alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ASSIGNMENT OF PAYMENTS MADE UNDER SECTION 1603 OF DIVISION B OF THE AMERICAN 

RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 

I. Conditions on Assignment

Recipients of payments made under the 1603 Program may assign the payment to a financial 

institution provided: 

(1) The payment is $1,000 or more;

(2) The payment is assigned to a bank, trust company or other financing institution, including any 

Federal lending agency; 

(3) The assignment covers all amounts payable and is not subject to further assignment except that 

any assignment may be made to one party acting as agent or trustee for two or more parties who are 

participating in the financing; and

(4) The assignee files a written Notice of Assignment of the payment together with a true copy of the 

instrument of assignment with Treasury (see instructions below).

II. How to Accomplish the Assignment 

The assignee must provide to Treasury a Notice of Assignment (link to form) signed by the assignee 

and a true copy of the instrument of assignment. These documents must be submitted at the time 

the applicant completes an application for a property that has been placed in service. 

Documents may be submitted by email to: 1603Assignments@do.treas.gov. The Notice of 

Assignment must include the Treasury Application Number (TAN) provided to the applicant by 

Treasury at the time the application is submitted. Assignees who provide a valid Notice of 

Assignment along with a true copy of the instrument of assignment will receive an email notification 

from Treasury acknowledging receipt. 

Applicants must ensure, as a condition of any such assignment, that the assignee registers in the 

System for Awards Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/. A payment 

cannot be issued to an assignee that is not registered in the SAM.
#### Stanley Thomas LUKAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-248.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 19, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; J. William Woodson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

EARNEST PHILLIPS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

EARNEST PHILLIPS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

EARNEST PHILLIPS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

EARNEST PHILLIPS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

gab 

OCT 2't 2014 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

CLEW -UPREME COURT 

BY DEPUTY-CLERK -- 

No. 66614 

No. 66672 "re 

No. 66690 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS 

These are proper person appeals from decisions denying a 

motion for dismissal, motion to suppress identification, motion to compel 

disclosure of exculpatory evidence, and a motion for a pretrial evidentiary 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

lq-39-1, 0 
Pickering 

Parraguirre 

hearing. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. 

Delaney, Judge. 

Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from an 

order denying the abovementioned motions, we lack jurisdiction. Castillo 

v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we 

ORDER these appeals DISMISSED. 

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Earnest Phillips 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OR 

NEVADA 

(0) 74 

2 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

EARNEST PHILLIPS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

EARNEST PHILLIPS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

EARNEST PHILLIPS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

EARNEST PHILLIPS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

gab 

OCT 2't 2014 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

CLEW -UPREME COURT 

BY DEPUTY-CLERK -- 

No. 66614 

No. 66672 "re 

No. 66690 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS 

These are proper person appeals from decisions denying a 

motion for dismissal, motion to suppress identification, motion to compel 

disclosure of exculpatory evidence, and a motion for a pretrial evidentiary 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

lq-39-1, 0 
Pickering 

Parraguirre 

hearing. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. 

Delaney, Judge. 

Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from an 

order denying the abovementioned motions, we lack jurisdiction. Castillo 

v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we 

ORDER these appeals DISMISSED. 

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge 

Earnest Phillips 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OR 

NEVADA 

(0) 74 

2
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 232 (Wednesday, December 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63920-63921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31602]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration
[C-557-806]

Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia; Rescission of 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Review

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

ACTION: Notice of Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative 
Review.

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

SUMMARY: On September 25, 1997, in response to a request from the 
respondents, the Department of Commerce initiated an administrative 
review of the countervailing duty order on extruded rubber thread from 
Malaysia. The review covers the period January 1, 1996 through December 
31, 1996. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is 
now rescinding this review because the respondents have withdrawn their 
request for review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 3, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Copyak or Constance Cunningham, 
Office of CVD/AD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International 
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2786.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 29, 1997, the Department received a request for an 
administrative

