alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An equal opportunity employer 

Thomas M. Gray 

211(b) Technical Manager 

1220 L Street, Northwest

Washington, DC 20005-4070

Tel 202-682-8480 

Fax 202-682-8270 

E-mail grayt@api.org

December 27, 2011 

Byron J. Bunker, 

Acting Division Director 

Compliance Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

2000 Traverwood Drive 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation: Final Submission 

for 211(b) (Docket No. A-90-07) 

Final Report: Gasoline TAME Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity 

Study in Rats with Neurotoxicity Assessments and a 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and 

Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6128) 

Dear Mr. Karl Simon: 

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is submitting the 

following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) Alternative Tier 2 requirements of 

the testing regulation: 

 Final Report: Gasoline TAME Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole Body Inhalation Toxicity 

Study in Rats with Neurotoxicity Assessments and a 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and 

Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6128)

The Final Report has undergone review by two independent peer-reviewers, outside QA/QC, the 211(b) Technical 

Workgroup, and EPA (Hauchman to Oge, December 9, 2010). Therefore the final report is being submitted to 

you at the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, as part 

of the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 211(b)(2) and 211(e) (Docket No. A-90-07). 

If you require further information or have any questions regarding this submission, please contact me. 

Regards, 

Thomas M. Gray, M.S., DABT 

Encl (2): Final report: Gasoline TAME Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity Study 

in Rats with Neurotoxicity Assessments and a 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and Immunotoxicity 

Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6128) 

 

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

----

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES – OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, David John Grigson, Finance Director of Reuters Group PLC (the “Company”) hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes – Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

a) The Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Form 20-F”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

b) The information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

 

| Dated: 9 March 2005 |   | By /s/ David J Grigson          |
|---------------------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                |   |                            |
|                |   | David J GrigsonFinance Director |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Security Intelligence
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Ben Jamil, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Chris R.
Decker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
to the best of my knowledge and belief that:

(1) the Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  May 17, 2005                                 /s/ Ben Jamil
                                                     -------------
                                                     Ben Jamil
                                                     Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  May 17, 2005                                 /s/ Chris R. Decker
                                                     -------------------
                                                     Chris R. Decker

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2855-2856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-929]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-892)


Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the People's Republic of China: 
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Trainor or Terre Keaton, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4007 
or (202) 482-1280, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 7, 2006, the Department of Commerce (``Department'') 
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the first 
antidumping duty administrative review of carbazole violet pigment 23 
(CVP-23) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering the period 
June 24, 2004, through November 30, 2005. See Carbazole Violet Pigment 
23 from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Rescission in Part, 71 FR 
65073 (November 7, 2006). The final results for this administrative 
review are currently due no later than March 7, 2007.

Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results

    Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act''), requires the Department to issue the final results of an 
administrative review within 120 days after the date on which

[[Page 2856]]

the preliminary results are published. If it is not practicable to 
complete the review within that time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of 
the Act allows the Department to extend the deadline for the final 
results by a maximum of 180 days.
    The Department requires additional time to consider complex issues 
raised by interested parties, particularly with respect to surrogate 
values. Thus, it is not practicable to complete this review within the 
original time limit. Therefore, the Department is extending the time 
limit for completion of the final results by 60 days, in accordance 
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final results are now due not 
later than May 7, 2007, the next business day after 180 days from 
publication of the preliminary results.
    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with 
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: January 17, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-929 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,090
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,761
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     58,504
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               263,258
<PP&E>                                         394,761
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,962
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 629,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          183,943
<BONDS>                                        293,804
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           69,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,341
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,846
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   629,506
<SALES>                                        169,292
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,292
<CGS>                                          144,058
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  161,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,468)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,503
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,241
<INCOME-TAX>                                       752
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                572
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       572
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 0025

_____________________________
J AMES M C K AY ,
Petitioner
,

v.

M ARK S. I NCH , S ecretary , F lorida D epartment o f C orrections
, Respondent

.

____________________________ _

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

February 27, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. See Baker v. State , 878 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 2004).

R OBERTS , W ETHERELL , and M AKAR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until dispo sition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 James McKay, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee for Respondent

.
No. 50707.

#### Protest 56347-K of Sol Levy (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the. Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
<PAGE>


                                     Exhibit 10.2

                               EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE PLAN
                                   AMENDMENT NO. 5

         WHEREAS, Wallace Computer Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), has heretofore adopted and maintains a bonus plan for the benefit of
certain of its employees designated the "Wallace Computer Services, Inc. 
Executive Incentive Plan" (the "Plan");

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in
Section 7(a) of the Plan, Section 2(a) of the Plan is amended in its entirety
to read as follows:

         (a)   The term "Committee" shall mean the Compensation Committee of
    the Company's Board of Directors, which shall consist of not fewer than two
    members of the Company's Board of Directors, each of whom shall be a "Non-
    Employee Director" within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 under the Securities
    Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this instrument to be
executed by its duly authorized officers this 6th day of November, 1996.

