alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Division of Air Quality 

Perdue B. Keith Overcash, 

Governor 

A. Stanley Meiburg 

Acting Regional Administrator 

USEPA Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center 

61 Forsyth Street, SW 

Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 

Dear Mr. Meiburg: 

Director 

April 5, 2010 

Dee Freeman 

Secretary 

I am pleased to submit the Supplement to the North Carolina 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

(referred to as the Metrolina area) State Implementation Plan for the North Carolina portion of the 

Metrolina 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. Enclosed is one hard copy of the supplemental information 

and an exact duplicate electronic copy on compact disk. The enclosure documents that the Metrolina area 

will attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by June 15, 2011, fulfilling requirements of Section 172(c), 

182( a) and 182(b) of the Federal Clean Air Act as amended. 

The opportunity to request a public hearing, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), 40 CFR 51.102, and the public comment period were noticed in the local newspaper on Friday, 

February 12,2010. The public comment period was open from Friday, February 12,2010, through 

Monday, March 22, 2010. There were no requests for a public hearing; therefore the hearing scheduled 

for March 22, 2010 was cancelled. The cancellation was communicated to the public on March 16, 201 0, 

through the North Carolina Division of Air Quality's website. The comments received during the public 

comment period and the public notice report are included in Appendix F. 

I respectfully request that you commence the federal approval process for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock 

Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 8-hour ozone nonattainment area attainment demonstration. If you 

should have any questions, please contact Laura Boothe of my staff at (919) 733-1488. 

Sincerely, 

¥cash,PE 

BKO:lab 

Enclosure 

cc: Carol Kemker, USEPA 

Dick Schutt, USEP A 

Sheila Holman, NCDAQ 

Laura Boothe, NCDAQ 

1641 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-164 i 

2728 Capital Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604 

Phone: 91 9-733<3340 \FAX: 919-715-7175\ Internet: www.daq.state.nc.us/ 

An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer 

Michael Abraczinskas, NCDAQ
#### § 125.170 Equivalents.

A substitution for fittings, materials, equipment, arrangements, calculations, information, or tests required by this subchapter may be accepted by the cognizant OCMI; by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center; by the District Commander; or by the Commandant, if the substitution provides an equivalent level of safety.
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.135-19 Operating instructions and information for the ship's training manual. ( a ) Each lifeboat must have instructions and information for the ship's training manual that use the symbols from IMO Res. A.760(18) (incorporated by reference, see § 160.135-5 of this subpart) to describe the location and operation of the lifeboat.
( b ) The instructions and information required by paragraph (a) of this section may be combined with similar material for survival craft and rescue boats, and their launching systems.
( c ) The lifeboat manufacturer must make the instructions and information required by paragraph (a) of this section available— ( 1 ) In English to purchasers of a lifeboat approved by the Coast Guard; and
( 2 ) In the form of an instruction placard providing simple procedures and illustrations for operation of the lifeboat. The placard must be not greater than 36 cm (14 in) by 51 cm (20 in), and must be made of durable material and suitable for display near installations of lifeboats on vessels.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein Registration Statement No. 333-135402 on Form S-8 of our reportsdated February 26, 2008, relating to the financial statements of First FederalBancshares of Arkansas, Inc. and the effectiveness of First FederalBancshares of Arkansas Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting,appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Federal Bancsharesof Arkansas Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

 

 
| /s/ Deloitte &  Touche LLP |
|-------------------------------------|
|                                |
| Little Rock, Arkansas               |
| February 26, 2008              |

 

 

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          27,862
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,559
<PP&E>                                         156,083
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 183,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,801
<BONDS>                                          3,825
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           132
<OTHER-SE>                                     145,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   183,997
<SALES>                                         21,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,175
<CGS>                                           12,834
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,253
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,950)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,872
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,992
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,880
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,880
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .90
        

</TABLE>
#### EDWIN L. BRAXTON, PLAINTIFF, v. WEST JERSEY AND SEASHORE RAILROAD COMPANY, DEFENDANT.

Argued May 3d, 1928

Decided January 16, 1929.

Before Gummebe, Chief Justice, and Justices Pabkek and Katzenbaoh.

*96Eor the rule, *Bourgeois & Coulomb.*

*Contra, Albert S. Woodruf.*

Per Curiam.

This ease is before this court upon a defendant’s rule to show cause. The only point argued is whether or not the verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff is excessive. The plaintiff was an extra conductor on the line of the West Jersey .and Seashore Railroad Company. He was injured while riding a freight car that was being drilled. The freight car was passing over a switching point. The switch became turned so that the front trucks of the car continued on the main track while the rear trucks were diverted to the switch. The result was a derailment of the car. The plaintiff’s left hand became jammed in the brake. A fracture of the forearm near the wrist resulted. There were some other minor injuries. The plaintiff was engaged at the time in interstate commerce. The action was instituted under the Federal Employers’ Liability act.

The plaintiff placed himself under the care of the defendant’s physicians. The break was a bad one. The ulna, one of the two bones in the wrist, was never perfectly joined. The efficiency of the arm has been lessened. The plaintiff cannot do the work which he did. The arm has from fifty to seventy-five per cent, of its normal use. It is useful only in dressing, eating, and in light work. It is conceded to be a permanent disability.

