alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. P66/259. —

No. P66/260. —

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 58/1787, etc. (New York). Layfayette Brass Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States, protests 58/5936, etc. (New York).

Rao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” and “B” covered by the foregoing protests consist of hose nozzles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Lipman's*(52 CCPA 59, C.A.D. 859), except that the component material of chief value of the merchandise in the items marked “B” is zinc, the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

MINUTE ORDER

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

HIEP T. NGO,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1841-RSM-MAT

(CR04-0006-RSM)

MINUTE ORDER

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Mary Alice

Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge:

The Report and Recommendation issued on April 6, 2007 (Dkt. 28) relied on a transcript

not appropriate for citation. The Court will issue an Amended Report and Recommendation

following the docketing of a formal transcript of the evidentiary hearing held in this matter. 

DATED this 12th day of April, 2006.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

 By: s/ Gary W. Burnopp 

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:05-cv-01841-RSM Document 29 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 1
727 South Wolfe Street Baltimore, Maryland 21231-3536 U.S.A. (410)342-2626 www.belfortinstrument.com fax (410)342-7028

April 11, 2013

PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING

Federal Docket Management System

Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, RM W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

ELECRONIC SUBMISSION

Petitioner:

Ralph F Petragnani

Belfort Instrument Company

727 S Wolfe Street

Baltimore, MD 21231

410 342-2626

410 342-7028 FAX

rpetragnani@belfortinstrument.com

Belfort Instrument is seeking exemption from FAA Order 7110.104, dated 9/7/90, Non-Federal AWOS 

connected to WMSCR.

Belfort is requesting that FAA certified and FAA commission AWOS AV systems be permitted to 

connect to the FAA WMSCR network.

The reason for seeking this exemption is there are approximately 125+ AWOS AV systems installed 

throughout the country providing safe, reliable METAR reports locally, but not over the FAA 

NADIN/WMSCR network. 

1. The AWOS AV meets and is certified to the same FAA Advisory Circular (AC 

150/5220-16C) as the AWOS III. The inspection cycles and FAA commissioning of the AWOS 

AV meet the same Advisory Circular requirements as the AWOS III.

2. FAA memo Dated July 11, 2008 from Frank San Martin, Manager, Airports 

Financial Assistance Division, APP-500 wherein it speaks to program eligibility for AWOS 

grants. Section e. AWOS Selection:” benefit-cost analysis is not needed for AWOS A or 

AWOS AV”. “However, to request grant funding for a more advanced AWOS, an airport must 

submit a positive benefit-cost analysis”. So this memo sees no problem with the AWOS AV 

and, in fact, tacitly endorses its use. 
727 South Wolfe Street Baltimore, Maryland 21231-3536 U.S.A. (410)342-2626 www.belfortinstrument.com fax (410)342-7028

PETITIONS FOR RULEMAKING Page 2

3. In the past, the NTSB called a hearing investigating the accident rate of the 

nation’s Emergency Medical System (EMS) programs. One of the recommendations from the 

NTSB and the Helicopter Association International (HAI) was the availability of more weather 

reporting. If permitted into the network, AV’s would add 125+ weather stations to the database. 

(With more stations being added every month).

4. State Aviation Directors continually request AWOS AV inclusion into the network 

and unfortunately because of the out dated FAA order is depriving the NAS users of additional 

weather information. 

Granting this request will greatly increase both aviation flight safety and public safety by adding more 

locations of weather reporting into the national network where, not only FAA. But the NWS will have 

real time weather access.

So, Belfort Instrument Company is requesting that an FAA commissioned, Non-Federal AWOS AV

Be permitted to connect to FAA WMSCR network and revise FAA Order 7110.104, dated 9/7/90, NonFederal AWOS connected to WMSCR to include the AWOS AV.