                                  WALLACE COMPUTER SERVICES, INC.



                                  BY:  /s/  Robert J. Cronin
                                     -------------------------
                                        By:  Robert J. Cronin
                                             President


ATTEST:


BY:  /s/ Michael T. Laudizio
   ---------------------------
      By:  Michael T. Laudizio
           Secretary
#### Mary RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-02389.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 23, 1998.

*40PER CURIAM.

Mary Richardson appeals the summary denial of her motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. The trial court denied Richardson’s motion on the basis that it was untimely filed because it addressed a conviction that became final in 1988. The trial court attached copies of the 1988 judgment and sentences to its order. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Richardson was convicted in 1988 of racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, and conspiracy to traffic in illegal drugs. She was sentenced to five years in prison, followed by ten years’ probation, all pursuant to a negotiated plea. She did not appeal this judgment and sentence. In 1990, she violated her probation. Her present motion challenges the conviction and sentence which the trial court imposed in 1990 for this violation of probation.

We agree with the trial court that most of Richardson’s claims are untimely raised. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b). Therefore, with one exception explained below, we affirm the trial court’s order under review.

Richardson raises a claim relating to score-sheet calculations which may be raised at any time under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). *See, e.g., Glanton v. State,*705 So.2d 945 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)(stating that erroneous scoresheet calculation was apparent from the face of the record and therefore correctable under rule 3.800(a)). Even though Richardson styled her motion as having been brought via rule 3.850, it would be in the interest of justice to treat any claims cognizable under rule 3.800(a) as having been raised in such a motion. *See DeSantis v. State,*400 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); *Fenter v. State,*632 So.2d 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

There is nothing attached to the order under review that refutes Richardson’s claim that the trial court used an incorrectly calculated scoresheet when sentencing her for the violation of probation in the 1988 case. Accordingly, we remand this cause for the trial court to examine this particular claim. If the trial court determines that it is without merit, it shall attach to its order of denial the relevant portions of the record which support its conclusion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

CAMPBELL, AC.J., and FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
#### N. S. Meyer, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6830.

Entry No. 700188.

Invoice dated London, England, May 3, 1946.

Certified May 7, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 2, 1946.

(Decided January 31, 1947)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2017283EN.01003402.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Badica and Kardiam v Council

(Case T-619/15) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in the Central African Republic - Freezing of funds - Initial decision to list - List of persons and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicants’ names - Implementation of a UN resolution - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of defence - Presumption of innocence - Manifest error of assessment))

(2017/C 283/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Bureau d’achat de diamant Centrafrique (Badica) (Bangui, Central African Republic) and Kardiam (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: D. Luff and L. Defalque, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1485 of 2 September 2015 implementing Article 17(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 224/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Central African Republic (OJ 2015 L 229, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Bureau d’achat de diamant Centrafrique (Badica) and Kardiam to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Bureau d’achat de diamant Centrafrique (Badica) and Kardiam to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL  Health  Care  Properties,  Inc.  at  December  31,  1999,  and its
statement  of income for the twelve  months then ended and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to the Form 10-K of CNL Health Care  Properties,  Inc. for
the twelve months ended December 31, 1999.

</LEGEND>

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         4,744,222
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,088,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5,400
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,286,737
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,088,560
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               86,231
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (28,390)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (28,390)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (28,390)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.07)
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature  of  its industry, CNL Health Care Properties, Inc. has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and liabilities.
</FN>




</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10.44


                                  AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                         TO
                           WERNER HOLDING CO. (PA), INC.
                                STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
                                --------------------

The Werner Holding Co. (PA), Inc. Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby
amended as follows:

     1.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Option Agreement,
         whenever pursuant to applicable provisions of the Options Agreement the
         Optionee shall have the right to put Option Shares to the Company or
         another entity following termination of Optionee's employment and such
         Option Shares have not been held by Optionee for at least six (6)
         months as of the date of such termination, in each such case the
         periods during which the put rights and call rights attributable to
         such Option Shares may be exercised shall not commence until such
         Options Shares have been held by Optionee for six (6) months.

     2.  All other provisions of the Plan unchanged hereby shall continue in
         full force and effect.

Pursuant to Werner Holding Co. (PA), Inc. Board of Directors action dated
December 15, 1999.
#### STATE ex rel. Stanley LAY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 98-KH-2173.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 15, 1999.

IN RE: Lay, Stanley; — Plaintiffs); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. “A” Number 308-971; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 98KW-1497

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

TRAYLOR, J. not on panel.