The verdict was $25,000. This is a large verdict even though the injury is a serious one. Within the past few years there have been verdicts for the loss or impairment of an arm of $7,500 or less. The plaintiff in the present case, however, had perhaps greater possibilities' as. to the future than in the oases referred to. The highest wages the plaintiff had received at the time of the accident would yield approximately $2,700 per a.nmvm. It is difficult to say in such a case what amount of compensation is just. If an error is made it perhaps should be made in favor of the plaintiff. We think it can be safely said, however, that this verdict is $7,000 higher than is justi*97fied by precedents. A verdict of $18,000 would, it seems to us, be reasonable and fair. If the plaintiff will, within ten days from the filing of this opinion, enter his written consent to the reduction of the verdict to $18,000 the rule will be discharged. If the said reduction is not consented to within said period, the rule will be made absolute.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Peter E. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of Saba Software, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify, as of the date hereof, solely for purposes ofSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with theSecurities and Exchange Commission. 

 

Date: January 13, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         707,526                  65,773
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,300,650               2,168,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,426                   8,700
<INVENTORY>                                     40,579                  31,836
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,130,671               2,343,285
<PP&E>                                         430,652                 386,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                 246,786                 148,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,523,079               2,921,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,063,265               2,090,506
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        14,807                  11,701
<OTHER-SE>                                     445,007                 788,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,523,079               2,921,638
<SALES>                                      5,269,850               6,097,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,269,850               6,097,443
<CGS>                                          146,360                 695,046
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,771,944               5,269,186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             193,718                 125,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,695,812)                 702,917
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,695,812)                 702,917
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,695,812)                 702,917
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.20)                    0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)                    0.04


</TABLE>
# C_2011290EN.01002002.xml

| 1.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/20

---

Action brought on 28 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-74/11)

2011/C 290/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodriguez, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

The subject matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of the Commission terminating the contract of employment of indefinite duration of the applicant.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of the Commission, terminating her contract of employment of indefinite duration and, so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of the Commission, terminating her contract of employment of indefinite duration and, so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
# C_2014212EN.01002302.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Catinis v Commission

(Case T-447/11) (1)

1

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an OLAF investigation concerning the implementation of a project for the modernisation of infrastructure in Syria - Access refused - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits))

2014/C 212/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lian Catinis (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and F. Clotuche Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 10 June 2011 refusing, first, to grant the purported request to close OLAF’s investigation concerning a project for the modernisation of infrastructure in Syria and, second, to grant access to certain documents in the file relating to that investigation.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action.

| 2) | Orders Mr Lian Catinis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Mr Lian Catinis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 298, 8.10. 011.

1

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 164

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 164.110-1 Scope.

This subpart prescribes requirements for approval of continuous ceilings (B-0 and B-15) for SOLAS vessels as required by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).
STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

BRYAN JOHNSON

NO. 2023 KW 0959

NOVEMBER 6, 2023

In Re: Bryan Johnson, applying for supervisory writs, 23rd

Judicial District Court, Parish of Assumption, No. 21- 

309. 

BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

MRT

ARP

HG

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

3. i OL 110

EPUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
#### § 90.15 Exceptions to the rules against age discrimination. Reasonable factors other than age.

A recipient is permitted to take an action otherwise prohibited by § 90.12 which is based on a factor other than age, even though that action may have a disproportionate effect on persons of different ages. An action may be based on a factor other than age only if the factor bears a direct and substantial relationship to the normal operation of the program or activity or to the achievement of a statutory objective.
# C_2012366EN.01003203.xml

| 24.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 October 2012 — Wessang v OHIM — Greinwald (star foods)

(Case T-333/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark star foods - Earlier Community word and figurative marks STAR SNACKS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2012/C 366/63

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nicolas Wessang (Zimmerbach, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Greinwald GmbH (Kempten, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Nicolas Wessang and Greinwald GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) in relation to goods falling within Classes 29, 30 and, with the exception of ‘beers’, within Class 32 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 April 2011 (Case R 1837/2010-4) in relation to goods falling within Classes 29, 30 and, with the exception of ‘beers’, within Class 32 within the meaning of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and three-quarters of the costs of Mr Nicolas Wessang; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and three-quarters of the costs of Mr Nicolas Wessang;

| 4. | Orders Mr Wessang to bear one-quarter of his own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Wessang to bear one-quarter of his own costs;

| 5. | Orders Greinwald GmbH to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Greinwald GmbH to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

1

---
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, William Slater, Chief Financial Officer of Saba Software, Inc. (the “Company”) herebycertify, as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge: 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended February 28, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,“filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Date: April 8, 2009
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 08-1818

EFRAÍN GONZÁLEZ-FUENTES, et al.,

Petitioners, Appellees,

v.

HON. CARLOS MOLINA, Secretary of Corrections and

Rehabilitation of Puerto Rico and Administrator of

Corrections of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

Respondent, Appellant.

No. 08-1819

CARMEN RIVERA-FELICIANO, et al.

Plaintiffs, Appellees

v.

HON. LUIS FORTUNO BURSET, Governor of Puerto Rico;

HON. ROBERTO SANCHEZ-RAMOS, Secretary of Justice of the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; HON. CARLOS MOLINA, Secretary

of Corrections and Rehabilitation of Puerto Rico and

Administrator of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;

HON. JOSE R. LOZADA, Director of the Bureau of Special

Investigations of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

Defendants, Appellants

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on June 10, 2010 is amended

as follows:

On page 21, note 10, line 1, replace "Nearly all" with

"Many"

On page 21, note 10, line 2, replace "One, however,

committed his crime" with "Some, however, committed their crimes"
#### § 131.896 Remote stopping-systems.

The remote stopping-systems required by § 129.540 of this subchapter must be clearly marked to show what system each controls.