alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S/S

File: Pub 1114 FRONT (Rev.8-01)

Font: Helvetica reg. with oblq., bold, black

Publication 1114 (Rev. 8-01)

Catalog Number 46978J

IRS VOLUNTEERS

HelpOther PeopleWith TheirTax Returns

HelpOther PeopleWith TheirTax Returns

PANEL 6 PANEL 1

9/19/01, 7:07 PM
 S/S

• preparation and issuance of national training, technical,

publicity and administrative materials, forms and publications required for the program;

• preferential telephone access to IRS Taxpayer Service

Representative;

• establishment of quality control measures and reporting

requirements; and

• coordination of national conferences, training programs

or other meetings as necessary.

How long does the program run?Actual assistance to taxpayers under the program is concentrated within the January 1 to April 15 filing period. Theplanning and administration of the program can be expected to require nearly the entire fiscal year. Cooperativeagreements are awarded for one year only and expireSeptember 30 of each year.How is the Cooperative Agreement awarded?Private or public non-profit agencies and organizationsthat wish to sponsor the program must apply for consideration to the IRS through the submission of the Publication1101, Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program ApplicationPackage. Selection will be made based upon the information provided in the Publication 1101 illustrating theapplicant’s ability to meet the requirements of the TaxCounseling for the Elderly Program. Other considerationsin the selection process include the availability of funds,which are appropriated by Congress, and taxpayer needsas determined by the IRS.When should applications be filed?Generally, applications will be solicited during June andJuly of each year, though the IRS may at any time solicitor request eligible organizations to submit applications forparticipation in the program. The deadIine for the submission of applications is provided in the Publication 1101 aswell as in the Federal Register.How does one apply or receive additionalinformation?Agencies and organizations interested in sponsoring aTax Counseling for the Elderly program can obtain additional information or request the Publication 1101 by writing or calling the IRS. The address is given below:

Tax Counseling for the Elderly ProgramW:CAR:SPEC:FO:GA, Room C7-185 (NCFB)Internal Revenue Service5000 Ellin RoadLanham, MD 20706

To get the most up to date tax products and information visit us on the World Wide Web at: www.irs.gov

File: Pub 1114 BACK (Rev. 8-01)

Font: Helvetica reg. with oblq., bold, black

TCE Interest Car

d

I am interested in participating in the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Program.

Work Preference

Day(s) of week

Hours

City

Previous Tax Experience/Training

Name

Street

City State Zip Code

Telephone Number (include area code)

Organization's Name (if applicable)

PANEL 3 PANEL 4

9/19/01, 7:07 PM
May 20, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Cummins In-Use Data Collection on SCR Operation

FROM: Justin Greuel

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0444

On April 6, 2011, Cummins Inc. provided the following information to the Agency

regarding efforts to collect data from SCR-equipped trucks operating in-use. The information 

was provided as a supplement to in-use data summarized in comments submitted by Cummins 

Inc. to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0444 on August 20, 2010 (see docket number EPA-HQOAR-2010-0444-0011.1).

IN-USE DATA COLLECTION RESULTS

Below is the information Cummins Inc. has collected from 47 different customer owned 

vehicles (with our 11.9L and 15L engines) operating across the US. The vehicles have over 2.4 

million miles of operation so far. Cummins has data-loggers on these vehicles’ engines. The 

data-loggers have an embedded cell phone function, which sends the data to Cummins nightly. 

About half the engines in these vehicles are owned by Cummins; the other half are customer 

owned. All the vehicles, however, are operated and maintained by the customers.

Of the 47 vehicles:

 Less than 0.13% of the miles (3,002 miles) were operated where DEF level was in the 5-

10% range.

 Less than 0.03% of the miles (737 miles) were operated where DEF level was in the 2.5-

5% range.

 Less than 0.04% of the miles (918 miles) were operated where DEF level was in the 0-

2.5% range (derated performance condition).
 Less than 0.02% of the miles (516 miles) were operated where DEF level was 0% or 

empty (derated performance condition).

 More than 99.7% of the miles were operated where DEF level was maintained above 

10% .

 For DEF quality, less than 0.18% (4,362 miles) of the miles were operated where a 

faulted condition existed for DEF quality.
No. 43990.

#### Protests 238789-G, etc., of Judkins & McCormick Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Robinson-Goodman*v. *United States*(17 C. C. P. A. 149, T. D. 43473) artificial flowers were held dutiable at '60 percent under paragraph 1419 and wearing apparel in chief value of silk was held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 1210.
[Cite as In re R.N.W. , 2024
- Ohio
- 1009.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LAKE COUNTY
IN THE MATTER OF:
R.N.W. CASE NO. 2023 - L - 115
Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division

Trial Court No. 2018 CV 01104

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Decided: March 18, 2024 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Marrio Woods , pro se, 8210 Macedonia Commons Boulevard, Suite 3B , Macedonia, OH 44056 (Appellant). Michelle Co le grove , pro se, 2208 Buena Vista Drive, Wickliffe, OH 44092 (Appellee).

