alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 81.63 Authority of presiding officer. The presiding officer shall have the duty to conduct a fair hearing, to take all necessary action to avoid delay, and to maintain order. He shall have all powers necessary to these ends, including (but not limited to) the power to: ( a ) Arrange and issue notice of the date, time, and place of hearings, or, upon due notice to the parties, to change the date, time, and place of hearings previously set.
( b ) Hold conferences to settle, simplify, or fix the issues in a proceeding, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding.
( c ) Require parties and amici curiae to state their position with respect to the various issues in the proceeding.
( d ) Administer oaths and affirmations.
( e ) Rule on motions, and other procedural items on matters pending before him.
( f ) Regulate the course of the hearing and conduct of counsel therein.
( g ) Examine witnesses and direct witnesses to testify.
( h ) Receive, rule on, exclude or limit evidence.
( i ) Fix the time for filing motions, petitions, briefs, or other items in matters pending before him.
( j ) Issue initial or recommended decisions.
( k ) Take any action authorized by the rules in this part or in conformance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 551-559 (the Administrative Procedure Act).
§ 112.25-10 Transfer of emergency loads. ( a ) When the potential of the final emergency source reaches 85 to 95 percent of normal value, the emergency loads under § 112.15-5 must transfer automatically to the final emergency power source and this transfer must be accomplished in no more than 45 seconds after failure of the normal source of power.
( b ) When the potential from the normal source has been restored, the emergency loads must be manually or automatically transferred to the normal source, and the final emergency power source must be manually or automatically stopped.
§ 120.320 Generators and motors. ( a ) Each generator and motor must be: ( 1 ) In a location that is accessible, adequately ventilated, and as dry as practicable; and
( 2 ) Mounted above the bilges to avoid damage by splash and to avoid contact with low lying vapors.
( b ) Each generator and motor must be designed for an ambient temperature of 50 °C (122 °F) except that: ( 1 ) If the ambient temperature in the space where a generator or motor will be located will not exceed 40 °C (104 °F) under normal operating conditions, the generator or motor may be designed for an ambient temperature of 40 °C (104 °F); and
( 2 ) A generator or motor designed for 40 °C (104 °F) may be used in 50 °C (122 °F) ambient locations provided the generator or motor is derated to 80 percent of the full load rating, and the rating or setting of the overcurrent devices is reduced accordingly.
( c ) A voltmeter and an ammeter, which can be used for measuring voltage and current of a generator that is in operation, must be provided for a generator rated at 50 volts or more. For each alternating current generator, a means for measuring frequency must also be provided.
( d ) Each generator must have a nameplate attached to it containing the information required by Article 445 of the National Electrical Code (NEC) (National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70), and for a generator derated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the derated capacity.
( e ) Each motor must have a nameplate attached to it containing the information required by Article 430 of the NEC (NFPA 70), and for a motor derated in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the derated capacity.
( f ) Each generator must be protected by an overcurrent device set at a value not exceeding 115 percent of the generator full load rating.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 928, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51352, Sept. 30, 1997]
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                      COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO
                COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS
                                  (UNAUDITED)
                    (dollars in thousands, except ratio's)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           1995      1996      1997       1998      1999
                                         --------  --------  --------   --------  --------
<S>                                      <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>       <C>
Net income (loss) before taxes           $ (3,222) $ 3,168   $ (16,903) $ (4,524) $ 14,959
Interest expense                            5,409   14,275      15,939    12,867    10,622
                                         --------  --------  ---------  --------  --------

  Earning before fixed charges           $  2,187  $ 17,443  $    (964)    8,343     25,581
                                         ========  ========  =========  ========  ========

Preferred dividends                      $      -  $  2,129  $   3,346     6,335     6,739
Ratio of pretax income to net income         1.54      0.89       1.00      1.00      1.00
                                         --------  --------  ---------  --------  --------

  Preferred dividend factor              $      -  $  1,895  $   3,346  $  6,335  $  6,739
                                         ========  ========  =========  ========  ========

Fixed charges:
Interest expense                         $  5,409  $ 14,275  $  15,939  $ 12,867  $ 10,622
Preferred dividend factor                       -     1,895      3,346     6,335     6,739
                                         --------  --------  ---------  --------  --------

  Total fixed charges and preferred
    dividends                            $  5,409  $ 16,170  $  19,285  $ 19,202  $ 17,361
                                         ========  ========  =========  ========  ========

  Ratio of earnings to combined fixed
    charges and preferred dividends          0.40      1.08      (0.05)     0.43      1.47
                                         ========  ========  =========  ========  ========
</TABLE>
CORRECTED COPY

The FAA is reissuing the letter dated July 2 nd . A correction was made to add the “What You

Should Do” section. Below is the letter that includes the change. We made the correction in

our records as of July 6, 2015.