Please feel free to contract me if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Ralph F Petragnani

Vice President, Sales & Marketing
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 17, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 05-60836 Summary Calendar

_______________________ HOLCIM (US), INC., Petitioner,

versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board No. 2:07-168295 Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner Holcim (US), Inc. (“Holcim”) argues that the Benefits Review Board (“Board”) erroneously denied its motion for a stay of an award pending appeal. Holcim contends that, because it does not have a legal remedy to recoup benefits paid in the event the award is later overturned on appeal, see Lennon v. Waterfront Transp. , 20 F.3d 658, 661-62 (5th Cir. 1994), it will suffer irreparable injury. Holcim’s contention is foreclosed by Rivere v. Offshore Painting Contractors , 872 F.2d 1187 (5th Cir.2

1989). “Irreparable injury is demonstrated only when the compensation award may be too heavy for the employer [or insurer] to pay without practically taking all his property or rendering him incapable of carrying on his business, or . . . by reason of age, sickness, or other circumstances [of the payer], a condition is created which would amount to irreparable injury.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “[t]hat payment of compensation might pose a problem, or even cause serious difficulty is not enough to support a stay. Neither is the fact that the amount paid might be lost if the award is reversed on appeal.” Id.

Realizing that under the current caselaw, it cannot prevail, Holcim asks this court to overturn Rivere , or alternatively to over turn our precedent and allow recoupment of benefits in the event the award is later overturned on appeal. We find no mer it in Holcim’s requests; accordingly, the decision of the Board denying a stay pending appeal is AFFIRMED .
Exhibit 10.(m)


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT
(the “Second Amendment”) is made effective as of the 27th day of March, 2018, between REX RADIO AND
TELEVISION, INC., an Ohio corporation (the “Corporation”) and DOUGLAS BRUGGEMAN (the “Employee”)
under the following circumstances:


 


Recitals


 


A. The Corporation and
the Employee entered into an Employment Agreement dated June 2, 2015, as amended by the First Amendment to Employment Agreement
dated as of April 11, 2017 (the “Agreement”).


 


B. The Corporation and
the Employee desire to amend Section 4.2 (a) of the Agreement as set forth herein.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
the undersigned hereby amend the Agreement by deleting Section 4.2(a) and replacing it in its entirety by the following provisions:


 


4.2(a).
Bonus.


 


(a) Bonus. In
addition to Employee’s salary as provided in Section 3.1, Employee shall be entitled to an annual cash and/or incentive plan
bonus computed based upon the earnings of REX American Resources Corporation (“REX”) (the “Bonus”).


 


Effective as of February
1, 2018 (“Effective Date”), for each fiscal year of REX during the Employment Period or any period of renewal, the
Employee’s Bonus shall be equal to 1.5% of the amount equal to:


 


(i) 133% of “Net
Income Attributable to REX Common Shareholders” (after tax); plus


(ii) add back of incentive
and stock compensation expense; less


(iii) a onetime cumulative
adjustment subsequent to the Effective Date of $22,000,000.


 


The Bonus shall be paid two-thirds in cash
when determined and one-third in an award of restricted stock based on the then closing price of REX common stock as of June 15
of such year vesting in one-third installments on the first three anniversaries of the grant. In the event the adjustment provided
in this Section 4(a)(iii) is not fully satisfied in Fiscal Year 2018, the balance shall be carried forward until satisfaction.
The adjustment set forth in this Section 4.2 (a)(iii) shall not be effective for Section 6.3 or 6.7 hereof.



    	 



    	



    

Except as modified by this Second Amendment,
the Agreement remains in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto
have executed this Second Amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 


	 	REX
    RADIO AND TELEVISION, INC. an Ohio corporation
	 	 	 
	 	By:	EDWARD M. KRESS
	 	 	Edward M. Kress, Secretary
	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 	 
	 	DOUGLAS BRUGGEMAN
	 	Douglas Bruggeman
AEROSPACE
Bombardier Inc. 400 chemin de la Côte-Vertu West Dorval, Québec, Canada H4S 1Y9 www.bombardier.com

TEL 514-855-5000

FAX 514-855-7401

August 3, 2010

Re: Docket No. FAA-2010-0636

Bombardier Aerospace is requesting an extension to the comment period for NPRM 10-10, “Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions” in accordance with 14 CFR §11.47.

The published comment period is currently just over 60 days. We find this insufficient for a proposal of this magnitude. The comment period for NPRMs has typically been 90 days for proposed rule changes of far lesser significance and complexity. Given the potential impact of this rule, and the magnitude of the effort required to review it, we feel the comment period should be 120 days. At a meeting with the GAMA Technical Policy Committee in May of this year, the FAA was informed that 30-day comment periods for draft policy and guidance material was too short and that comment periods of 60-90 days were required to conduct sufficient review. A 60-day comment period for NPRM 10-10 is a step in the opposite direction.

The public interest is best served by allowing a thorough review of major rulemaking proposals by all stakeholders; the current comment period for this NPRM is insufficient for Bombardier Aerospace to assist in this review. A brief delay to allow a rigorous inspection of this proposal by reviewers independent from the regulating agency would result in a more complete analysis and could result in feedback that would lead to a more successful implementation of the final rule, both in terms of its technical effectiveness and its costs that will ultimately be passed on to the flying public. Conversely, a delay on the order of two months would not impose a significant delay in the implementation of a final rule given the current certification timeframe of approximately five years for new type certificated aircraft and would have no impact on public safety. Docket Operations, M–30 U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington DC 20590-0001
From: a1a5115@bellsouth.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:35:49 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,

Valerie Snyder

Navarre, FL 32566
Fw: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissions language

Raj Rao to: Pam Long 08/10/2010 01:05 PM

Raj Rao, P.E.

Group Leader, NSRG

OAQPS/AQPD(MD- C504-03)

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC 27709

919-541-5344

919-541-5509 fax

Note: Positions or views expressed here do not represent official EPA policy. Interagency deliberative 

and Confidential.

----- Forwarded by Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/10/2010 01:05 PM -----

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>

To: Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/03/2010 06:01 PM

Subject: RE: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissions language

-----Original Message-----

From: Rao.Raj@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Rao.Raj@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 2:57 PM

To: Kymn, Christine J.

Subject: Re: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissions language

Hi Christine,

Thanks for these comments. We are reviewing and considering the edits and 

will get back to you asap.

raj

Raj Rao, P.E.

Group Leader, NSRG

OAQPS/AQPD(MD- C504-03)

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC 27709

919-541-5344

919-541-5509 fax

Note: Positions or views expressed here do not represent official EPA policy. 

Interagency deliberative and Confidential.

 

 From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov> 

 To: Raj Rao/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lisa Sutton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Anna 

Wood/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 Date: 08/03/2010 12:03 PM 

 Subject: Interagency revisions to EPA proposed Biogenic emissions 
language 

 

Raj, Lisa, Anna,

Greetings. Attached please find proposed edits to EPA’s suggested biogenic 

GHG language. Let’s chat sometime today about these if possible.

Thanks,

Christine

202.395.4638(See attached file: Interagency edits1_Proposed language, biogenic 

GHG sources, EPA NPRMs, Actions to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the 

PSD Program to Sources of GHG Emissions.docx)(See attached file: Interagency 

edits2_Proposed language, biogenic GHG sources, EPA NPRMs, Actions to Ensure 

Authority to Issue Permits under the PSD Program to Sources of GHG 

Emissions.docx)

 Interagency edits3_Proposed language, biogenic GHG sources, EPA NPRMs, Actions to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the P
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection
with the Quarterly Report of Northern Technologies International  Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  November 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the  date hereof (the Report), I, Philip M. Lynch,
Chairman of the Board  and Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of  2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (1) | The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The
information contained in the Report  fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results  of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Chairman of the
Board of Directors and Co-Chief  Executive Officer (principal executive officer)




---

Lino Lakes,
MinnesotaJanuary 13, 2003
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(PROPOSED) ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND PTM DEADLINE

(Matthew Dehagi; CR06-0038RSM)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

1 (206) 553-1100

 JUDGE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MATTHEW DEHAGI,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR06-0038RSM

ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND

PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE

THE COURT having considered the stipulation of the parties, the records and files

herein, the Court hereby makes the following findings:

1. The Court finds that a failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel the

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due

diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

2. The Court further finds that the ends of justice will be served by ordering a

continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to insure effective trial preparation

and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public in a more speedy trial, within

the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

Case 2:06-cr-00038-RSM Document 14 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

(PROPOSED) ORDER ON STIPULATED MOTION

TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND PTM DEADLINE

(Matthew Dehagi; CR06-0038RSM)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

2 (206) 553-1100

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the trial date in this matter is continued to May 8, 

 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the period of time from the current trial date of April 10,

2006, up to and including the new trial date of May 8, 2006, shall be excludable time pursuant

to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pretrial motions are due no later than March 31,

2006.

DONE this 1st day of March, 2006.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Jennifer E. Wellman

WSBA # 29193

Attorney for Matthew Dehagi

Federal Public Defender’s Office

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-1100

Fax No.: (206) 553-0120

Jennifer_Wellman@fd.org

s/ Lisca Borichewski

Assistant United States Attorney

Telephonic Approval

Case 2:06-cr-00038-RSM Document 14 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

 WILLIAM GRONBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-5004JKA

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Plaintiff does not appear to have

funds available to afford the $250.00 filing fee.

The clerk is directed to issue summonses submitted by plaintiff to enable plaintiff to properly serve

copies of the complaint on the appropriate parties. Plaintiff shall note that it is her responsibility to

properly serve copies of the complaint along with appropriate summons as required by Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 27th day of January, 2006.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05004-RBL Document 2 Filed 01/27/06 Page 1 of 1
PEORIA

Stanton

SRMA

Weaver/

Octave

SCRMA

San Domingo

Wash RMZ

Yarnell

Wickenburg

Vulture Mountain

ACEC

Wickenburg

Community RMZ

Vulture Mine RMZ

Wickenburg/

Vulture SCRMA

Hassayampa

SRMA

Hummingbird

ngs Wilderness 

Hells Canyon

Wilderness

Hassayampa

River Canyon

Wilderness

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2009

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

conducts land use planning only in the areas administered

by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation of the State

of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map

for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

standards. This information may be updated without

notification.

Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1

Map 22

Hassayampa

Management Unit

Multiple Resource Allocations &

Special Area Designations

0 1 2 3 4

Miles

BLM Wilderness

Interstate

Major Road

Major River, Streams or Wash

Highway

Bradshaw Harquahala

Planning Area

Management Unit

Resource Allocations

Special Area Designation

Special Recreation

Management Area

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

(ACEC)

County Boundary

YAVAPAI COUNTY

MARICOPA COUNTY

Recreation Management

Zone (RMZ)

Special Cultural Resource

Management Area

(SCRMA) - Public Use
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 67419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21472]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice:12200]


International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) Meeting Notice; 
Closed Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(2), the Department of State announces a 
meeting of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) to take 
place on October 31, 2023, at the Department of State, Washington, DC.
    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. 1009(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it has been determined that 
this Board meeting will be closed to the public because the Board will 
be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified in accordance 
with Executive Order 13526. The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the 
Department with a continuing source of independent advice on all 
aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, outer space, 
critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, the national security aspects 
of associated technologies, international security, and related aspects 
of public diplomacy. The agenda for this meeting will include 
classified discussions related to the Board's ongoing studies on 
current U.S. policy and issues regarding arms control, international 
security, nuclear proliferation, associated technologies, climate and 
energy security.
    For more information, contact Michelle Dover, Executive Director of 
the International Security Advisory Board, Department of State, 
Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 736-4930.

Michelle E. Dover,
Executive Director, International Security Advisory Board, Department 
of State.
[FR Doc. 2023-21472 Filed 9-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P