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

Agency Correspondence 















United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Midwest Regional Office HNRP: KS, NE, MI, MN

c/o Agate Fossil Beds National Monument

301 River Road

Harrison, NE 69346

 IN REPLY REFER TO:

H3417 (MWR-CR/HNRP)

May 26, 2011

David Valenstein

Chief, Environment and Systems Planning

U. S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Valenstein:

Thank you for submitting for National Park Service (NPS) review documentation related to the proposed 

Dearborn Rail Passenger Intermodal Station (DRPIS), in Dearborn, Wayne County, Michigan. Per 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, among other resources your office has identified 

are two National Historic Landmark (NHL) properties within the area of potential effect (APE): the 

Greenfield Village/the Henry Ford Museum and Fair Lane. As Federal administrator of the NHL 

program, the NPS is responsible for monitoring NHLs. 

We concur with the APE, and concur with the determination of no adverse effect. The information 

provided confirms that there will be no direct adverse impact on either NHL. We agree that the view of 

the proposed construction from areas within the Henry Ford , including the multi-story station and 

pedestrian overpass, would be partially camouflaged by existing trees and additional plantings associated 

with the proposed undertaking. The dense wooded area of the southern end of the Fair Lane NHL screens 

views of the APE from the interior of that NHL. We appreciate that the schematic designs dated 15 

October 2010 reflect consideration of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties regarding new construction in the architectural reference to the Edison Institute’s 

roundhouse. We concur that other aspects of the proposed construction, including creation of a new 

walkway following an existing walkway within the Greenfield Village NHL, installation of additional 

landscaping and a plaza, would not be visually intrusive to the nearby contributing buildings. Finally, we 

concur that given the presence of Michigan Avenue and the existing rail line, there will not be new 

atmospheric or audible elements introduced to either NHL. 

If you have questions, please contact me at 308-436-9797, or via electronic mail at 

dena_sanford@nps.gov.

Sincerely,

Dena Sanford, Architectural Historian

National Register Programs
cc:

Mr. Nicholas Chevance, Regional Environmental Coordinator, Planning and Compliance, National Park 

Service Midwest Regional Office, 601 Riverfront Drive, Omaha, NE 68102

Mr. Brian Conway, State Historic Preservation Officer, Michigan Housing Development Authority

702 W. Kalamazoo St., P.O. Box 30740, Lansing, MI 48909-8240
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 74 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.74
                                     Agreed to December 22, 2005        

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2863) making appropriations 
for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2006, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
shall make the following corrections:
    Strike Division C, the American Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2005 and Division D, the Distribution of Revenues and Disaster 
Assistance.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
### Regula t ory Evaluation 

# --:J-o 1



# ~ 

# -c 

# c-::- a)_ "-t-1 

# + 

# o Docket No. FAA

- Direc t orate Identifier:

-

**...-Af)**

**~** 

## If

you make changes to the values in the table below, you mu\t ensure the totals update accordingzv
. 

## If the} do not, click (or Tab) into and then out oftht changed cell
. Estimated Costs: Act i on C o s t s per P roduct ( e .g. , aircraft, engine , prop eller, app l iance) (e. g., Inspect ion, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of T otal Co st

replac em ent) ( include cost (l abor + 

## u.s . for U .S. Fleet Do no t in clud e oncondition co sts here acces s , testing , (@$85/h parts) Registered and close

- up) our) Products Inspect i o n - 1. 0 106 Lockin_g_ F o rce · Inspection

- Bell 1. 0 106 Crank



### '

•

The known number of products in compliance: T o tal Costs of compliance for 

### U.S. fleet: $18 , 02 0 Costs covered under warranty 

### ( if 

### kno w n) $ On-Condition Costs: Action Work

- hours Labo r cost Parts Cost Cost p er Product (e.g
. , In spection, (include acce ss, (@$85/hour) te s ting, and clo se- replacemen t) up) Replacement 5.0 $566 Install Inspection 15.0 $1,004 Openings

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvio us. This field c an also be used to explain warranty costs ) : 

## The two Parts Cost estimates include the shipping estimate to the United States. Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory action" ? 