[[Page 63921]]

review of the countervailing duty order from the Government of 
Malaysia, Heveafil Sdn. Bhd., Filmax Sdn. Bhd., Rubberflex Sdn. Bhd., 
Filati Lastex Sdn. Bhd., and Rubfil Sdn. Bhd. for the period January 1, 
1996 through December 31, 1996. On September 25, 1997, the Department 
published in the Federal Register (62 FR 50292) a notice of 
``Initiation of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review'' initiating 
the administrative review. On November 5, 1997, the respondents 
withdrew their request for review.
    The applicable regulation, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), stipulates that 
the Secretary may permit a party that requested an administrative 
review to withdraw the request within 90 days of the date of 
publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. In this 
case, the respondents have withdrawn their request within the 90 day 
period. No other interested party requested a review, and we have 
received no other submissions regarding the respondents' withdrawal of 
their request for review. Therefore, we are rescinding this review of 
the countervailing duty order on extruded rubber thread from Malaysia.
    This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: November 21, 1997.
Louis Apple,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Group II, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-31602 Filed 12-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
M A N D A T E

TO THE 288TH DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS: 

Before our Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, on June 28, 2021, the cause upon 

appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

IN THE INTEREST OF H.M., A CHILD, Appellant,

No. 08-21-00086-CV and

, Appellee,

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of prosecution, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore dismiss 

the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of 

Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, 

obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

El Paso, this October 29, 2021.

Elizabeth G. Flores, Clerk

Trial Court No. 2010-CI-06431

FILE COPY
**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report of Continental Materials Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 2, 2010, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JamesG. Gidwitz, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and I, Joseph J. Sum, the Vice President and Chief Financial Officerof the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350, of Chapter63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to our knowledge:

 

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

 

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company for the periods presented in the Report.

 

 

November15, 2010

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/    James  G. Gidwitz |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   |   | James  G. Gidwitz                            |
|   |   | Chairman  of the Board and                   |
|   |   | Chief  Executive Officer                     |
|   |   |                                         |
|   |   |                                         |
|   | By:    | /s/    Joseph  J. Sum    |
|   |   | Joseph  J. Sum                               |
|   |   | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer  |

 

----
#### Fred W. BURDETTE, Jr. v. STATE.

No. 38224.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1969.

Rehearing Denied June 2, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 216 So.2d 519.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3265]


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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application To Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Mitcham Industries, Inc., Common Stock, $0.01 Par 
Value) File No. 1-13490

February 5, 1997.
    Mitcham Industries, Inc. (``Company'') has filed an application 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant 
to Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 
12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to withdraw the above specified 
security (``Security'') from listing and registration on the Pacific 
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``PSE'').
    The reasons alleged in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    The Company originally listed on the PSE when its Security was 
listed on the Nasdaq SmallCap Market in order to obtain the blue sky 
secondary market trading exemptions afforded by the PSE listing. Since 
April 26, 1996, the Company's Security has been listed on the Nasdaq 
National Market System, which provides secondary market trading 
exemptions for all states. In addition, the Company believes that there 
is insignificant trading of its Security on the PSE.
    Any interested person may, on or before February 27, 1997, submit 
by letter to the Security of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 
450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549, facts bearing upon 
whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of 
the exchanges and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the 
Commission for the protection of investors. The Commission, based on 
the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the 
application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission 
determines to order a hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3265 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Health Management Systems, Inc.:

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-3 (File No. 33-91518) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-65560, 33-76638,
33-76770, 33-95326, 333-33706 and 333-77121) of Health Management Systems, Inc.
of our report dated March 12, 2002, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Health Management Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2001 and 2000 and October 31, 2000, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income/(loss), and cash flows
for the year ended December 31, 2001, the two months ended December 31, 2000,
and the years ended October 31, 2000 and 1999 and the related financial
statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2001, Annual Report
on Form 10-K of Health Management Systems, Inc. Our report refers to the
Company's adoption of the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission's
Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101 "Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements",
in 2000.

                                          /s/ KPMG LLP

New York, New York
April 15, 2002
#### Roger L. JACKSON, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-1117.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 10, 1972.

