alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

April 4, 1963

No. 67574.

#### Raymor Mfg. Div., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 61/21350, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the *258merchandise consists of wall-hung furniture similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Fabry Associates, Inc.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 88, C.D. 2203), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
You are here: EPA Home Pesticides Science & Policy Advisory Committee Pesticide Program 

Dialogue Committee Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee November 29-30, 2012 Meeting 

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee November 

29-30, 2012 Meeting 

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF 

page to learn more. 

Agenda (PDF) (3 pp, 36k) 

Transcript (PDF) (338 pp, 598k) 

Background Materials 

Session I - Updates 

FY 2011/2012/2013 OPP Budget Update (PDF) (5 pp, 53k) 

Session II - Pollinator Protection 

Background Materials (PDF) (11 pp, 128k) 

Workgroup on Pollinator Protection (PDF) (6 pp, 63k) 

Session III - Integrated Pest Management 

Quantitative Benefits Subgroup (PDF) (9 pp, 779k) 

Measuring the Success of EPA’s School IPM Initiative (PDF) (16 pp, 321k) 

Evaluating the Success of US EPA’s School IPM Initiative (PDF) (12 pp, 213k) 

Session IV - PPDC Work Group on Comparative Safety Statements 

Insect Repellency Mark (PDF) (15 pp, 194k) 

Session V - OPP Databases - Pubic Availability

Information Technology Activities (PDF) (26 pp, 639k) 

Session VI - Opportunity for Discussion Regarding Updates

Soil Fumigant Mitigation Factsheet:Implementation Schedule (PDF) (2 pp, 126k) 

Pesticide Worker Safety Regulation Improvements Agricultural Worker 

Protection Regulation (PDF) (1 pg, 18k) 

NPDES Pesticide General Permit (PDF) (1 pg, 17k) 

International Pesticide Registration Activities (PDF) (7 pp, 61k) 

Status of the Label Review Manual (PDF) (1 pg, 47k) 

The Role of Pesticide Usage Data in the Office of Pesticide Programs (PDF) (3 

pp, 29k) 

Update on the Spray Drift PR Notice and Spray Drift Petitions (PDF) (1 pg, 19k) 

Water Monitoring Data (PDF) (1 pg, 32k) 

Web-Distributed Labeling for Pesticide Products (PDF) (1 pg, 27k) 

Policy Paper Revised risk assessment methods for agriculture workers (PDF) (1 

pg, 78k) 

Soil Fumigant Implementation Update (PDF) (1 pg, 61k) 

Session VII - 21st Century Toxicology Activities

NAFTA (Q)uantitative Structure Activity Relationship Guidance Document (PDF)

(14 pp, 107k) 

OPP 21st Century Activities (PDF) (6 pp, 156k) 

PPDC 21st Century Toxicology/ New Integrated Testing Strategies Workgroup 

(PDF) (9 pp, 235k) 

Session VIII - Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Update (PDF) (20 pp, 716k) 

Session IX - Endangered Species Act Update

Endangered Species Act Update (PDF) (9 pp, 73k) 

Session X - Registration Review Update

Registration Review Update (PDF) (21 pp, 400k)

Pesticides: Science and Policy 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2012/november/nov-mtg.html

Last updated on Wednesday, April 24, 2013

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee November 29-30, 2012 Meeting | Pesticides:Scie... Page 1 of 1

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/2012/november/nov-mtg.html 10/18/2013
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyand mineral resources of the Controller Bay region, Alaska**
 
Report | Plates: 020508
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:335
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000957935
 
July 27, 2018
From: scottst98@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:32:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Scott Stevens

Munster, IN 46321
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0397 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NE-15-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

TAY bleed valve 

inspection assumed 

2% failure rate of 

spherical bearings 

10.0 $ 850.00 $153 $1,003.00 78 $78,234.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $78,234

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): ASE Estimate

based on feedback from OEM

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
No. 63375.

protest 59/11229 (New York).

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C.D. 1519), the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U.S.C. §2636 (d)).
From: bobalyn@hvc.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:39:41 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Robert Borden

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Case No. 13,553.

#### STUART et al. v. BOYER.

[41 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 74.]

District Court, S. D. New York.

Jan. 25, 1859.

Shipping — Loss *of*Cahoo — Proof op Receipt.