July 2 , 2015

Mr. Thomas R. Lundin

100 Valley Lane

Greenville, NC 27858

Dear Mr. Lundin :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your April 1 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0877 ), but

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further,

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any q uestions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

B rittany Newton

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Keith Bentley, Chief Air Protection Branch UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
HAR 2 

### 6 2014

Environmental Protection Division Georgia Department ofNatural Resources 4244 International Parkway, Suite 120 Atlanta, Georgia 30354

DearMr. Bentley:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division (APTMD) conducted an end-of-year evaluation ofthe Performance Partnership Grant's (PPG) associated fiscal year (FY) 2013 section 105 commitments in the AirPlanning Agreement (APA). This letter documents the conclusion ofthejoint evaluation process required by40 Code ofFederal Regulations 35.115.

There was one work plan activity within the FY2013 APA that your agency did not commit to completing due to resource constraints, although this was acknowledged as an activity the EPA has requested state programs to commit to undertake as part oftheAPA. The EPA is highlighting below as an outstanding concern given the nature and importance ofthe activities independent ofany commitment on yourpart to complete the activities:

Due to budget constraints, the GA EPD has discontinued program activities associated with implementation ofthe Asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous AirPollutants (NESHAP) program. The components that are discontinued are the Asbestos NESHAP inspections, complaint follow-up, and enforcement. The EPA assumed responsibilities for implementation ofthose program duties to fulfill ourresponsibilities under the Clean Air Act (CAA). At this time, the EPA has not made any determination regarding the impact of discontinuing implementation ofthe specified program activities on the Asbestos NESHAP program delegation orthe CAA Section 105 grant. Region 4 appreciates the progress made in FY 2013 and we look forward to continuing ourjoint efforts to protect and improve air quality with you and your staffon these issues. Ifyou have anyquestions regarding your grant, please contact Stuart Perry at (404) 562-8980 orMaryEchols at (404) 562-9053. Sincerely,

# ~IJ.fl~ fpz

# GreggM.W~ Chief AirToxics and Monitoring Branch Air, Pesticides, and Toxics

Management Division Internet Address (URL)'i' http:/fwww.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen’s Compensation Bureau.

#### BENJAMIN F. PARKER, PETITIONER, v. H. & W COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

Eor the petitioner, *Elizabeth Blume.*

Eor the respondent, *John A. Jjaird,*of Seine, *Bradner & Laird.*

1. On or about February 18th, 1927, the petitioner was in the employ of the respondent company.

2. That on or about said date, petitioner alleges that he met with an accident consisting of an electrical shock from an elevator which he was operating, which shock was so severe in character as to burn his hands to the bone and to incapacitate him from work from the time of the said accident down to the present date. I find the testimony of the petitioner to be incredible beyond belief as to his conduct directly after this *219accident, he testifying, for example, that with a burn of this severe character which took place according to his testimony, sometime about noon, he nevertheless remained at work until his regular quitting time late in the afternoon, and that he had no medical attention during that period of time other than the application of some medicine which he claimed to have had with him in the elevator. Mr. O’Brien, manager of the respondent, and Dr. Mohrbaeher, both testified that they called upon the petitioner at his home some few days after he was reported ill and that no complaint was made to either of them of any accident or of any injury or burn to the petitioner’s hand, but testified to the contrary that the petitioner was found to be ill and suffering from some species of influenza, and that he was treated for this condition by Dr. Mohrbaeher, who made a number of visits to him. I am impressed with the truthfulness of these witnesses, whose testimoney in part is corroborated by the petitioner to the effect that the medicine which he received from Dr. Mohrbaeher was a prescripion for internal use.