Gordon W. Taylor, North Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See: State v. Sebastian, Fla.1965, 171 So.2d 893; Walker v. State, *87Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 61; Richardson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 248 So.2d 530; Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1971, 249 So.2d 510; Ford v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So. 2d 562; State ex rel. Hanks v. Goodman, Fla. 1971, 253 So.2d 129.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,554,693
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                  1,659,410
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,757,730
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       583,949
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  88,027
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,643,809
<COMMON>                                     2,391,888
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          (127,557)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               2,304,611
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,764,553
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 708,209
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,906,716
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                6,643,809
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,890,575
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               189
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,707,028
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,707,217
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        183,358
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           (135,519)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  47,839
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        75,756
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,917)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                 (27,917)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        46,300
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      124,428
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         370,208
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
#### John Mario DEGAGLIA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43367.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 7, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 270 So.2d 476.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
Estimating Pesticide 

Handler Exposure

HSRB Meeting – Potomac Yard, Arlington VA

U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs 

William Jordan

April 8, 2014

1
Statutory Framework

 EPA regulates pesticides under FIFRA

 FIFRA requires registration of all 

pesticides sold in the US

 Each product has a defined 

composition, labeling, and packaging

2
Pesticide Product – Registration Terms

 Composition – defined by a Confidential Statement of 

Formula (percentage of active and inert ingredients; 

type of formulation, e.g., liquid, granules, wetable

powder, etc.)

 Labeling – use directions (site, target pests, method 

of mixing, loading, application; application rate, 

timing, and frequency; personal protective 

equipment; warnings; limitations (e.g., REI, PHI, 

plant back), etc.

 Packaging – container size, composition, other 

characteristics

3
Statutory Standard

 EPA may register a pesticide if it will not 

cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the 

environment”

 This standard is defined in a way that directs 

EPA to balance the risks of using a pesticide 

against its benefits

 Risk is a function of toxicity and exposure

4
Types of Risks Considered

 EPA considers a wide range of potential 

risks – human health and environmental

 For human health, EPA considers 

occupational, dietary, bystander, 

residential risks

 Occupational risks includes handlers 

and workers

5
Handler Exposure

Handler exposure depends on three factors: 

 How the particular pesticide is mixed, loaded, and 

applied – unit exposure for a handling scenario 

(mg active ingredient / amount of active ingredient 

handled (AaiH)

 How much of the pesticide is handled – AaiH

 The impact of using personal protective equipment 

(PPE)

6
Data sources for estimating 

occupational exposure 

 Unit exposure – studies with surrogate chemicals 

measuring inhalation & dermal exposure of 

handlers’ body parts, when performing scenario 

tasks (mg active ingredient/AaiH)

 AaiH – data on pesticide product composition, 

product application rate, and high end quantities 

handled during a work period

 Impact of PPE – studies of protection

7
8

Historical Background

“In estimating exposure for a pesticide application from a surrogate 

study, it has been our experience that the proper (and logical) 

conversion factors are amounts of pesticide applied for applicators 

and the quantity of chemical handled by mixer/loaders.” (Reinart, 

J.C. and D.J. Severn, 1985; pg 361)

Reinart, J.C. and D.J. Severn, 1985; pg 360
9

Proportionality Analysis Discussion

 Practicality of estimating handler exposure 

using unit exposure values together with data 

on AaiH

 Potential Error from assuming proportionality

 May underestimate @ lower AaiH

 May overestimate exposure @ higher AaiH

 From a policy perspective, this type of error is 

acceptable
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63387-63388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31307]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research And 
Production Act of 1993--Geothermal Power Organization

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 22, 1997, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the

[[Page 63388]]

Geothermal Power Organization (``GPO'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, the following parties have become new 
members of the GPO: Geothermal Power Company, Inc., Elmira, NY; FAS 
Engineering, Inc., Glendale, CA; and Unocal Corporation, El Segundo, 
CA.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activities of the GPO. Participation in the GPO will remain open to 
qualified entities, and the GPO intends to file written notifications 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On May 29, 1997, GPO filed its original notification pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 23, 
1997, (62 FR 39550).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-31307 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M