alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHRISTOPHE R S
. BON D MISSOUR I APPROPRIATION S SMAL L BUSINES S 

# lanitc dState s Senat e ENVIRONMEN T AN D PUBLI C VVOnK

S WASHINGTON , D C 20510-250 3 INTELLIGENC E
. . - ~n ^ r \ Augus t 5 , 201 0 Denni s DeVany , Chie f EA S & Domesti c Analysi s Divisio n Offic e o f Aviatio n Analysi s U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Roo mW8630 8 1200 Ne w Jersey , S E Washington , D C 2059 0 RE : Jopli n Essential Ai r

Fundin g Dea r Mr . DeVany , It ha s bee n brough t

t o m y attentio n that

th e U S Departmen t

o f Transportatio n recentl y receive dtw o proposal s fromdifferent airline s t o provid e Essential Ai r Servic e t o th e Jopli n Regional Airport
. Th e Cit y o f Jopli n an dmember s o f

th e communit

y hav e carefull y weighe d eac h optio n andth e impac t

eac h proposal wil l hav e o n th e Jopli n community
. A s aresult , th e Jopli n Cit y Counci l unanimousl y selecte daproposal tha t wil l bes t servic e th e surroundin g communit y b y providin g tw o dail y flight s to alarger airpor t o n aschedul e that

wil l allo w fo

r th e succes s o f

th e airline
. Pleas e giv e th e Jopli n Cit y Counci l recommendatio n ful l an d favorabl e consideratio n whe n reviewin g Essential Ai r Servic e for

th e community
.
Sincerel y Christophe r
Order entered July 1 3 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00083
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF D.A., T.A., Y.A., CHILDREN On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Co urt

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 19
- 10975

O RDER The reporter’s record in this appeal has not been filed. By letter filed July 12, 2021, Yolanda Atkins, Official Court Reporter for the 255 th Judicial District Court, informs us that the u nderlying proceeding was heard in the Associate IV

- D Court where Cassandra Anderson is the official reporter

. Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. Anderson to file , no later than August 2, 2021, (1) the reporter’s record, (2) written verification no hearings were re corded, or (3) written verification appellant has not requested the record. Because the clerk’s record includes a statement of inability to afford costs filed by appellant and nothingbefore the Court reflects appellant has been ordered to pay costs, any record shall

be filed without payment of costs. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 145. We caution appellant that the appeal may be submitted without the reporter’s record should Ms. A nderson inform the Court the record has not been requested. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3 (c).
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Anderson and the parties. /s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. EC97-12-000]

San Diego Gas & Electric Company; Enova Energy, Inc.; Notice of 
Filing

January 28, 1997.
    Take Notice that on January 27, 1997, San Diego Gas & Electric 
Company (``SDG&E'') and Enova Energy, Inc. (``Enova Energy'') 
(collectively, the ``Applicants'') tendered for filing pursuant to 
Section 203 of the Federal Power Act (``FPA'') 16 U.S.C. 824(b) (1994), 
and Part 33 of the Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR Part 33, of the 
Commission's Regulations, 18 CFR Part 33, an application for an order 
approving a proposed business combination of Enova Corporation 
(``Enova'') and Pacific Energy (``Pacific''). SDG&E and Enova Energy 
are subsidiaries of Enova. Additionally, Ensource, a subsidiary of 
Pacific, joins in the application if and for so long as it is deemed to 
be a ``public utility'' under the FPA.
    Pursuant to a Combination Agreement, Pacific and Enova will become 
wholly owned subsidiaries of a new holding company which will, in turn 
be owned by the former shareholders of Pacific and Enova. The 
Applicants state that they have filed in Docket No. EL97-15-000 a 
petition for a declaratory order disclaiming jurisdiction over the 
proposed transaction. Grant of that petition, they state, would moot 
the application in this docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such motions or 
protests should be filed on or before March 28, 1997. 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-2541 Filed 1-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          50,995
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,002
<INVENTORY>                                     22,625
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               142,991
<PP&E>                                         360,355
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 747,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,026
<BONDS>                                        567,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   747,359
<SALES>                                        241,716
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               241,716
<CGS>                                          178,793
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  178,793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,993
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,173
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,002
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (829)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (18,658)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,487)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (19,487)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (19,487)
        

</TABLE>
#### CITY OF MIAMI, Appellant, v. John ROBINSON, Appellee.

No. 69-519.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 23, 1969.