JOHN J. EKLUND, J. {¶1} On December 6, 2023, appellant, Marrio Woods, filed a pro se appeal from a September 12, 2019 judgment entry. {¶2} App.R. 3(A) expressly states that the only jurisdictional requirement for filing a valid appeal is to file it within the time allowed by App.R. 4. The Supreme Court has held that the failure to comply with the time requirements of App.R. 4(A) is a jurisdi ctional defect, which is fatal to an appeal. In re H.F. , 120 Ohio St.3d 499, 2008

- Ohio

- 6810, ¶ 17, citing State ex rel. Pendell v. Adams Cty. Bd. of Elections , 40 Ohio St.3d 58, 60 (1988 ).2

Case No. 2023

- L

- 115 {¶3} “Subject to the provisions of App.R. 4(A)(3), a party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry.” See App.R. 4(A)(1). Civ.R. 58(B) directs the clerk of courts to serve the parties with notice of the entry within three days of entering the judgment upon the journal. If Civ.R. 58(B ) service does not occur within three days, the time to appeal does not begin to run until service is made and noted in the a ppearance docket. Coles v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. , 163 Ohio App.3d 659, 664, 2005

- Ohio

- 5360. {¶4} Here, the trial court issued its entry on September 12, 2019 . The clerk of courts noted on the appearance docket that notice of the entry under Civ.R. 58(B) was issued to the parties on that same date. Therefore, pursuant Civ.R. 58(B), the time to appeal began to run from September 12, 2019 . The deadline for appellant to file his notice of appeal was October 15, 2019 , which was not a holiday or a weekend. Thus, appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed by over 4 years

. {¶5} This court is not empowered to extend the time deadline in civil cases. Pendell , supra at 60; see also App.R. 14(B). {¶6} Based upon the foregoing, this appeal is dismissed , sua sponte, as untimely pursuant to App.R. 4(A)(1).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J. , ROBERT J. PATTON, J. ,
concur

.
Alyson P. Drew Letter



 Exhibit 10.14 
 cmcdemus@clear-point.com 
 DIRECT DIAL: 215-997-7710 X. 101

 June 25, 2008 
 VIA UPS, OVERNIGHT
DELIVERY 
  

															
	Parker Drew	  		  		  		  		  		  		  	
	  
	  		  		  		  		  		  		  	
	  
	  		  		  		  		  		  		  	

 Dear Parker: 
 I am writing in reference to that certain Second Amended and Restated Promissory Note, dated March 31, 2008, payable by ClearPoint Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) in the original principal amount of $100,000 (the
“Note”). By way of this letter, the Company is notifying you that, effective June 20, 2008, it has, in accordance with Section 1 of the Note, exercised the Maturity Date Extension (as defined in the Note). As a result, the
new Maturity Date for the Note is March 31, 2010. The Company exercised the Maturity Date Extension in connection with its recent loan transaction with ComVest Capital, LLC, whereby the Company received a $9 million term loan and $3 million
revolver. 
 As required by Section 3 of the Note, I have enclosed a second Warrant for 15,000 shares of Company Common Stock,
exercisable from June 20, 2008 until March 31, 2011 at an exercise price of $1.55. 
 Feel free to call me with any questions.

  

	
	 Very truly yours,

	
	 CLEARPOINT RESOURCES, INC.

	
	 Christopher D. McDemus

	 Senior V.P. & General Counsel


 Encl.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Dennis Martel,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-0014 DFL PAN P

vs. Findings and Recommendations

California Department

of Corrections, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff is a state prisoner prosecuting this civil rights

action without counsel. 

April 28, 2005, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claims

against defendants Cal A. Terhune, Tom Carey and the Department

of Corrections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, with leave to

amend. The court informed plaintiff he could proceed against

defendants R. L. Andreasen, Tom Donahue, John J. Dan and J. W.

Moore by submitting materials for service within 15 days, but the 

court would construe his election so to proceed as consent to 

Case 2:04-cv-00014-ALA Document 10 Filed 06/10/05 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

2

dismissal of his claims against defendants Cal A. Terhune, Tom

Carey and the Department of Corrections without leave to amend. 