This was a libel filed [by Robert L. Stuart and others against Herman Boyer] to recover the value of IS boxes of sugar belonging to the libellant, and alleged to have been put on board lighters belonging to the respondent, to be carried to Brooklyn from the ship Greenland , then lying at quarantine, but alleged not to have been delivered. The bills for landing the sugar called for 3,225 boxes. There were two lighters engaged in the transportation, and receipts for 3,225 boxes were produced on the part of the li-bellant, all of which were admitted by the respondent to be correct, except two, one for 510 boxes, and one for 408 boxes, which he claimed to have been altered after their signature by the master of the lighter; the first by the addition of the words “and ten,” and the second, by the addition of the words “and eight.” The mate of the Greenland was examined by deposition, and testified that those words were written before signature. The master of the lighter, who was examined in court, testified that they were not there when he signed them. The general character of both these witnesses for truth was not impeached. The master of the other lighter, who signed a receipt immediately under the receipt for the 510, testified that when he signed he examined the other receipt, and it was then but 500. As to the other receipt, it was in evidence that the lighterman was directed to bring only 400. The mate of the Greenland testified that after the 400 were put on board, and the receipt for that number drawn up, eight more, which had been used on deck as a staging, were put on the lighter, and the receipt altered in this respect before signature. It was testified by several lightermen that the eight boxes were not so loaded as testified by the mate, but that they were put on the lighter to make up the 400, and before the boxes were counted by the mate and the lightermen. It was also testified by several witnesses, contradicting both the mates of the Greenland, that two boxes of sugar were lost overboard from the ship while being loaded on the lighter.

HELD BY THE COURT

(BETTS, District Judge)

that on the evidence the libellant has not shown that the respondent received on board of his lighters the 18 boxes claimed in the libel, and he is not, therefore, liable for their value.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

 <ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         326,110
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       6,157,744
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          32,407
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            32,407
<LOANS>                                     90,770,595
<ALLOWANCE>                                    183,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             101,986,040
<DEPOSITS>                                  72,406,801
<SHORT-TERM>                                 8,428,373
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                  0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,530
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,504,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             101,986,040
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,854,433
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  567
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               133,909
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,988,909
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             956,764
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,101,924
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          886,985
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                488,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                402,627
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     225,577
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   225,577
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.17
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   640,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               180,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              183,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            92,800
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         91,000
                                        

</TABLE>
Access Solutions International, Inc.

                                650 Ten Rod Road
                            North Kingstown, RI 02852





January 31, 1997





PaperClip Software, Inc.
Three University Plaza
Hackensack, NJ   07601

Attention:  William Weiss, Chief Executive Officer

     Re: Letter of Intent dated January 2, 1997 ("Letter of Intent")

Dear Bill:

This letter confirms our mutual  agreement that each time the "January 31, 1997"
date appears in Paragraph 9 of the Letter of Intent, such date shall be replaced
with "February 28, 1997."

Please  acknowledge  your  agreement  by executing  this letter where  indicated
below.


Very truly yours,

ACCESS SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.


By:/s/Robert H. Stone
   ________________________________________
      Robert H. Stone, President and CEO



AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

PAPERCLIP SOFTWARE, INC.


By:/s/William Weiss
   ________________________________________
      William Weiss, CEO
April 15, 1964

No. 68467.

protests 63/15380, etc.;

protests 63/14951, etc.;

protests 63/14864, etc.

#### Auburn Importing Corp. *v.*United States, Aragon Woven Label Co., Inc. *v.*United States, and Curtis Coleman Co. *v.*United States,

Protests dismissed March 4, 1964.

(Not published.) Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Ronald Kunisaki , certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hydrodynex, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report;



4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 31a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the small business issuer and we have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.



Date: April 20, 2009



/s/ Ronald Kunisaki



Ronald Kunisaki

President and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 15, 2010

0908 

# Order

September 15, 2010

140937

BEVERLY DUFFY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 140937 COA: 289644 Ct of Claims: 08-000094-MD DEPARTMENT OF NA TURAL RESOURCES and STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed whet her the Little Manistee Trail is a “highway” within the meaning of MCL 691.1401(e), and, if it is, whether MCL 691.1402(1) exempts the state and the Department of Natural Resources from liability for maintaining a trailway that is not adjacen t to any vehicu lar highway.

Persons or groups interested in the determ ination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permissi on to file briefs amicus curiae.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0603 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TRENT MATTHEW LARSON,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 31 , 20 2 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 26 2021

04/26/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0603
Before the First Division,

December 5, 1963

No. 68152.

#### Thor Utilities Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 60/13278, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chord organs and parts thereof similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Excelsior Accordions, Inc.*v. *United States*(48 Cust. Ct. 148, C.D. 2328), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.