alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

Robert Rogers, P.E., Manager 

Pollution Control 

Shelby County Health Department 

814 Jefferson Avenue 

Memphis, Tennessee 38105-5041 

Dear Mr. Rogers: 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303-8960 

December 15, 2015 

The Region 4 Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received the Shelby County Health 

Department's November 5, 2015, prehearing proposal regarding the redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Specifically, the 

prehearing proposes that the Tennessee portion of the 2012 Memphis multi-state nonattainment area is 

attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS and submits a plan to maintain the NAAQS through 2027. We have 

completed our review of the submittal and offer comments in the enclosure. 

We look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff. If you have any questions, please 

contact Ms. Lynorae Benj amin, Chief, Air Regulatory Management Section at (404) 562-9040, or have 

your staff contact Mr. Brad Akers at (404) 562-9089. 

Enclosure 

cc: Chris Boyd, Pollution Control 

Sincerely, 

R. Scott Davis 

Chief 

Air Planning and Implementation Branch 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer) 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Comments on Shelby County's Submission for the 

2008 8-Hour Ozone Redesignation Demonstration and Maintenance Plan 

Covering the Tennessee Portion of the 2012 Multi-State Area 

I. Key Comment: 

• In Section E of the maintenance plan, Shelby County notes that "all existing stationary source 

controls will remain in force." Pursuant to Section 175A(d) of the Clean Air Act, please include 

this requirement in the contingency provisions portion ofthe maintenance plan and expand it to 

require Shelby County to implement all measures with respect to the control ofthe air pollutant 

concerned (i.e., ozone) which were contained in the state implementation plan for the 

nonattainment area before redesignation to attainment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         449,254
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,108,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                    43,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,510,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,555,228
<PP&E>                                      12,319,620
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,645,413
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,167,804
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,800,270
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,955
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,001,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,167,804
<SALES>                                      4,499,323
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,499,323
<CGS>                                        3,542,523
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,542,523
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               660,720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,775
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                164,424
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            164,424
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   164,424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.03
        

</TABLE>
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 988

To designate the United States courthouse located at 40 Centre Street in

New York, New York, as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 13, 2001

Mr. ENGEL (for himself, Mr. NADLER, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Mr.

TOWNS, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. OWENS, Mrs. KELLY, Mr.

SERRANO, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. HOUGHTON, and Mr.

CUMMINGS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located at 40

Centre Street in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Thurgood

Marshall United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse located at 40 Centre

5 Street in New York, New York, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States Court7 house’’.
2

•HR 988 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

4 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States

6 Courthouse’’.

Æ
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 238

AN ACT

To provide for the protection of wild horses within the Ozark

National Scenic Riverways and prohibit the removal of

such horses.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FREE-ROAMING HORSES.

4 Section 7 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for

5 the establishment of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways
2

•HR 238 EH

1 in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes’’, ap2 proved August 27, 1964 (16 U.S.C. 460m–6), is amended

3 to read as follows:

4 ‘‘SEC. 7. (a) The Secretary, in accordance with this

5 section, shall allow free-roaming horses in the Ozark Na6 tional Scenic Riverways. Within 180 days after enactment

7 of this section, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement

8 with the Missouri Wild Horse League or another qualified

9 nonprofit entity to provide for management of free-roam10 ing horses. The agreement shall provide for cost-effective

11 management of the horses and limit Federal expenditures

12 to the costs of monitoring the agreement. The Secretary

13 shall issue permits for adequate pastures to accommodate

14 the historic population level of the free-roaming horse

15 herd, which shall be not less than the number of horses

16 in existence on the date of the enactment of this section

17 nor more than 50.

18 ‘‘(b) The Secretary may not remove, or assist in or

19 permit the removal of, any free-roaming horses from Fed20 eral lands within the boundary of the Ozark National Sce21 nic Riverways unless the entity with whom the Secretary

22 entered into the agreement under subsection (a), following

23 notice and a 180-day response period, substantially fails

24 to meet the terms and conditions of the agreement or in

25 the case of an emergency as defined in the agreement.
3

•HR 238 EH

1 ‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as cre2 ating additional liability for the United States for any

3 damages caused by the free-roaming horses to property

4 located inside or outside the boundaries of the Ozark Na5 tional Scenic Riverways.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 7,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 238

AN ACT

To provide for the protection of wild horses within

hibit the removal of such horses.the Ozark National Scenic Riverways and pro-
#### Amasa P. Hart, *Respondent, v.*Matthias Britton, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Haight, J. •
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 988

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located at 40

Centre Street in New York, New York, as the ‘‘Thurgood

Marshall United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 988 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The United States courthouse located at 40 Centre

3 Street in New York, New York, shall be known and des4 ignated as the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States Court5 house’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the United

9 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed

10 to be a reference to the ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States

11 Courthouse’’.

Passed the House of Representatives August 2,

2001.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 988

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located

at 40 Centre Street in New York, New York, asthe ‘‘Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse’’.
§ 212.3 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Administrator* means the Federal Railroad Administrator or the Deputy Administrator or the delegate of either of them.
( b ) *Associate Administrator* means the Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), or the Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety, FRA.
( c ) *FRA* means the Federal Railroad Administration.
( d ) *Federal railroad safety laws* means the following enactments, together with regulations and orders issued under their authority: ( 1 ) The Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, as amended (45 U.S.C. 421, 431-441);
( 2 ) The Safety Appliance Acts, as amended (45 U.S.C. 1-16);
( 3 ) The Locomotive Inspection Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 22-34);
( 4 ) The Signal Inspection Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 26);
( 5 ) The Accident Reports Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 38-42);
( 6 ) The Hours of Service Act, as amended (45 U.S.C. 61-64(b); and
( 7 ) The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 app. U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.*), as it pertains to shipment or transportation by railroad.
( e ) *Manufacturer* means a person that manufactures, fabricates, marks, maintains, reconditions, repairs, or tests containers which are represented, marked, certified, or sold for use in the bulk transportation of hazardous materials by railroad.
( f ) *Shipper* means a person that offers a hazardous material for transportation or otherwise causes it to be transported.
( g ) *Planned compliance inspections* means investigative and surveillance activities described in the annual work plan required by § 212.109 of this part that provide basic surveillance of railroad facilities, equipment and/or operations for the purpose of determining the level of compliance with relevant Federal safety requirements.
[47 FR 41051, Sept. 16, 1982, as amended at 57 FR 28115, June 24, 1992]
#### § 369.5 Records.

Books, records and carrier operating documents shall be retained as prescribed in 49 CFR part 379, Preservation of Records.

[52 FR 10383, Apr. 1, 1987. Redesignated at 63 FR 52193, Sept. 30, 1998. Redesignated at 71 FR 45742, Aug. 10, 2006, and amended at 71 FR 45743, Aug. 10, 2006]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       4,897,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,057,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,574,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   114,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,897,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,599,000
<PP&E>                                       4,007,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,123,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,483,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,289,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,134,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,144,000
<SALES>                                     26,899,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,899,000
<CGS>                                       11,972,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,064,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,012,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,205,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,807,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,807,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Melvin DeJesus, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered January 7, 2014, after nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered January 7, 2014, affirmed.</p><p>The court properly denied defendant's suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the hearing court's credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see <i>People v Prochilo</i>, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]; <a href="../2013/2013_08137.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Martin</i>, 112 AD3d 453</a>, 454 [2013]). The police had probable cause to arrest defendant for harassment in the second degree (<i>see </i>Penal Law ยง 240.26), disorderly conduct (<i>see</i> Penal Law ยง 240.20), or both. Defendant's pattern of conduct, after his removal from a bus in New Jersey for violent and threatening conduct towards the driver, including following the driver into a restricted area inside the New York Port Authority Bus Terminal, moving towards the driver in an aggressive manner and yelling "I know how to find you ... don't think I don't know how to get to you;" and refusing to comply when directed to leave the restricted area, prompting the officer to "restrain" him, placed the driver in reasonable fear of physical injury (<a href="../2013/2013_06516.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Matter of Gquan D.</i>, 110 AD3d 473</a> [2013]), and intentionally or recklessly created a risk of a potential or immediate public problem (<i>see People v Weaver</i>, 16 NY3d 123, 128 [2011]; <i>see also People v Bigelow</i>, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985])</p><p>Since the police had the requisite probable cause to arrest defendant, the subsequent recovery of drugs on defendant's person during a search incident to that arrest was proper (<a href="../2013/2013_00135.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Perry</i>, 102 AD3d 472</a>, 472-473 [2013], <i>lv denied </i>20 NY3d 1102 [2013]).</p><br>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.<br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: March 26, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0842.html[7/21/2015 3:40:10 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-aifq