Alan H. Rothstein, City Atty., and S. R. Sterbenz, Asst. City Atty., for appellant.

Calvin R. Mapp, Miami, for appellee.

*302Before PEARSON, C. J., BARKDULL, J., and FRIEDMAN, MILTON A., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellee was the defendant in the Municipal Court of the City of Miami. He was charged with failure to register a weapon under Docket #69-8111, and with unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon under Docket #69-8112.

Under the former charge, he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $250.-00 or, in default thereof, to serve thirty days. Under the latter charge, he was convicted and sentenced to thirty days or a fine of $250.00. Both docket entries indicate that the sentences were to run concurrently with the other.

The appellee filed a petition for habeas corpus in the circuit court, contending he was being illegally restrained because he was illegally charged as to the concealed weapon. Following return by the City, the circuit judge entered an order discharging the appellee from both sentences under the municipal court convictions.

We find no error in the circuit court’s action relative to the concealed weapon charge and affirm the discharge as to this offense. However, we find no basis for the circuit court’s order discharging the appellee from the conviction and sentence relating to possession of an unregistered gun [under Docket #69-8111]. The ap-pellee contends that, pursuant to the authority of Roberts v. State, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 152, one of the convictions being illegal and void the other must also be, because it arises out of the same circumstances. The distinguishing feature between the cited case and the case at bar is that in the former the arrest was illegal and, therefore, the search and fruits therefrom could not be used to convict the defendant therein. In the instant case, there is no contention that the arrest of the appellee was illegal in the first instance. The only contention is that one of the prosecutions was void. Therefore, we fmd the decision in the case of Roberts v. State, supra, not to be applicable in the instant case.

The action of the trial court in discharging the appellee herein from the sentence and conviction imposed in the concealed weapon cause [under Docket #69-8112] be and the same is hereby affirmed. But, the action of the trial judge in discharging the appellee from the sentence and conviction for unlawfully carrying an unregistered gun be and the same is hereby reversed, with directions to remand the custody of the appellee to the City to satisfy the sentence imposed in cause #69-8111.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, with directions.
No. 00-7390.

#### Clark *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
256 La. 72

#### Sylvester WARE v. BLUE GRASS LIQUOR COMPANY, Inc., et al.

No. 50522.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1970.

In re: Blue Grass Liquor Company, Inc. and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 232 So.2d 893.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
Disposition Comments

Docket No: 

### FAA

- 2016

- 0183 ☐ These comments are in

Directorate ID: 

### 2015

- SW

- 016

- AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.:

Next Step: ☒ FRAN ☐ SNPRM



### ☒ N o C omments/Only Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are

required.

No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued?

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the

previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point

for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend

. Reference FAA

- IR

- M

- 8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one o f the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following

changes to the AD:

If NO

, we don’t agree because

ISSUE 2 : Select one of the following :

If other, explain :

Commenter(s):

What change to the AD action is requested?

Why is the change requested or how is it justified?

Do we agree?

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD:

If PARTIALLY AGREE

, we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following

changes to the AD:



### Page 1 of 3If NO

, we don’t agree because

For additional issues, double

- click here



### Page 2 of 3

### S ignature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.:

ASE Printed Name : Date

Branch Manager Date



### Page 3 of 3
From: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US

To: "Stuart Sessions" <sessions@environomics.com>

Cc: Torres.Elineth@epamail.epa.gov

Date: 09/28/2009 02:06 PM

Subject: Re: Portland Cement NESHAP -- CEM Cost Information

Dear Stu:

I seem to recall you had some questions the sources of the monitoring costs. Cost for Mercury CEMs 

were taken from the CAMR rule - see attached excerpt:

The rest came from a cost model tat you may access at:

http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/cem.html

Let me know if you have further questions.

Keith W. Barnett

USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Mail Code D243-02

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

919-541-5605

barnett.keith@epa.gov
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of RPM Advantage, Inc.
(the "Registrant") for the period ended September 30, 2011, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David R. Pressler, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, 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.


Date:   October 12, 2011

By:

/s/ David R. Pressler


David R. Pressler
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 183 (Monday, September 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25201]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Time and Date: 2:00 p.m., Friday, October 14, 1997.

Place: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Fl. Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-25201 Filed 9-18-97; 11:28 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         388 Greenwich Street, 7th Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396



                                          June 19,2000



Verne Sedlacek
John W. Henry & Company
One Glendinning Place
Westport, CT  06880

RE:   Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund, LP
      Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund, LP II
      Smith Barney Principal Plus Fund, LP
      Smith Barney Principal Plus Fund, LP, II

Dear Verne,

Please liquidate all of your positions in the above referenced funds in an
orderly fashion by close of business on June 30, 2000.

If you have any questions, please call me at (212)723-5416.

                                          Very truly yours,



                                          Daniel Dantuono
                                          Chief Financial Officer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED M ACKENZIE JAMES BROWN , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 21

- 3033 LT Case No. 2018

- 306015

- CFDB STAT E OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ________________________________/ Decision filed December 20, 2022 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County , Raul A. Zambrano, Judge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Jos eph Chloupek, Assis tant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie J ean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beac h, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C .J., WALLIS and HARRIS , JJ. , concur.
JET SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. 34 0 0 \VATER\'

I E \\' P ARK \X. A Y SUITE 400 RICHARDSON, TEXAS 75 0 8 0 214.570.4108 VOICE 214.570.4122 f7AX CA PAGE@] ETSOLUTIONS

. COM September

2, 2014 US Department
of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 Washington,
DC 20590 Submitted via: www.regulations.gov 

### Ref.: Docket ID: FAA-2014-0542 Dear Sir or Madam, In further consideration

of the public interest statement

in our petition for exemption referenced above, we are adding the following for the FAA to consider. The problems identified

in Jet Solutions, LLC exemption request, (Docket ID: FAA-2014-0542), were found by the aircraft manufacturer (Bombardier), and are a systems design problem which Bombardier CL604 operators have no way to correct at this time. Granting this time limited exemption would be in the public interest because it would allow U.S. Part 135 operators the ability to continue to provide the unique services that support US public, business and industrial leaders while the aircraft manufacturer develops and certifies, and the affected CL604 operators incorporates the modifications necessary
to bring these aircraft into compliance.**Sincer lv,.** 

. . , /'

. / **Christo** Page

- 2 - **,'-... ~~e:J?-re**  **sident,** General Manager, Director of Maintenance Addendum

1 CP/cp

September

2 , 2014 Cc: Mr. John Sell Director
of Operations, Jet Solutions, LLC
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.0



April 1, 2002




Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

         Re:      Representations by Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as to the
                  2001 Audited Consolidated Financial Statements of @Track
                  Communications, Inc. ("@Track")

Ladies and Gentlemen:

        In accordance with Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X,
@Track has received a letter from Andersen dated April 1, 2002 regarding the
audit conducted by Andersen of the 2001 consolidated financial statements of
@Track and subsidiaries (the "Audit") that are included in @Track's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001. In the letter Andersen
has represented to @Track the following:

   o     the Audit was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the
         United States accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
         assurance that the audit engagement was conducted in compliance with
         professional standards; and

   o     there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the
         Audit and availability of national office consultation. Availability of
         personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen was not relevant to this
         Audit.


                                              Sincerely,





                                              /s/ Michael Smith,
                                              Executive Vice President and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report dated January 26, 1996 incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, into 
the Company's previously filed Registration Statements File No's 0-27196 and 
33-01074. It should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements 
of the Company subsequent to December 31, 1995 or performed any audit procedures
subsequent to the date of our report.

                                          /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

                                          ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
October 21, 1996
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ulysses D. SMITH v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS, SECTION "B".

No. 60430.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 2, 1977.

In re: Ulysses D. Smith applying for writ of mandamus.

*330Writ denied. Upon the showing that the charge against the accused has been nolle prossed and that he has been released, the application is moot.
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-111466, 333-111467,
333-111469 and 333-116114 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-122215 on Form S-3 of our reports related to
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of The DIRECTV Group, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding
the Company's adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxesan interpretation of FASB
Statement No. 109and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158,Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other
Postretirement Plansan amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132 (R)), and Management's Report on the Effectiveness of Internal Control over
Financial Reporting dated February 26, 2009, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The DIRECTV Group, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008.

|                          |  | 
|------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |  | 

Los
Angeles, California
February 26, 2009

---



QuickLinks
List of Documents Submitted by the State of Maryland

 Letter from Robert M. Summers, Ph.D., Maryland Department of Environment, Annapolis, MD to 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.

 Maryland interoffice communications

 Maryland Environmental Web site Home page

 Maryland public hearing documents

 Public hearing advertisement

 Public hearing transcripts

 Public hearing attendees list

 Maryland Completeness Letter

 Other miscellaneous documents