# @ YES* 

# 0 N0[8] *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? 

# G YES* 

# 0 N0(8] *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. 

# G YES 

# 0 N0[8] Explanation: This AD only affects 

### 106 US registered gliders. 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: Thi s AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to 

### include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? 

## G) YES* 

# D N0[8] *Explanation:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements contained in the Company's Form 10-QSB and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                               16098643
<SECURITIES>                         1757246
<RECEIVABLES>                        69103
<ALLOWANCES>                         0
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     17924992
<PP&E>                               908616
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       23082823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                664849
<BONDS>                              0
<COMMON>                             524157
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<OTHER-SE>                           20265116
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         23082823
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     722110
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        448175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      276817
<INCOME-TAX>                         95000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  181817
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                         181817
<EPS-BASIC>                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0


</TABLE>
Waiver Letter between the Company and RBC Bank



 Exhibit 10.1 
 COMPUTER SOFTWARE INNOVATIONS, INC. 
 900 East Main Street, Suite T 
 Easley, South Carolina 29640 
 August 8,
2008 
 RBC Bank (USA) 
 Attn: Mr. Charles Arndt 

531 South Main Street, 2nd Floor 
 Greenville, SC 29601 
 RE: Operating Lease Program for Fleet Cars 
 Dear Mr. Arndt: 
 This letter is being provided to you in connection with the Second Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement dated September 14, 2007 (as
amended, the “Loan Agreement”) and other documents described or contemplated therein or related thereto (the “Loan Documents”) between Computer Software Innovations, Inc. (the “Borrower” or “CSI”) and RBC Bank
(USA) (formerly, RBC Centura Bank, the “Bank”). Specifically, this letter concerns potential defaults or violations of certain covenants under the Loan Documents arising out of our proposed program of utilizing operating leases for fleet
cars in an aggregate acquisition amount of up to $1.5 million (the “Operating Leases”). An email from me to you dated August 7, 2008 described the program. The Operating Lease program has not yet been consummated by CSI. 

Capitalized terms otherwise not defined in this letter shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Loan Agreement. 
 Upon our entering into the Operating Leases, certain covenants contained in the Loan Documents may be violated, including, but not necessarily limited
to, Section 7.4, prohibiting us from entering into any further Indebtedness. The Loan Agreement definition of “Indebtedness” includes “Contingent Obligations,” which may include the Operating Leases. 
 Violations of these covenants may trigger default clauses in the Loan Documents. To that end, we respectfully request that the Bank grant a waiver of any
default provisions or covenants contained in the Loan Documents which will be triggered by the Operating Leases, except for any financial covenants. 
 If our request is acceptable to the Bank, please indicate your assent by affixing your signature and the date below, and returning a copy of this letter to me and our legal counsel, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP, to the
attention of William L. Pitman. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request. Please call me if you have any questions concerning any of the foregoing. 
  

	
	Yours very truly,
	
	 /s/ David B. Dechant

	David B. Dechant
	Chief Financial Officer









 ON BEHALF OF RBC CENTURA BANK, THE REQUEST 
 FOR WAIVER ABOVE IS ACCEPTED. 
  

			
	Date: August 8, 2008
	
	RBC BANK (USA)
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Charles Arndt

		 	Charles Arndt
		
	Its:	 	Market Executive – South Carolina Markets
Case No. 8,002.

#### LAMALERE v. CAZE.

[1 Wash. C. C. 413.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1806.

Evidence — Deposition—Immaterial Statements —CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS IN ANOTHER Case — Discreditino Witness.

1.If a witness, íd a deposition, on his cross-examination, states as facts circumstances not pertinent to the cause, which he has said or sworn in another cause, in which these circumstances were pertinent; the statement cannot be read to discredit him.

2. Aliter. if he has, on a former occasion, said or sworn differently from what he now deposes, in a matter relative to the cause, in which his deposition is read.

[Cited in Howland v. Conway, Case No. 6,-793.]

[Cited in Lightfoot v. People, 16 Mich. 514.]

3. The captain’s protest may be read, to contradict what he states in his examination in this cause, in order to discredit him.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States^, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr. Esq.]

In this case, It was ruled, that If a witness, in a deposition on cross-interrogatories, states, as facts, circumstances not pertinent to the cause, what he has said, or sworn in another case, where those circumstances were pertinent, cannot be read to discredit him. Aliter, if he has on a former occasion, said or sworn, differently from what he now deposes, in a matter relative to the cause in which his deposition is read. Secondly. That the captain’s protest may be read, to contradict what he states in his examination in the cause, in order to discredit him.

[For another case between the same parties, see Case No. 8,003.]
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# How to pay for your health career education: a guide for disadvantaged students

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  How to pay for your health career education: a guide for disadvantaged students 
                    -           Creator        
                    -  United States. Health Resources Administration 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  United States. Health Resources Administration 
                    -           Description        
                    -  Verso is a health career wall poster. 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1980-1990 
                    -           Series Title        
                    -  DHHS publication ; no. (HRA) 80-612 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  161 × 92 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at the University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  index.cpd 

Part of: How to pay for your health career education: a guide for disadvantaged students (2 objects)     Next

How to pay for your health career education: a guide for disadvantaged students

How to pay for your health career education: a guide for disadvantaged students

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
January 3, 1941

No. 45122.

