alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|  |
|--|
| Home |  Advanced Search |  Directory |  Site Map |  Privacy Policy |  Accessibility |  Contact Us                                          |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| About  Our Work  Career Opportunities  Business With Us  Information Resources  Outreach |
|  

LIBRARY

VOLPE JOURNAL

HIGHLIGHTS

PUBLISHED AND PRESENTED

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

TRANSPORTATIONSTRATEGIC PLANS

LINKS                  |  

National Science and Technology Council
Accessibility for Agingand Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations:Implementation Plan
*September 1999*
Table of Contents- Introduction
- Background
- Vision, Goals, Outcomes, and Partners
- Implementation Activities
Coordinating Research and Technology and Related Deployment Activities
Other Activities and Programs
Activities and Outputs

Public Invited to Comment on Transportation Science and Technology Strategy  -- The President's National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology and its Subcommittee on Transportation R&D; are working to develop a national strategy, which builds on the first Transportation Science and Technology Strategy.  To accomplish this, the Committee is relying heavily on input from a wide range of stakeholders, including but not limited to transportation users and operators, State and local government agencies, research institutions, private organizations and the general public. We welcome your input into this process.
Return to Top
 
  U.S. Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration 
  |
Copy of Support Documents from

Docket OPPTS-50635 In Support of the

Direct Final SNUR

for P-95-0169

January 5, 2000 (65 FR 354) (FRL-6055-2)

40 CFR 721.5185Supporting Documents for OPPTS-50635

B-0001 Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant

New Use Rules for 41 Chemical Substances

B-0008 Initial Review Engineering Report for P95-0159 (Undated)

B-0012 SAT Report for P95-0169

B-0013 Initial Review Exposure Report for P95-0169B-0001 Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use

Rules for 41 Chemical SubstancesB-0008 Initial Review Engineering Report for P95-0159 (Undated)B-0012 SAT Report

for P95-0169B-0013 Initial Review Exposure Report for P95-0169
EXHIBIT 11

                   K-TEL INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

                For the years ended June 30, 1997, 1996 and 1995

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      1997       1996        1995
                                                                     ------    -------     -------
<S>                                                                  <C>        <C>         <C>  
    Primary earnings per share -

    Weighted average number of issued shares outstanding              3,756      3,729       3,711

    Effect of Stock Incentive Plan                                      206       --          --
                                                                     ------    -------     -------

    Shares outstanding used to compute primary earnings per share     3,962      3,729       3,711
                                                                     ======    =======     =======

    Net Income (Loss)                                                $3,204    $  (745)    $(2,483)
                                                                     ======    =======     =======

    Primary earnings (loss) per share                                $  .81    $  (.20)    $  (.67)
                                                                     ======    =======     =======

    Fully diluted earnings per share -

    Weighted average number of shares used
    for primary earnings per share                                    3,756      3,729       3,711

    Effect of Stock Incentive Plan                                      219       --          --
                                                                     ------    -------     -------

    Shares outstanding used to compute
    fully diluted earnings per share                                  3,975      3,729       3,711
                                                                     ======    =======     =======

    Net Income (Loss)                                                $3,204    $  (745)    $(2,483)
                                                                     ======    =======     =======

    Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share                          $  .81    $  (.20)    $  (.67)
                                                                     ======    =======     =======
</TABLE>
No. 57286.

protests 173340-K and 173341-K (New York).

#### American Whaling Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Johnson, Judge:

In this case, the question at issue is whether certain items of equipment and expense of repairs made to and upon a floating whale factory, the vessel *Frango,*are dutiable at the rate of 50 per centum ad valorem under the provisions of section 466 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as equipments and repairs. At the trial of this case, counsel for the respective parties agreed to the facts, which, among other things, disclose that both protests 173340-K and 173341-K involve entry number V-2299. Protest 173340-K, dated August 22, 1941, was filed against reliquidation of June 26, 1941, and protest 173341-K, dated October 17, 1941, was filed against the liquidation of June 27, 1939, the reliquidation of June 26, 1941, and the re-reliquidation of August 20, 1941. The plaintiff, however, abandoned such portion of protest 173341-K involving the liquidation of June 27, 1939, and the reliquidation of June 26, 1941. The records in the cases of *United States*v. *American Whaling Co., Inc.,*38 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 164, C. A. D. 454, and *United States*v. *Western Operating Corp.,*35 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 71, C. A. D. 373, were incorporated with and made a part of the record herein by consent.

The liquidator of the entry testified that the original liquidation involved a dutiable cost of repairs of $26,121 and the entry was liquidated at a duty of $13,062.50. The liquidator also re-reliquidated the entry upon a dutiable cost of repairs of $53,648.50, to which a 50 per centum duty was applied, resulting in a duty of $26,824. The original liquidated duty was deducted therefrom, thus leaving an increase in duties of $13,761.50.

The Government conceded that under the decision in the incorporated record, involving the vessel *Frango,*the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the duties collected under the reliquidation of June 26, 1941, and the re-reliquidation of August 20, 1941, amounting to a refund of $13,761.50.

. In view of the record before the court and the concession made by the Government, and the agreement of counsel also that the increase in duties at issue in the reliquidation and re-reliquidation, to wit, $13,761.50, should be refunded, *438judgment -will be entered in favor of the plaintiff to the extent indicated. In all other respects the protests are overruled. .
Before Chief Judge Rao,

April 4, 1968

No. R68/23.

reappraisements R61/11916, etc. (New York).

#### Shalom & Co. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues and relevant facts are the same in all material respects as those in *Shalom Baby-Wear,*In*c.*v. *United States*(54 Cust. Ct. 526, Reap. Dec. 10905), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of value of the various cotton articles in issue and that such value is the appraised value, less the buying commission as stated on the invoices.
No. 47373.

#### Protest 45982-K of Blanchard Lumber Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing tonguing, and grooving. Protest sustained to this extent.
Exhibit 23.2.b

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-108215 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 8, 2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Kansas City Power & Light Company and subsidiaries (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of a new accounting standard and revisions made to the consolidated statement of cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2003) and management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kansas City Power & Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
March 8, 2006
# C_2007161EN.01003601.xml

| 13.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/36

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain parts and characteristics of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (Codified version)

COM(2006) 662 final — 2006/0221 (COD)

(2007/C 161/08)

On 22 November 2006, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 7 February 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Burns.

At its 434th plenary session, held on 14 and 15 March 2007 (meeting of 14 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 147 votes with 8 abstentions.

| 1. | The purpose of the proposal is to undertake the codification of Council Directive 74/151/EEC of 4 March 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to certain parts and characteristics of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The purpose of the proposal is to undertake the codification of Council Directive 74/151/EEC of 4 March 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to certain parts and characteristics of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors.

| 2. | The Committee considers the codification of all texts in a single directive to be very useful. It has been assured that this codification contains no substantial change and its sole purpose is to render Community legislation clear and transparent. The Committee fully endorses this objective and, having received the above-mentioned assurance, welcomes the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Committee considers the codification of all texts in a single directive to be very useful. It has been assured that this codification contains no substantial change and its sole purpose is to render Community legislation clear and transparent. The Committee fully endorses this objective and, having received the above-mentioned assurance, welcomes the proposal.

Brussels, 14 March 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
Exhibit 32.1

The following certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.

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 on Form 10-Q of Magellan Midstream Holdings, L.P. (the
Partnership) for the quarter ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer of Magellan Midstream Holdings
GP, LLC, the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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 Partnership.



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ Don R. Wellendorf                     
|                                          
|Don R. Wellendorf, Chief Executive Officer
|Date: November 6, 2007                    

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership
and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 52997.

#### Park & Tilford Import Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 132170-K, etc. (Louisville).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
Appendixes

Appendix A: Technical Experts and Peer Reviewers

Technical Experts

Nancy Barnett 

Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice

Center

Bob Bryant

American Pharmaceutical Association

Mary-Margaret Chren 

American Academy of Dermatology

Tsu-Yi Chuang 

American Academy of Dermatology

Bernard (Buddy) Cohen

Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice

Center

Anne Eady 

Skin Collaborative Review Group, Cochrane

Collaboration

Evan R. Farmer

American Academy of Dermatology

James Herbert

American Academy of Pediatrics/Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine

Alain Joffe

Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice

Center

Daniel Krowchuk

American Academy of Pediatrics

Anne W. Lucky 

American Academy of Dermatology

Gary Peck 

American Academy of Dermatology

John Strauss

Society for Investigational Dermatology/

American Academy of Dermatology 

Peer Reviewers (Affiliation)

Pat Alguire

Society for General Internal Medicne

Martin Fisher 

Society for Adolescent Medicine

Kathleen C. Teets Grimm

American Academy of Pediatrics/Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine

Martin Mahoney

American Academy of Family Practitioners 

Alan Moshell

National Institute of Arthritis,

Musculoskeletal, and Skin Diseases

Alan R. Shalita

American Academy of Dermatology

Diane Thiboutot

Society for Investigative Dermatology

Jonathan D.K. Trager

Society for Adolescent Medicine

Barbara Yawn 

American Academy of Family Practitioners
September 18, 2015

Mr. William Granruth

President

Osprey Imaging, LLC

261 Mill Street

Greenwich, CT 06830

Dear Mr. Granruth:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

§ § 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b), 91.103(b), 91.105, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121,

91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) and (b), and

part 21, Subpart H, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we

can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your May 19, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Osprey Imaging, LLC filed

in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2080 , but we are unable to process your request any further. Your

petition does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exempti on.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
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 Defendants Kennedy, Stiles, and Vance’s Request for Extension of Time

1

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

JAMES M. HUMES

Chief Assistant Attorney General

FRANCES T. GRUNDER

Senior Assistant Attorney General

DAVID A. CARRASCO

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

BARBARA A. MORRIS, State Bar No. 137680

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 322-3870

Fax: (916) 324-5205

Email: Barbara.Morris@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants Kennedy, Stiles and Vance

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

STEWART MANAGO,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. KNOWLES, et al. ,

Defendants.

2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS

KENNEDY, STILES, AND VANCE’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Court grants Defendants Kennedy, Stiles, and

Vance’s request for a three-week extension of time to and including Friday, January 19, 2007, in

which to file a responsive pleading. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2007.

DAD:4

mana1712.eot

Case 2:04-cv-01712-FCD-DAD Document 31 Filed 01/04/07 Page 1 of 1
No.6534.

#### E. C. HOTARD vs. CHAS. V. FEY.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of fact.

Appeal from the 27th Judicial District 'Court, Parish of St. James, No. 2922. Honorable Charles T. Wortham, Judge.

R. J. Chauvin, for plaintiff and appellee.

F. P. Teissier, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the-opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The defendant contracted in his own name to haul certain cross ties for a railroad company for which he receved $450.00. Plaintiff was to receive one-half of the net profits for overseeing the work.

It is contended by defendant that the contract was made on behalf of his wife, but upon the sole ground that at the time he was administering for account of his wife •a plantation which was her separate property and the teams to be used belonged to said plantation.

*204Opinion and decree, February 14th, 1916.

Rehearing refused, March 13th, 1916.

But this is a non sequitur, since hauling for outside parties was no part of the plantation work, and the contrary is implied by the fact that plaintiff, although a salaried employee of the plantation, was to receive extra compensation for his' services in this matter.

The trial Judge fixed the plaintiff’s share in the net profits at $146.32 for which he gave judgment.

In fixing these profits the trial Judge found that the labor, that is wages of drivers, amounted to $54.06. It is contended that he should have found $112.50, that is to say, 90 days at $1.25. This is upon the hypothesis that none but two mule teams were used in doing the work, the contract being “five dollars a day per pair of mules, and a driver with slip or cart. ’ ’ (Frey, p. 29.)

But the railroad paid $10.00 per day for four mule .teams (Hotard, p. 9) and the original memorandum of the work done (Document 31) offered by defendant himself (Hotard’s testimony, p. 18j shows that four mule wagons were used almost exclusively; and the railroad company paid on that basis.

The judgment appealed from seems to- us correct.

Judgment-affirmed.
Exhibit 13.(a).1






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 Annual Report of Partner Communications Company Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:




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.




Date: June 8, 2010




By: /s/ David Avner

——————————————

Name: David Avner

Title: Chief Executive Officer




Date: June 8, 2010




By: /s/ Emanuel Avner

——————————————

Name: Emanuel Avner

Title: Chief Financial Officer
# C_2006149EN.01000601.xml

| 27.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 149/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 149/6

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 395th meeting on 3 October 2005 concerning a draft decision in cases COMP/36.623, COMP/36.820 and COMP/37.275 — SEP and others/Automobiles Peugeot SA

(2006/C 149/05)

| 1. | A majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine determined according to the gravity and duration of the infringement in the present case. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine determined according to the gravity and duration of the infringement in the present case. A minority abstains.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the absence of reduction or increase of the basic amount due to the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the absence of reduction or increase of the basic amount due to the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance in the present case.

| 3. | A majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine in the present case. A minority abstains. |
| --- | --- |

3.

A majority of the members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine in the present case. A minority abstains.

| 4. | The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

| 5. | The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

---