alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# HINSHAW & ClJLB E RTSOf'.. LLP Timothy I. McCulloch tmcculloch@hinshawlaw
.com (602) 383-6011

VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mr. Thomas Vick Compliance and Land Use Specialist FAA Airports Division 12 New England Executive Park Burlington, MA 01803 November 4, 2014 ATTOR N EYS AT LAW 3200 N. Central Avenue Suite 800 Phoenix , AZ 85012 602-631-4400 602-631-4404 (fax) www. hinshawlaw.com

Re: Boston Executive Helicopters Part 13 Dear Mr. Vick: This firm hereby notifies you of its appearance and representation of Boston Executive Helicopters in the Part 13 informal complaint filed with your office on June 5, 2014 against the Norwood Municipal Airport and the Norwood Airport Commission. Boston Executive Helicopters hereby withdraws its Part 13 complaint without prejudice to its rights to again file the Part 13 complaint, or seek any other judicial or administrative remedies available to it. If you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please feel free to call the undersigned attorney.

cc: Ms. Mary Walsh Mr. Russ McGuire Mr. Christopher Donovan Very truly yours, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 

# G:yIMcCul:?

Building on the Barger Tr adition Arizona California Florida Illinois Indiana Massachusetts Minnesota Missouri New York Rhode Island Wisconsin + London 23367647vl 0964237
No. 61747.

#### Lep Transport, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 310432-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
No. P68/178.

protests 66/12621 and 66/3348 (New York).

#### Harpers International, Inc., and Kinsho Mataichi Corp. *v.*United States,

Nao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of electrical tape, composed wholly or in chief value of vinyl material, similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Devon Tape Corp.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 507, C.D. 2856), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**Certification**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officerof Allianz Aktiengesellschaft, a German company (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that: 

 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: April 19, 2005
Final 7/17/09 Page of

IN ITI AL REVIEW EXPOSU RE REPORT (IRExR)

Chemical ID: P090478Final 7/17/09 Page of

IN ITIA L REVIEW EXPOSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P090478Final 7/17/09 Page of

INITIAL REVIEW EX POSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P090478Final 7/17/09 Page of

IN ITI AL REVIEW EX POSURE REPORT

Chemical ID: P090478Final 7/17/09 Page of



## LEGEND FOR NEW CHEMICAL S EXPOSURE REPORT

This new chemicals exposure report wa s prepared by the Exposure Assessment Branch (EAB) of the Economics,

Exposure and Technology Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, USEPA.

The goals of these reports are to calcula te conservative (protective) estimates of exposure endpoints for consumers,

the general population, and the environment.

For each exposure scenario to industrial releases, the following three endpoints are calculated:

(1) maximum possible acute concentrations and doses

(2) maximum possible chronic concentrations and doses

(3) for water releases ≥ 20 days, the probability of exceedence of the aquatic concentration of concern

These endpoints are identified by abbreviati ons on the Release Activity line, e.g., (1) max ADR , (2) max

LADD , (3) max PDM . Depending on the release inputs, these e ndpoints may be calculated and presented on

the same page or different pages. That is, a release activity ID of mfg; max ADR, max PDM, max LADD

indicates that all the exposure endpoints were cal culated from common manufacturing release values;

conversely, a release activity ID of mfg &proc; max ADR indicates that only the maximum acute exposure

values were calculated for manufacturing and proce ssing releases that occurred at the same site.

For each consumer product use exposure scenario, whether exposure is to the user directly or to the general

population/environment, the maximum exposure values are calculated and presented together.

In addition to the exposure values above, EPA policy dir ects that exposure and release values be compared to

criteria threshold values for Exposure-based and PBT Exposure-based cases.

Exposure-based (YX) cases (those with ≥ 100,000 kg/yr production volume)

Criteria are exceeded under the following conditions:

Presence in consumer product with likely exposure

≥ 3E-3 mg/kg/d exposure via air, fish ingestion or drinking water

≥ 10,000 kg/yr release to environment (post-treatment)

≥ 1,000 kg/yr release to water (post-treatment)

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBT) chemical s of P2B2 rating or hi gher and production volume ≥ 20,000 kg/yr

Criteria are exceeded as for YX cases, with the following differences:

≥ 2,000 kg/yr release to environment (post-treatment)

≥ 200 kg/yr release to water (post-treatment)

Bolding rules in the Report: Values for endpoints above th at are also health or eco concerns are bolded.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

SEAGO : 02-3873

STANSBERRY : 02-3902

KRUSE : 02-3949

SIGWARTH : 02-3973

POST : 02-4168

BARBER, et al. : 02-4220

BRUNDLE, et al. : 02-4229

PINEDO, et al. : 02-4273

PLAEHN : 02-4324

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

Case 2:02-cv-04220-JF Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

John P. Fullam, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04220-JF Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 51922.

#### Austin Nichols & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 36777-K/89494, etc. (Chicago, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Part C and Combined Ash Silos 

Aldridge, Elizabeth 

to: 

Ronald Jordan 

02/03/2010 10:59 AM 

Cc: 

"Hill, Donna B." 

Show Details 

History: This message has been forwarded. 

Hi Ron, You asked about the section of the UWAG ICR comments which noted that Part C is not well 

laid out for a facility that handles both bottom ash and fly ash dry, but combines it in a common silo 

prior to beneficial reuse. Our member Integrys supplied that comment, based on its Westwood facility. 

Westwood is a circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler plant that burns waste coal. It collects both 

bottom ash and fly ash in a combined silo prior to sending the ash to abandoned mines for beneficial 

reuse. There are several other facilities in Pennsylvania that employ the same technology and dispose 

of their ash in abandoned mines, but we haven't been able to confirm whether they have combined ash 

silos. We think it is likely that there are other combined ash silos in operation, however. According to 

the Coal Ash Association website, over 10,400,000 tons of ash was disposed of in mining applications 

in 2008 and about 8,600,000 of those tons were CFB ash. I can arrange a conference call with Mark 

Metcalf of Integrys if that would be helpful to you. Just let me know what you'd like to do. Thanks. 

 

Liz Aldridge 

Hunton & Williams 

(804) 788-8549 

ealdridge@hunton.com 

 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\rjordan\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web2671.h... 2/25/2010
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

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND PTM DEADLINE

(Felix and Samaniego-Ochoa; CR05-438P)

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, Washington 98101

1 (206) 553-1100

 JUDGE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HECTOR FELIX and CARLO SERGIO

SAMANIEGO-OCHOA,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. CR05-0438MJP

 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE

THE COURT, having considered the stipulated motion of the parties for a continuance

of the trial date and the pretrial motions deadline, finds that the ends of justice will be served

by ordering a continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to ensure adequate time

for effective case preparation, and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public

and the defendants in a speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

The Court further finds that the period of time from the current trial date of February

21, 2006, until the new trial date of April 17, 2006, shall be excludable time pursuant to the

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

Case 2:05-cr-00438-MJP Document 23 Filed 01/20/06 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

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE AND PTM DEADLINE

(Felix and Samaniego-Ochoa; CR05-438P)

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 until

April 17, 2006 and that pretrial motions shall be filed no later than March 2, 2006.

DONE this 20th day of January, 2006.

/S/Marsha J. Pechman 

MARSHA J. PECHMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

s/ Peter J. Avenia

WSBA # 20794

Attorney for Hector Felix

Assistant Federal Public Defender 

1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 700

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 553-1100

Fax No.: (206) 553-0120

Peter_Avenia@fd.org

s/ Michele Shaw

Attorney for Carlo Sergio Samaniego-Ochoa

By telephonic authorization

s/ John Lulejian

Assistant United States Attorney

By telephonic authorization

s/ Adam Cornell

Special Assistant United States Attorney

By telephonic authorization

Case 2:05-cr-00438-MJP Document 23 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 2
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS4597 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                                ENERGYSOUTH, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     THREE MONTHS             NINE MONTHS             TWELVE MONTHS
                                                     ENDED JUNE 30,           ENDED JUNE 30,          ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                   1998         1997        1998        1997        1998        1997
                                                  -------      -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
<S>                                               <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>    
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE: (1)

Earnings applicable to common stock               $ 1,153      $ 1,096     $ 7,932     $ 7,995     $ 8,063     $ 8,117

Weighted average common shares
    outstanding                                     4,868        4,848       4,863       4,843       4,861       4,840

Basic earnings per share                          $  0.24      $  0.23     $  1.63     $  1.65     $  1.66     $  1.68



DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE: (1)

Earnings applicable to common stock               $ 1,153      $ 1,096     $ 7,932     $ 7,995     $ 8,063     $ 8,117

Weighted average common shares
    outstanding                                     4,868        4,848       4,863       4,843       4,861       4,840

Incremental shares resulting from
    assumed exercise of stock options                  57           35          65          33          61          28

Weighted average common shares
    outstanding, assuming dilution                  4,925        4,883       4,928       4,876       4,922       4,868

Diluted earnings per share                        $  0.23      $  0.22     $  1.61     $  1.64     $  1.64     $  1.67
</TABLE>




(1)   Restated to reflect three-for-two conversion of Mobile Gas common stock
      into EnergySouth common stock effective February 2, 1998. See Note 1 of
      Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1998.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DONALD and ANNIE FINCH :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4219

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04219-WY Document 7 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WALKER : 02-3868

SIMON : 02-3887

GOTO : 02-3922

JOHNSON, et al. : 02-3932

HOSOKAWA : 02-3959

KILCY : 02-3964

BYRON : 02-4108

ROCHA, et al. : 02-4121

CAVITT : 02-4139

HIBMA-CANARIO, et al. : 02-4152

BAILEY, et al. : 02-4188

BOSSI, et al. : 02-4234

STEINHAUER, et al. : 02-4257

SKEELS, et al. : 02-4274

WALKER, et al. : 02-4279

FRIEDEN, et al. : 02-4310

DIMANLANTA : 02-4313

:

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04139-RBS Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

R. Barclay Surrick

Case 2:02-cv-04139-RBS Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 2 of 2
<Page>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 9.1


                                    [LETTERHEAD]



                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'


Board of Directors and Shareholders
World Gaming Plc

We hereby consent to the use of our audit report dated July 20, 2001 in this
Form 20-F of World Gaming Plc for the year ended April 30, 2001, which is
part of and relates to the consolidated financial statements contained in
this Form 20-F, and all references to our firm included in this Form 20-F. We
also hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (SEC File No. 333-70056) of World Gaming Plc of said
audit report.


/s/ HJ & Associates, LLC

HJ & Associates, LLC
Salt Lake City, Utah
October 29, 2001
No. 64049.

protest 59/20688 (New York).

#### National Wool Stock Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to pay the increased duties due.
# C_2020019EN.01000401.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/4

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante — Spain) — Bankia SA v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

(Case C-486/16) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law - Principle of effectiveness - Principle of procedural autonomy)

(2020/C 19/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bankia SA

Defendants: Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

Operative part of the order

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, as not precluding that a national court of first instance may be bound by a decision delivered by an appeal court requiring the initiation of an enforcement procedure taking into account the seriousness of the consumer’s failure to fulfil his obligations under the mortgage loan agreement, even if that agreement contains a term declared unfair in an earlier judgment which has become final, but which does not have the force of res judicata under national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

---
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0296 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM106AD

MESSIER- DOW TY

D23581 - 32 - 061 --- 11/2/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Dire ctorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
Getting Help for CIR

CIR Security Users!!

Your best points of contactfor help with CIR

Q1: Can you please re-set my password?

• Password resets will be performed in ITIM Self Service.

• ITIM will send emails to users reminding them to update passwords. 

Q2: What are these e-mails about getting recertified?

A: Work with your CIR Security Users on the annual

review of your CIR access.

Q3: How do I request a new user for my group?

A: Work with your CIR Security Usersto request access

for a new user.

Q4: How do I get accessto work with XML extract files?

A: Contact your CIR Security Usersto have your CIR

user roles updated.

Q5: How can I gain accessto more of my agency’s ALCs?

A: Contact your CIR Security Usersto have your CIR access rights updated.

Q6: How can I get access to Personally Identifiable Information?

A: Work with your CIR Security Usersto follow your agency’s privacy regulations in order to

change your PII access.

But ... I don’t know who my CIR Security Users are ...

Run the Security Users by Access Group Report!

This report displays all the Security Usersfor your Access Group and their

contact information. Print a copy of this report and keep it with your

other Contacts.

1

February2018
What Your CIR Security User Can Do For You

1. Perform your annual recertification to use CIR.

2. Request new users for your group.

3. Update your roles to allow you to define and access

XML extract files.

4. Add or remove your accessto authorized ALCs.

5. Grant or revoke your accessto Personally

Identifiable Information.

6. Close your CIR account when you no longer need

access.

What You Can Do For Yourself via ITIM

1. Change your password.

2. Update your name, street address, e-mail

address, and phone numbers.

3. Update your security questions.

What You Can Do For Yourself via CIR 

Application

1. Create groups of ALCs to speed up your report

requests.

Contact CIR Customer Support

at 1-800-624-1373, option #3

Or Internationally

at 216-579-2112 (option #3)

Or email:

CIR.customersupport@clev.frb.org

2

February2018
#### Corey Stairs *vs.*Frederick Quincy.

Penobscot.

Opinion, August 4, 1942.

*134
      *Fellows & Fellows,*by *Oscar Fellows,*for the plaintiff.

*Benjamin W. Blanchard,*for the defendant.

Sitting: Sturgis, C. J., Thaxter, Hudson, Manser, Worster, Murchie, JJ.

Per Curiam.

General Motion for a new trial in an action of negligence.

The evidence brought forward warrants the finding that as plaintiff, on February 6,1941, drove his automobile along the right lane of State Street in Bangor, the defendant, although he observed his approach, entered the highway with his car from a connecting private road without yielding the right of way as required by Section 8, Chapter 29, R. S. It not being made to appear that the finding of the jury, indicated by their verdict, that the negligence of the defendant was the sole proximate cause of the collision which resulted was manifestly wrong or that the damages were excessive the mandate is,

*Motion overruled.*