#### Protests 981907-G, etc., of Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Abstract 44820. Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23759]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 256

[DoD Instruction 4165.57]

Air Installations Compatible Use Zones

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule removes the DoD's rule concerning air 
installations compatible use zones. The underlying DoD Instruction has 
been revised and it has been determined that there is no need to 
publish the revised DoD Instruction as a rule in the Code of Federal 
Regulations since the Instruction is for the internal management of the 
DoD.

DATES: Effective Date: September 16, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Patricia L. Toppings at 703-696-
5284.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the current DoD Instruction may be 
obtained from http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/416557p.pdf.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 256

    Armed forces; airports; environmental protection; Federal buildings 
and facilities; navigation (air); noise control.

PART 256--[REMOVED]

0
Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 256 is 
removed.

    Dated: August 24, 2011.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-23759 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
# C_2007140EN.01002103.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 May 2007 — Black & Decker v OHIM — Atlas Copco (Three-dimensional representations of two yellow and black electric power tools)

(Joined Cases T-239/05, T-240/05, T-245/05 to T-247/05, T-255/05, T-274/05 to T-280/05) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Opposition period - Transmission by telecopier - Admissibility - Clear indentification of the earlier trade mark - Rule 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

(2007/C 140/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Black & Decker (Towson, Maryland, United States) (represented by: H. Carr QC and P. Harris Solicitor)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Atlas Copco AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: R. Meade, Barrister, and M. Gilbert, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Thirteen actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2005 (R 727/2004-1, R 729/2004-1, R 723/2004-1, R 730/2004-1 and R 724/2004-1), of 27 April 2005 (R 722/2004-1) and of 3 May 2005 (R 788/2004-1, R 789/2004-1, R 790/2004-1, R 791/2004-1, R 792/2004-1, R 793/2004-1 and R 794/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Atlas Copco AB and The Black & Decker Corporation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.

1

---
November 18, 1971

No. 71-40

#### Joseph C. Cook, SGT, U. S. Marine Corps v CAPT R. M. Mallard, USMC, Commanding Officer, Marine Barracks, Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire and LCDR R. L. Wilkins, Judge Advocate General Corps, USN, Military Judge, Law Center, Headquarters, First Naval District.

On consideration of the “Petition for Writ for Extraordinary Relief”, and of the “Government Response to Order to Show Cause”, it appearing that no action taken by the respondents tends to defeat this Court’s jurisdiction ultimately to review petitioner’s conviction, if any, or to impair this Court’s power to grant meaningful relief for any error which may appear upon such review, it is, by the Court, this 18th day of November 1971,

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed.
Case No. 5,442.

#### GILMAN v. HERBERT.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 58.] 3

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1812.

Sale — Fraudulent as to Creditors —Posses-siox.

A sale of goods in the possession of the vendor’s bailee, is fraudulent as to creditors, unless the possession accompany and follow the sale, or an order be given by the vendor, and served on the bailee, to deliver possession to the vendee.

Trover; for fifty barrels of salt, &c. Douglass, in May or June, 1810, being indebted to Gilman, agreed that he should have this property, which was then in the possession of Shuck, and gave Gilman a written order to Shuck to deliver the goods to Gilman, who neglected to give notice to Shuck of this order, until after Douglass had taken the oath of an insolvent debtor, and Herbert was appointed his trustee, and demanded the goods of Shuck as the property of Douglass.

Mr. Taylor, for defendant,

prayed the court to instruct the jury, that the sale under those circumstances, was fraudulent as to the creditors of Douglass, unless the jury should be satisfied by the evidence that the possession accompanied and followed the deed; .and that the order to Shuck did not transfer the possession from Douglass to Gilman, if notice of such order was not given to Shuck until after the discharge of Douglass under the insolvent law, and after the defendant had claimed them, as trustee.

Which opinion

THE COURT

gave (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent).

E. J. Lee took a bill of exceptions, but did not prosecute a writ of error.
# C_2007310EN.01003101.xml

| 20.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/31

---

Training of national judges in EC competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges

(2007/C 310/08)

A new call for proposals on training of national judges in EC competition law and judicial cooperation between national judges has been published on:

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/proposals2/

Deadline for application: 15 February 2008.

---
# C_2008141EN.01001102.xml

| 7.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/11

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4994 — Electrabel/Compagnie Nationale du Rhône)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 141/05)

On 29 April 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4994. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M4994. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---