Plaintiff has submitted materials for service of defendants

R. L. Andreasen, Tom Donahue, John J. Dan and J. W. Moore. I

find plaintiff has consented to dismissal of claims against

defendants Cal A. Terhune, Tom Carey and the Department of

Corrections without leave to amend. 

Accordingly, the court hereby recommends that claims against

defendants Cal A. Terhune, Tom Carey and the Department of

Corrections be dismissed without prejudice. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), these

findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to this case. Written objections may be

filed within 20 days of service of these findings and

recommendations. The document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district

judge may accept, reject, or modify these findings and

recommendations in whole or in part.

Dated: June 9, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00014-ALA Document 10 Filed 06/10/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARIN GREENE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0917 MCE DAD P

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested a second extension of time to file and serve his opposition

to defendant’s September 27, 2005 motion for summary judgment. This request will be denied. 

On October 6, 2005, the court granted plaintiff an extension of time and ordered plaintiff to file

his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment by November 28, 2005. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 12, 2005 request for an

extension of time is denied.

DATED: October 19, 2005.

DAD:kf/4

gree0917.36

Case 2:04-cv-00917-MCE -DAD Document 53 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 1
No. 63630.

protest 58/21101 (Los Angeles).

#### Pan Pacific Overseas Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
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 Granting Defendant’s First Request for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Summary Judgment

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

MERRICK JOSE MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. SLOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:04-cv-0871 MCE PAN (JFM)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE A MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

The Court, having considered Defendants’ request for an extension of time to file a

motion for summary judgment, and good cause having been found.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The deadline for both parties to file a dispositive motion

is extended to August 4, 2006. 

DATED: July 18, 2006.

/moor0871.ext

Case 2:04-cv-00871-MCE -EFB Document 45 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 1
No. 62515.

#### Selig Manufacturing Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/123-15096 (New Orleans).

*424Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 9/11/2023 1

Whether City Limits 

Include a Candidate’s Residence 

Naramore v. Posey 

(L. Scott Coogler, N.D. Ala. 6:12-cv-2584) 

A would-be candidate for mayor filed a federal complaint challenging his disqualification for residing in unincorporated territory. An 

interlocutory consent order resolved the immediate issue in the 

plaintiff’s favor after three telephone conferences with the judge 

and the parties. 

Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topic: Getting on the ballot. 

On July 30, 2012, a would-be candidate for mayor of Jasper, Alabama, in an 

August 28 election, filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of Alabama alleging wrongful disqualification of his candidacy on the grounds that 

his residence was in unincorporated territory.1 With his complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency hearing on his request for a preliminary 

injunction.2

Judge L. Scott Coogler held a telephone conference with the parties on 

August 13 and sought evidence on whether the plaintiff’s residence was within annexed territory of Jasper.4

Following additional telephone conferences on August 2 and 7,5

 the 

plaintiff’s candidacy was resolved in the plaintiff’s favor by an interlocutory 

consent order issued on August 16.6

 That same day, however, the plaintiff 

filed a motion for an immediate evidentiary hearing, alleging bad faith on the 

part of the defendants in complying with the consent order.7 Judge Coogler 

held another telephone conference on August 17.8

On August 28, the incumbent mayor received 1,975 votes, or 57%.9

 The 

plaintiff received 170 votes.10

Judge Coogler dismissed the case as settled on November 18, 2013.11

1. Complaint, Naramore v. Posey, No. 6:12-cv-2584 (N.D. Ala. July 30, 2012), D.E. 1; see

Daniel Gaddy, Naramore Files Suit Against City Officials, Jasper Daily Mountain Eagle, Aug. 

1, 2012. 

2. Motion, Naramore, No. 6:12-cv-2584 (N.D. Ala. July 30, 2012), D.E. 2. 

3. Docket Sheet, id. (July 30, 2012). 

4. See Plaintiff’s Brief, id. (Aug. 2, 2012), D.E. 4. 

5. Docket Sheet, supra note 3. 

6. Consent Order, Naramore, No. 6:12-cv-2584 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 16, 2012), D.E. 5. 

7. Motion, id. (Aug. 16, 2012), D.E. 6. 

8. Docket Sheet, supra note 3. 

9. See James Phillips, Posey Wins Third Term as Jasper Mayor, Jasper Daily Mountain 

Eagle, Aug. 29, 2012. 

10. See id. 

11. Order, Naramore, No. 6:12-cv-2584 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 18, 2013), D.E. 165; see Stipulation, id. (Nov. 14, 2013), D.E. 15; Order, id. (Sept. 25, 2013), D.E. 14 (dismissing the action 

without prejudice on advice that a settlement was being finalized).
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/7/2023 1

Ballot-Petition Signatures in Public Housing 

Mendenhall v. Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority 

(Sara Lioi, N.D. Ohio 5:09-cv-742) 

A district judge determined that it was not a First Amendment violation for a housing authority to prohibit door-to-door solicitation, 

including the collection of ballot-petition signatures, in public housing. 

Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: Door-to-door canvassing; 

getting on the ballot. 

Nine days before the April 10, 2009, deadline for ballot-petition signatures to 

recall the mayor of Akron, a voter and a political action committee filed a federal complaint in the Northern District of Ohio challenging the voter’s expulsion from an apartment building owned by the city and managed by the city’s 

housing authority when the voter was in the building seeking ballot-petition 

signatures.1

 With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary 

restraining order.2

On the day that the complaint was filed, Judge Sara Lioi held a conference 

with the parties and denied the plaintiffs immediate relief.3

 Judge Lioi heard 

the case two days later.4

 Following the hearing, Judge Lioi upheld the proscription on door-to-door solicitation in the residential apartment building as a 

reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restriction of speech in a nonpublic forum.5

On October 30, following additional proceedings, Judge Lioi issued a final 

judgment against the plaintiffs.6

Although the recall effort collected enough signatures for the ballot, the 

recall was unsuccessful.7

1. Complaint, Mendenhall v. Akron Metro. Hous. Auth., No. 5:09-cv-742 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 

1, 2009), D.E. 1; see Amended Complaint, id.(Apr. 3, 2009), D.E. 6. 

2. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, id. (Apr. 1, 2009), D.E. 2. 

3. Docket Sheet, id. (Apr. 1, 2009) (minutes); Transcript at 2, id. (Apr. 3, 2009, filed Sept. 

4, 2009), D.E. 21. 

4. Transcript, supra note 3; Docket Sheet, supra note 3. 

5. Opinion, Mendenhall, No. 5:09-cv-742 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 3, 2009), D.E. 10. 

6. Opinion, id. (Oct. 30, 2009), D.E. 25. 

7. See Laura Johnston, Akron Mayor Survives as Voters Reject Recall, Cleveland Plain 

Dealer, June 24, 2009, at B1.
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 1 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 2 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 3 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 4 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 5 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 6 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 7 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 8 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 9 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 10 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 11 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 12 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 13 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 14 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 15 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 16 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 17 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 18 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 19 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 20 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 21 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 22 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 23 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 24 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 25 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 26 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 27 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 28 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 29 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 30 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 31 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 32 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 33 of 34
Case 2:02-cv-04302-MFA Document 70-2 Filed 03/07/2005 Page 34 of 34
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00357

- CR

Cruz Favela III v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County , Texas Trial Cause No. B

- 09

- 2164

- 0

- CR

- B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cau se on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. July 5, 2018
View EO 12866 Meeting

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/viewEO12866Meeting?viewRule=true&rin=2060-AP93&meetingId=764&acronym=2060-EPA/AR [1/27/2015 9:15:25 AM] 

# View EO 12866 Meeting 2060-AP93

Title: Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters and New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces

Agency/Subagency: 2060-EPA/AR

Stage of Rulemaking: Final Rule Stage

Meeting Date/Time: 01/08/2015 04:00 PM

Requestor: United States Stove Company

Attendees:

List of Attendees

Rachel Feinstein

- Hearth, Patio & Barbecue

Association

Adam Baumgart-Getz

- EPA

Chebryll Edwards

- EPA

David Cole

- EPA

Souad Benromdhane

- EPA

Larry Sorrels

- EPA

Paula Vanlare

- EPA

Scott Jordan

- EPA

Julian Banks

- EPA

Aaron Szabo

- OMB/OIRA

Nathan Frey

- OMB/OIRA

Jim Laity

- OMB/OIRA

David Rostker

- SBA Advocacy

Greg Green

- EPA

Gill Wood

- EPA

Allison Davis

- EPA

Bob Ferguson

- Ferguson, Andors & Company

David Chung

- Crowell & Moring LLP

John Voorhees

- United States Stove Company

Brandon Barry

- United States Stove Company Documents:

List of Documents

Handout

Handout

Handout Search: Agenda Reg Review ICRView EO 12866 Meeting

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/viewEO12866Meeting?viewRule=true&rin=2060-AP93&meetingId=764&acronym=2060-EPA/AR [1/27/2015 9:15:25 AM] Katie Renshaw

- CEQ

Pat Delehanty

- SBA Advocacy

About Us Related Resources Disclosure Accessibility Privacy Policy Contact Us
Case No. 13,758.

#### TARROW v. BROWN.

[Cited in Brook v. Brown. Case No. 1.931. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible]