alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43015-43016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21063]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act

    Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on July 23, 1997, a 
proposed Consent Decree in United States v. TurboCombustor Technology, 
Inc., Civil Action No. 97-14274-CIV-KLR was lodged with the United 
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
    In this action the United States sought to recover civil penalties 
and enjoin violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1319, for 
discharges from TurboCombustor Technology, Inc.'s (``TCT'') facility in 
Stuart, Florida. The United States alleged that TCT discharged low pH 
wastewater in violation of effluent limitations contained in the 
National General Pretreatment Standards regulations, 40 CFR part 403. 
The Consent Decree provides for a $200,000 civil penalty, enjoins 
discharges of low pH wastewater, and further requires monitoring and 
sampling of wastewater, evaluation of the facility for wastewater 
minimization, and reporting of results from environmental audits at the 
facility and at other facilities owned by TCT's parent company.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General 
of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States v. 
TurboCombustor Technology, Inc., D.J. Ref. 90-5-1-1-4329.
    The consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, 99 N.E. 4th Street, 4th 
Fl, Miami, FL 33132, at U.S. EPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 
Atlanta, GA 30303, and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, 
NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the 
consent decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In 
requesting a copy, please enclose a

[[Page 43016]]

check in the amount of $10.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Walker B. Smith,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-21063 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
CARB 134a use exemption for HFC 134a dusting gas 

The use of 134a is allowed under the exception in the definition stated below for 

Energized equipment

“Pressurized Gas Duster” means a pressurized product labeled to remove dust from a 

surface solely by means of mass air or gas flow, including surfaces such as photographs, 

photographic film negatives, computer keyboards, and other types of surfaces that cannot 

be cleaned with solvents. “Pressurized Gas Duster” does not include “Dusting Aid,” 

“General Purpose Cleaner,” “Electrical Cleaner,” “Electronic Cleaner,” “Energized 

Electrical Cleaner,” or “Anti-Static Product.” “Pressurized Gas Duster” does not include 

products labeled exclusively to remove dust from equipment where dust removal is 

accomplished when: electric current exists; residual electrical potential from a component 

such as a capacitor exists; or an open flame exists, as long as the “Principal Display

Panel” clearly displays the statement: “Energized Equipment use only.”
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY

GLOBAL ACCESS FOR AMERICA 19 March 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/AGC-10

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3OF HQ AFFSA/AJW31AF Bldg 4, Room 107

6500 S. MacArthur Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73169

SUBJECT: FAR Exemption 131L (R egulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9519)

1. FAR Exemption 131, was granted to the United States Air Force on 20 Sep 72, as amended by 131L on 9 Jul 2010, it exempts us from the provisions of Section 91.159 of 14 CFR that govern operatons for flights conducted under visual flight rules. Our requirement to conduct hurricane reconnaissance flights under the provisions of this exemption remains unchanged and we hereby request an extension, IAW 14 CFR Part 11.

2. As operations under this exemption have been safely conducted for the past forty years, the Air Force requests your consideration in approving the renewal of this exemption. Please contact me with any questions at (405) 734-8424 or e-mail: hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil

.

ALAN W. MYRICK, Major, USAF Flight Standards Division
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       5,750,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  447,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,000
<INVENTORY>                                    671,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,415,000
<PP&E>                                       1,349,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 571,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,892,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,452,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        4,856,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,662,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,892,000
<SALES>                                      1,377,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,377,000
<CGS>                                          834,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  834,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,004,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,504,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,507,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,507,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
23


Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements:




(1)
              Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-56623) pertaining to the Cintas Corporation
      Partners’ Plan,(2)
              Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-23228) pertaining to the Incentive Stock Option
      Plan,(3)
              Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-44654) pertaining to the 1999 Stock Option
      Plan,(4)
              Registration
      Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-78085),(5)
              Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-1102221) pertaining to the 2003 Director’s
      Stock Option Plan, and(6)
              Registration
      Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-131375) pertaining to the 2005 Equity
      Compensation Plan




of our
report dated July 25, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Cintas Corporation, our report dated July 25, 2008, with respect
to Cintas Corporation management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Cintas Corporation, and our report on the financial
statement schedule of Cintas Corporation (appearing below) included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Cintas Corporation.





Our
audits included the financial statement schedule of Cintas Corporation listed in
Item 15(a). This schedule is the responsibility of Cintas Corporation's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, as to which the date is July 25, 2008, the financial statement
schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial
statements taken as a whole, present fairly in all material respects the
information set forth therein.











/s/ Ernst
& Young LLP








Cincinnati,
Ohio


July 25,
2008






















70
I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NO T FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED FEL ICETTI LAW FIRM, PLLC ,

Case No. 5D 21

- 1531 LT Case No. 2019

- CA

- 001453

- O Appellant ,
v. ANTONIO DE JESUS, TRUGREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND KENNETH MICHAEL TAYLOR ,

Appellee s. _____________________________/ Opinion filed July 8, 2022 Appeal f rom t he Circuit C ourt for Orange County , Emerson R. T hompson, Jr., Seni or Judge. Nichol as A. S hannin and Carol B

. S hannin, of

S hannin Law F irm, P .A. , Orlando , f or Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee s.

WOZNIAK , J. The Felic e tti Law Firm , PLLC ( “t he Firm”), form er counsel for Appellee Antonio De Jesus, appeals the order granti ng De Jesus’s motion to strike t he charging li en and deeming t he lien waived as a sanction for the Firm’s2 counsel’s actions. The Firm argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in striking its charging lien where no sanctionable conduct occurred and, even if a sanction were appropriate, the ultimate sanction of dismissal was too severe. Because no factual findings were made to support the sanction , and because the record does not support the sanction imposed ,
we must reverse. See Kozel v. Ostendorf , 629 So. 2d 817 , 818 (Fla. 1993) (listing factors to be considered, including whether counsel’s disobedience was willful, deliberate, or contumacious, in determining whether dismissal is warranted; observing that if a sanction less than dismissal is a viable alternative, the lesser sanction should be employed). In light of the conduct at issue, we remand to the trial court to consider whether lesser sanctions

— or any sanctions

— are appropriate ; any sanctions imposed must be supported by written factual findings.

R EVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

ED WARDS and HARRIS , JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21447]



[[Page 43561]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 
20549

Extension:
    Rule 30d-1, SEC File No. 270-21, OMB Control No. 3235-0025

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 30d-1, under the Investment Company Act of 1940, ``Reports to 
Stockholders of Management Companies'' prescribes the minimum content 
of reports to shareholders that every registered investment company 
must send at least semi-annually, containing the information specified 
by the statute or its equivalent as the Commission may determine to be 
in the interest of the investors. The reports are required in order to 
inform current shareholders of the status of the company. The rule 
requires approximately 602 hours annually for each of the 3,850 
respondents equalling 2,317,700 total annual burden hours.
    The estimates of burden hours set forth above are made solely for 
the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a 
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the cost of SEC 
rules and forms.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) 
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Michael E. Bartell, 
Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20549.

    Dated: August 7, 1997.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21447 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
# C_2015016EN.01001102.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/11

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa — Portugal) — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

(Case C-665/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - National legislation establishing salary reductions for certain public sector employees - No implementation of EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2015/C 016/16)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

Defendant: Via Directa — Companhia de Seguros SA

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of the present request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal do Trabalho de Lisboa (Portugal), by order of 28 October 2013 (Case C-665/13).

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6113

MICHAEL DUCHELLE GREEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LES OSBORNE, Judge; DANNY FOX, Sheriff,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (CA-04-735-3)

Submitted: July 27, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005

Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Duchelle Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Duchelle Green appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his civil action without prejudice for failure to comply

with a court order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Green v. Osborne, No. CA04-735-3 (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 2005). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42241-42242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-153-004]


Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

July 31, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 28, 1997, Granite Gas Transmission, Inc. 
(Granite State) filed the pro forma revised tariff sheets listed below 
in its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1:

Second Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 202
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 205
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 210
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 211
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 273
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 274

[[Page 42242]]

Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 305

    According to Granite State, the purpose of its filing is to comply 
with the Commission's order issued June 26, 1997 in Docket No. RP97-
153-002 which required Granite State to refile tariff sheets to comply 
with Order No. 587-C to reflect GISB Standards Version 1.1 which are to 
be implemented on November 1, 1997. Granite State asserts that the pro 
forma tariff sheets reflect GISB Standards Version 1.1 for standards 
1.3.7, 1.3.14, 1.3.23, 2.3.9 and 5.3.22, as required by the June 26, 
1997 order.
    Granite States states that copies of its filing were served on its 
firm and interruptible customers, the regulatory agencies of the states 
of Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and the intervenors in 
Docket No. RP97-137-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20709 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### James Henry COULSON et ux. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF JACKSON COUNTY, Mississippi, et al.

No. 49503.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 27, 1977.

Mills & Perkins, Robert T. Mills, Moss Point, for appellant.

Megehee, Brown & Williams, Raymond L. Brown, Pascagoula, for appellee.

Appeal from Special Eminent Domain Court, Jackson County, O. L. McLeod, Judge.

*428Before PATTERSON, P. J., and SMITH and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CARREKER
ANTINORI, INC.'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                          20,701
<SECURITIES>                                    12,849
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,876
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,272
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,571
<PP&E>                                           5,567
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,736
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,454
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           184
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,947
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,736
<SALES>                                            774
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,017
<CGS>                                              560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,175
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   708
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,075
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,903
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,172
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,172
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1245 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1245

  To suspend temporarily the duty on phosphoric acid, lanthanum salt, 
                         cerium terbium-doped.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 14, 2005

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on phosphoric acid, lanthanum salt, 
                         cerium terbium-doped.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PHOSPHORIC ACID, LANTHANUM SALT, CERIUM TERBIUM-DOPED.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.04.76       Phosphoric acid,   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         lanthanum salt,                                                    31/2009
                         cerium terbium-
                         doped (CAS No.
                         95823-34-0)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         3206.50.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```