3. I find as a fact that the petitioner did not meet with any accident while in the course of his employment of this respondent, and therefore order that the said petition be and the same hereby is dismissed.

4. I am advised that the respondent, through its insurance carrier, is willing as a matter of charity to advance and pay to the pettioner the sum of $250, and this, of course, has my approval, but is in nowise concerned with the actual dismissal of this claim petition.

Haeey J. Goas,

*Deputy Commissioner.*
## APPENDIX A

- 1

2011 Point Source Annual Inventory

Provided in Electronic Form Only

Bureau of Air Quality

Department of Environmental Protection[ This page intentionally left blank

. ]
EXHIBIT 99.2 

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

Gregory J. Wilson, as Treasurer and Controller (PrincipalFinancial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) of NetLojix Communications,Inc. (the "Company"), certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the yearended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report") fully complies with the requirementsof 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 ofthe Company. 

/s/  GREGORY J. WILSON--------------------------------- Gregory J. Wilson Treasurer and Controller (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

March 26, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TYRONE IGNATIUS GREENFIELD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-93-123)

Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 3, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Ignatius Greenfield, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth E. Melson,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Tyrone Ignatius Greenfield seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion

for reconsideration of his conviction, which was construed as an

untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v.

Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Greenfield has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AMY JO BABCHOOK,

Plaintiff, Case no. 14-12882

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On May 7, 2015 Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a report and

recommendation. No objections have been filed by the parties. The court having

conducted a thorough review of the entire file;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the report and recommendation is

ADOPTED as the court’s findings and conclusions. 

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: June 12, 2015

5:14-cv-12882-JCO-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 06/12/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 419
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon

counsel of record on this date, June 12, 2015 using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager

2

5:14-cv-12882-JCO-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 06/12/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 420
#### § 630.655 Individual.

*Individual* means a natural person.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1600]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on National Guard and 
Reserves in the GWOT will meet in closed session on April 17-18, 2007; 
at the Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the 
consequences for force structure, morale, and mission capability of 
deployments of members of the National Guard and the Reserves in the 
course of the global war on terrorism that are lengthy, frequent, or 
both.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the 
meetings will be closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LCDR Clifton Phillips, USN, Defense 
Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301-
3140, via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#482b24212e3c272666382021242421383b08273b2c66252124"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc9f90959a889392d28c94959090958c8fbc938f98d2919590">[email protected]</span></a> or via phone at (703) 571-
0083.

    Dated: March 27, 2007.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-1600 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Perparim Mefaj, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 14-13486

IndyMac FSB, et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING 

4/23/15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiffs filed this action asserting claims against multiple Defendants. On September

19, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. That motion was referred to Magistrate Judge

Mona Majzoub for a Report and Recommendation.

On April 23, 2015, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation

(Docket Entry No. 9) wherein she recommends that: 1) the Motion to Dismiss be granted with

regard to Defendants’ request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice; and 2)

the motion be denied as to Defendants’ request for costs and attorney fees.

Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a

matter by a Magistrate Judge must filed objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after

being served with a copy of the R&R. “The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall

make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the

magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made.” Id. 

1

2:14-cv-13486-SFC-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 05/14/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 181
The time for filing objections to the R&R has expired and the docket reflects that neither

party has filed objections to the R&R. The Court hereby ADOPTS the April 23, 2015 R&R. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED to the

extent that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITH 3273

PREJUDICE. The motion is denied in all other respects.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: May 14, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

May 14, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

2

2:14-cv-13486-SFC-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 05/14/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 182
# C_2008057EN.01001301.xml

| 1.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/13

---

Communication from the Commission on the estimated availability of financial resources for granting of restructuring aid for the 2008/2009 marketing year, in the framework of the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary restructuring scheme for the sugar industry in the Community

(2008/C 57/09)

In accordance with Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (1), the Commission informs the Member States that the estimated financial resources available in the temporary restructuring fund are sufficient to grant restructuring aid for all the applications submitted by 31 January 2008 in respect of the 2008/2009 marketing year and found eligible by them.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2006, p. 32. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1261/2007 (OJ L 283, 27.10.2007, p. 8).

1

---