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0842

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: James Anonymous

General Comment

I don't want the government sticking their greedy hands into my 401k, ira or any other form of my retirement that

 I have worked very hard, 60+ hrs a week doing hard labor, to put as much money into for when I retire as I

 possibly can. They have no place in my savings or any other form of account that I have put money into since I

 was 16 years old. I am now almost 40 and have a nice nest egg for when I retire. Stay out of it! It's bad enough

 that when I do retire and draw money out of some of it that I'll have to pay taxes on it again and then file a tax

 return on the same money I have already done both to. I have not ever nor will I ever want to or need to live off

 the state or federal government!!!!!! I don't need them or want them to tell me how to spend or save my money!

 Period!! The end!!! Stop this craziness!!!! There's so many much more important things that the Feds need to be

 spending their time and the tax payers money on fixing!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 174 (Monday, September 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51627-51628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4409]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Membership of the Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Missile Defense Agency (MDA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Performance Review Board (PRB) of the

[[Page 51628]]

Missile Defense Agency. The publication of PRB membership is required 
by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).
    The Performance Review Board (PRB) provides fair and impartial 
review of Senior Executive Service performance appraisals and makes 
recommendations regarding performance ratings and performance scores to 
the Director, MDA.

Effective Date: September 1, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Gallant, MDA SES Program Manager, 
Missile Defense Agency, Arlington, Virginia, (703) 693-1744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the 
following executives are appointed to the Missile Defense Agency PRB:
    Brigadier General Patrick J. O'Reilly, USA.
    Dr. Patricia Sanders.
    Mr. Chester DeCesaris.
    Mr. Richard Ritter.
    RADM Alan Hicks, USN.
    Executives listed will serve a one-year term, effective September 
1, 2007.

    Dated: September 4, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 07-4409 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000020469
<NAME> UNITED MAGAZINE COMPANY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                       2,546,745
<SECURITIES>                                   473,556
<RECEIVABLES>                               32,820,357
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,985,000
<INVENTORY>                                 35,746,922
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            71,290,724
<PP&E>                                      14,037,570
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,585,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             251,370,527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      116,473,665
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,225,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               251,370,527
<SALES>                                     80,232,472
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            80,232,472
<CGS>                                       60,277,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,714,761
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               163,192
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,781,141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,387,795)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,387,795)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,387,795)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.98)
        

</TABLE>
#### National Surety Company, appellant, v. Thomas Love, appellee.

Filed June 26, 1918.

No. 19958.

i: Attachment: Residence. “It is the actual residence of the debtor, and not his domicile, which determines the status of the parties in attachment proceedings.” We66 *v. Wheeler,*79 Neb. 172.

*6342. Evidence examined, and *held*to show the defendant a nonresident for purposes of attachment.

Appeal from the district court for Sioux county: William H. Westover, Judge.

*Reversed.*

Crane, *Boucher & Sternberg*and *F. S.*Baker, for appellant.

*Allen C. Fisher*and *Justin E. Porter, contra.*

Cornish, J.

Appeal from a judgment quashing the writ, of attachment, issued on the statutory ground of nonresidency, the trial court finding that the defendant was at the time a resident of Sioux county'. The evidence shows that he was not at the time in Sioux county,- and that for several months he had spent most of his time in South Dakota.

When the inquiry is directed to the place of residence where summons may he served, the one who says it was at some particular place should at once designate it. This saves mental work and worry. It furnishes a starting point for the investigation. The record does not disclose clearly just where in Sioux county defendant contends his home was. It would probably be either on the land attached or at the home of Mrs. Doyle. But the sheriff found the farm house untenanted and unfurnished, with unmistakable evidence that a late occupant was bovine. If defendant lived at Mrs. Doyle’s home, then it is stránge that neither he nor she has said so. She denied it to the sheriff on his search, and to another witness.

If the contention is, as is likely, that defendant’s domicile is shown to be in Sioux county, it must be answered that this is not sufficient. Under the attachment statute, the debtor must have a place of residence in the state, either of a temporary or permanent character, at which a service of summons may be lawfully made.

The motion upon which the court acted, although in form a-special appearance objecting to jurisdiction oyer the person of defendant, asks that the writ of attach*635ment “be quashed and held for naught.” This motion and the court’s order entitle plaintiff, under section 7776, Rev. St. 1913, to appeal.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed.