alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

# 703rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadron Crew Chiefs Maintain More than Aircraft

By Airman 1st Class Crystal A. Jenkins

                JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, Alaska  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON703rd Aircraft Maintenance Squadronaircraftaircraft maintenancemaintenance
From: Ben Stavis <benstavis@verizon.net>

To: Michael Samulski/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 11/08/2010 08:19 PM

Subject: Re: Comment to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0270

Dear Mr. Samulski,

Thank you for calling me today and helping me understand the many issues involved in fuel 

tanks and containers.

You are correct that my views relate only to small portable gasoline cans that have spouts that 

are used to pour fuel into the small integral tanks of small gasoline engines, such as small 

outboard motors, lawn mowers, etc.

My comments do not refer to portable marine fuel tanks that transfer fuel to engines by way of 

plug-in hoses. I do not use such equipment and have no special insights about them.

I apologize that I did not understand the important distinction between a "portable gas can" (with 

a spout) and a "portable marine fuel tank" (with a hose).

So you are correct that my comments are outside the scope of your discussions concerning rules 

for portable marine fuel tanks.

I have redirected my comments to Lamar Mitchell, who is associated with the California Air 

Resources Board, which I think is the regulatory agency that is impacting the manufacture of the 

small gasoline cans.

Most Sincerely,

Ben Stavis
On 11/8/2010 5:03 PM, Samulski.Michael@epamail.epa.gov wrote: 

Mr Stavis,

It was good to speak with you today regarding your comments to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-

0270. I very much appreciate the time you took to so clearly share your thoughts.

It is my understanding that the concerns expressed in your letter are related to fill spouts and 

other aspects of new portable gas can designs. These portable gas cans are used to transfer 

fuel and to refuel gas tanks on marine engines, boats, and other equipment.

As we discussed today, while this is an important issue, portable gas cans are outside the scope 

of the recent Direct Final Rule regarding portable marine fuel tanks. Although there are some 

similarities in these products, the type of fuel tanks specifically addressed in the Direct Final Rule 

do not have fill spouts and are designed to be connected with a hose directly to an outboard 

marine engine.

I am sending this email simply to clarify that your comments are outside the scope of the Direct 

Final Rule for portable marine fuel tanks and were not intended to be adverse comments on the 

portable marine fuel tanks rule. 

Thank you,

Mike

**************************************************

Michael Samulski

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

2000 Traverwood Drive

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

(734) 214-4532

**************************************************
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Dimensions of Major Work Stoppages, 1947-59

              																	Bloch, Joseph W. (Joseph Walter)					 and 	Malnak, Julian. 						*Dimensions of Major Work Stoppages, 1947-59 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1298*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										June 1961,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4565,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
**EXHIBIT
      13.1**





**WRITTEN
      STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the annual report of NB Finance, Ltd. (the “Company”), for the
      period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on Form 20-F on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Martin Ouellet,
      President of the Company, certify 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 Company.








/s/ Martin Ouellet
              Martin
                Ouellet
              President





Dated: June
      16,
      2006





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company, and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
March 12, 1942

No. 47008.

#### Protest 980934-G of R. W. Gresham.

G. D. 589. Government’s motion for rehearing denied.
No. 96-7004.

#### Zamora *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# AFRL viewing aircraft inspections through the lens of technology

By Holly JordanAFRL Materials and Manufacturing Directorate

                WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

augmented realityNondestructive InspectionNDIinspectionAFRLAir Force Research Laboratorymaintenance
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60129 Summary Calendar
AMALIA REBECA CHAY-ZAPETA, Petitioner,

v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, US ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 022 915
Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Amalia Rebeca Chay-Zapeta (Chay), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding ofremoval. The IJ found that Chay’s testimony that a gang member had attempted to kill her brother while the family was living in Guatemala was credible. Chay argues that she was a member of a social group consisting of young Guatemalan women that was persecuted by gangs that United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 19, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-60129

2 targeted them for recruitment. She contends that the incident involving her brother establishes past persecution and that she has a well-founded fear of future persecution if she returns to Guatemala. We reviewthe BIA’s determination that an alien is not entitled to asylum or withholding ofremoval for substantial evidence and will not reverse the BIA’s decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). To obtain asylum, an applicant must demonstrate “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. E fe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 90 4 (5th Cir. 2002) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (2000)). The standard for obtaining withholding of removal is even higher, requiring a showing that it is more likely than not that the applicant’s life or freedom would be threatened by persecution on one of those grounds. I d. at 906. The BIA did not err in determining that Chay failed to demonstrate that she was a member of a particular social group entitled to protection. Her contention that as a young Guatemalan woman, she is a member ofa social group that gangs are targeting to recruit is overly broad and does not establish a meaningful basis for distinguishing her from other people. See Perez-Molina v. Gonzales, 193 F. App’x 313 (5th Cir. 2006); Sanchez-Trujillo v. INS, 801 F.2d 1571, 1576-77 (9th Cir. 1986). Additionally, she did not show that gang members had ever threatened her or attempted to recruit her. Accordingly, there is substantial evidence tosupport the BIA’s denial ofasylum and withholding of removal. See Efe , 293 F.3d at 904-06. The petition for review is DENIED.
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

BRYAN GERARD AND WILBERT 

GERARD 

VERSUS 

RANDOM BEAUX, LLC 

NO. 2022 CW 1299 

FEBRUARY 1, 2023 

In Re: East Baton Rouge Parish Housing Authority, applying 

for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, 

Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 698631. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, C.J., WOLFE AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT 

FOR THE COURT 

JMG 

EW 

SMM
(Reap. Dec. 9609)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., a/c United China & Glass Co. et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 9718, etc.

(Decided February 25, 1960)

*Stem é Shostah*for the plaintiffs.

*George Ooehran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement listed in the schedule of cases, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, that, at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States were the appraised values less additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar cases covering the nondutiable so-called f.o.b. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage, petties, etc., added by the importer on entry.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there were no higher foreign values for merchandise such or similar to the merchandies covered by the Appeals for Reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals for Reaper aisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold the export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved merchandise, and that such values were the appraised values, less additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering the nondutiable so-called f.o.b. charges for inland freight, *580insurance premiums, storage, hauling and lighterage, petties, etc., added by the importer on entry.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                           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 Quarterly Report of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Ho-Shang Lee, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Company.

/s/ Ho-Shang Lee
--------------------
Ho-Shang Lee
President and Chief Executive Officer
(chief executive officer)
February 13, 2003

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 59149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24952]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9935-07-Region 1]

2015 Fall Joint Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission and the 
Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is 
announcing the joint 2014 Fall Meeting of the Ozone Transport 
Commission (OTC) and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-
VU). The meeting agenda will include topics regarding reducing ground-
level ozone precursors and matters relative to Regional Haze and 
visibility improvement in Federal Class I areas in a multi-pollutant 
context.

DATES: The meeting will be held on November 5, 2015 starting at 9:15 
a.m. and ending at 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: (LOCATION) Hilton Baltimore at Camden Yards, 401 W. Pratt 
Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, (443) 573-8700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Cooke, (617) 918-1668, E-Mail: 
cooke.donald@epa.gov.
    For documents and press inquiries contact: Ozone Transport 
Commission, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 322, Washington, DC 
20001; (202) 508-3840; email: ozone@otcair.org; Web site: http://www.otcair.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain 
at Section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air 
Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR) 
comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The 
purpose of the OTC is to deal with ground-level ozone formation, 
transport, and control within the OTR.
    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) was formed at 
in 2001, in response to EPA's issuance of the Regional Haze rule. MANE-
VU's members include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Penobscot Indian Nation, the 
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe along with EPA and Federal Land Managers.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC 
office (202) 508-3840; by email: ozone@otcair.org or via the OTC Web 
site at http://www.otcair.org.

    Dated: September 15, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 2015-24952 Filed 9-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2468

_____________________________ S HARMON T RAWICK , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for E scambia County

. John L. Miller , Judge

. October 31, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , W INOKUR , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_ ____________________________ Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Lori A. Willner, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
No. 96-6070.

#### Lake *v.*Hope, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
# C_2016410EN.01001502.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto v EUIPO — University College London (CITRUS SATURDAY)

(Case T-400/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CITRUS SATURDAY - Earlier national word mark CITRUS - Late submission of documents - Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 19 and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2016/C 410/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ana Isabel Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pita Negrão, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: University College London (London, United Kingdom)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2015 (Case R 2109/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ms Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto and University College London.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ana Isabel Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ana Isabel Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---