to invoke the severance policy as described  in items 2, 3, or 4, you must give at least three months notice. Upon such notice,  the Company will reserve the right to request an additional three months of  employment from you.

The severance coverage, that you would receive in the event your employment ends under any of the conditions noted above, is described in Attachment I. This benefit provides for continuation of salary and target bonus for 24 months. During this 24-month paid leave of absence, your stock options and restricted stock units will continue to vest. In addition, your coverage under many of Lucent’s benefit plans, including the medical, dental, stock purchase and savings plans, will continue as normal.

The 24-month paid leave of absence can be used to accrue age and service towards achieving service pension eligibility. Given you current age and years of service, you would be service pension eligible at the end of a 24-month paid leave of absence. And, at the conclusion of a 24-month paid leave of absence, the retirement and termination provisions set forth in each grant’s (stock option and restricted stock units) respective agreement will apply. The vesting and retirement provisions for all your outstanding grants are described in Attachment II.

Also, if you choose to invoke the severance policy  as described in items 2, 3, or 4, then the stock options and restricted stock  units granted on December 26, 2000 will accelerate, with full vesting occurring  on the first day your severance coverage begins. Further communication on these  grants and the agreements will be sent to you later this week.

The special severance provisions described in items  2, 3, and 4 do not apply to all officers, so I ask that you keep the terms of  this arrangement confidential.

Challenging times can be the most satisfying and rewarding times of our professional lives. With your help we can take our company to new levels of success.

 

Attachments

** **
<Page>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                   LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
     COMPUTATION OF DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO COVER COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                    AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS
                 AND RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                    AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                           FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                      ------------------------------------------
                                                        2001      2000     1999     1998    1997
                                                        ----      ----     ----     ----    ----
<S>                                                   <C>        <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations before
  income taxes and losses from equity investments...  $(19,844)  $2,388   $3,828   $1,466   $573
Less: interest capitalized during the period........        16       20       20       17     14
Add: Fixed charges..................................       869      667      612      441    393
                                                      --------   ------   ------   ------   ----
        Total earnings (loss) to cover fixed
          charges...................................  $(18,991)  $3,035   $4,420   $1,890   $952

Fixed charges:
Total interest expense including capitalized
  interest..........................................  $    659   $  434   $  428   $  298   $281
Interest portion of rental expenses.................       210      233      184      143    112
                                                      --------   ------   ------   ------   ----
        Total fixed charges.........................  $    869   $  667   $  612   $  441   $393
        Preferred stock dividends and accretion.....        28       --       --       --     --
        Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges
         and preferred stock dividend requirements..        --      4.6      7.2      4.3    2.4
Deficiency of earnings to cover combined fixed
  charges and preferred stock dividend requirements.  $ 19,888       --       --       --     --
                                                      --------
                                                      --------
</Table>

                                      114
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6695

In Re: CARL E. LOCKHART,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-01-152-5)

Submitted: July 12, 2002 Decided: July 22, 2002

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carl E. Lockhart, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Carl E. Lockhart petitions this court for a writ of mandamus

directing the district court to rule on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994)

petition, asserting the district court has unreasonably delayed

action on his petition. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used

only in extraordinary circumstances, and Lockhart’s petition does

not establish extraordinary circumstances warranting mandamus

relief. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402

(1976). Moreover, our review of the district court docket sheet

discloses that there has been significant action in this case in

the past six months and therefore, there has been no undue delay in

the consideration of Lockhart’s petition. Accordingly, we deny

Lockhart’s petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED