alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# ST14~T

# E oF NE\/ADA Brian Sandoval, Governor 

# rvie’,, Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Leo M. Drozdoff. RE., Director NIVADA DtVlSIONo~ ENVIRON~1ENTAL PROT[CTION DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ColleenCnpps,Ph.D.,Admjnjstrator p~vtecting the future furgenenmons

November20, 2014 Jared Blumenfeld Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 

### IX, ORA-1 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 RE: Nevada SIP Revisions, Clark County Air Quality Regulations: Amendments to Sections 26 and 92; Repeal ofSections 29,30,52 and 60 Dear Mr. Blumenfeld: On behalfofGovernor Sandoval, as his appointed designee, this lettertransmits to you two hard copies and five exact duplicates ofthe hard copies in electronic form ofrevisions to the Clark County portion ofthe Nevada applicable state implementation plan (SIP). The revisions regard Clark CountyAir Quality Regulations (AQR) and include amendmentsto sections 26 and 92, and removal ofsections 29, 30, 52 and 60. These regulations are available on the Clark County Department ofAirQuality (DAQ) web site at http://www.clarkcountYnv.gov/depts/AirOua1ity/Pa~es/Ru1esCurrentRu1esandRegu1atjonsaspx The Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection (NDEP) requests approval ofthe enclosed revisions into the Nevada applicable SIP. The NDEP has reviewed this submittal and found it complete. Evidence ofthe adoption or repeal ofeach AQR section, appropriate public notice and the participation process is included in this package. Ifyou should have any questions about this submittal or require additional clarification, you may contact Russell Roberts ofthe Clark County Department ofAir Quality at (702) 455-1611. Sincerely,

€~‘Colleen Cripps, Ph.D. Administrator Enclosures

901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 4001 • Carson City, Nevada 89701 • p: 775.687.4670 • f: 775.687.5856 • ndep.nv.gov Printed on recycledpaperJared Blumenfeid, Regional Administrator

November 19, 2014 Page 2

cc w/o enclosures: Cory Hunt, PolicyAnalyst, Office ofthe Governor Amy Zimpfer, Associate Director (AIR-i), EPA Region IX, Air Division Gerardo Rios, Chief, Permits Office (AIR-3), EPA Region IX, Air Division Laura Yannayon, Permits Office (AIR-3), EPA Region IX, Air Division Rory Mays, Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, Air Division

cc wlo enclosures: Leo Drozdoff, Director,DCNR Jasmine Mehta, Chief, Bureau ofAirQuality Planning, NDEP Certified Mail No. 9171 9690 0935 0012 2387 95
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                3,067
<SECURITIES>                         50,383
<RECEIVABLES>                        59,776
<ALLOWANCES>                         (1,318)
<INVENTORY>                          49,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    171,509
<PP&E>                              126,977
<DEPRECIATION>                      (57,254)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      275,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                42,959
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                168
<OTHER-SE>                          218,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        275,340
<SALES>                             138,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    138,300
<CGS>                                52,907
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        52,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      17,682
<INCOME-TAX>                          5,481
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  12,201
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         12,201
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.76


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1432
ULISSES M. BASTOS, Petitioner, versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A28-326-230) Submitted: October 20, 2004 Decided: November 4, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio M. Zaldana, LAW OFFICE OF ANTONIO M. ZALDANA, Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A. Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Sarah Maloney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ulisses M. Bastos, a native and citizen of Brazil, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen and dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s denial of his motions to reopen and reconsider. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion. See INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992). Additionally, we conclude that Bastos’s due process claim is without merit. See Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 272, 278 (4th Cir. 2004); Rusu v. INS , 296 F.3d 316, 321-22 (4th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
----

----

EXHIBIT(32)(b)

| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                      |   |                                                   |
|---------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   |                                                   |   |
| Date:      April 29, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Donna L. Belusar                              |   |
|                      |   | Donna      L. Belusar                                  |   |
|                      |   | Senior      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                      |   |                                                   |   |

----
**Exhibit32**

**THE DAYTON POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY.**

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

The undersigned officers of The Dayton Power and LightCompany (the “Issuer”) hereby certify that the Issuer’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, which this certificateaccompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Issuer.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer and will be retained by theIssuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.
| Signed:              |
|----------------------|
|                 |
| /s/                  | James V. Mahoney |   |
| James V. Mahoney     |   |
|                 |
| /s/                  |  John J.  Gillen |   |
| John J. Gillen       |
|                 |
| Date: August 1, 2006 |   |
|                      |  |  |  |  |

 

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF O'CHARLEY'S INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 26, 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>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1999
<CASH>                                           3,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,195
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,776
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,081
<PP&E>                                         219,749
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 240,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,492
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,732
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   240,180
<SALES>                                        299,014
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               302,205
<CGS>                                          232,821
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  273,166
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    82
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,783
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,109
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       (1,348)
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,761
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.89


</TABLE>
#### MAULE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. Manuel ROSENTHAL, Sophia Rosenthal, Barry E. Rosenthal and Carol Ann Rosenthal, Appellees.

No. 70-786.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 26, 1971.

Rehearing Denied April 27, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Stanley M. BECKERMAN, Elise M. Simon and Richard L. Simon, as Executors of the Estate of Herbert J. Simon, M.D., Deceased, Petitioners, v. Magda UJFALUSY, Respondent.

No. 69-733.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3796]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Anibal P. Herrera, M.D.; Continuation of Registration with 
Restriction; Correction

January 31, 1997.
    In notice document 96-31252 appearing on page 65075 in the issue of 
Tuesday, December 10, 1996, make the following correction:
    On page 65075 at the top of page (Docket No. 94-41) should read 
(Docket No. 94-80).
James S. Milford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[Fr Doc. 97-3796 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Nandor JUHASZ, Appellee.

No. 72-1389.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 10, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 27, 1973.

*245Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl and David K. Tharp, Miami, for appellant.

Ernest Ridarsick, Miami, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant American Express Company appeals a final judgment based on a jury verdict for the plaintiff-appellee in the amount of $980 for compensatory damages and $1,2S0 for punitive damages. The principal argument presented is that the evidence was insufficient to establish punitive damages because no independent tort was alleged or proven. Our examination of the pleadings convinces us that while the complaint was inartfully drawn it was sufficient to inform the defendant of the plaintiff’s claim that damages for the tort of defamation were sought. See Milu, Inc. v. Duke, Fla.App.1967, 204 So.2d 31. The evidence submitted was sufficient to support the claim.

The appellant’s second point urges reversal upon the claimed impropriety of certain statements presented by the plaintiff’s attorney in his closing argument. The appellant as defendant failed to object to the argument, and the appellant’s motion for mistrial was not made until after the jury had retired. Under these circumstances, we ought not reverse unless the claimed improper statements were so prejudicial as to be incurable by instruction. We find that such is not the case in this instance. Cf. Stewart v. Cook, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 491.

Affirmed.
#### In re ESTATE of Annetta F. Causey ARBUCKLE, Deceased. The FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BRADENTON, as Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Vernon L. Arbuckle, Deceased, et al., Appellants, v. James M. WALLACE, Administrator C.T.A., d. b. n. of Estate of Annetta F. Causey Arbuckle, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 73-71.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 30, 1973.

W. J. Daniel, Daniel & Woodward, Bradenton, for appellants.

Douglas A. Wallace, Wallace & Wallace, Bradenton, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demon*218strate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., BOARDMAN, J., and JOANOS, JAMES E., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Reid B. HUGHES, Individually, and Hughes Oil Company, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. JEMCO, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. N-332.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2013 - 0465 Directorate Identifier: 2012NM085AD

B/E AERO 1XC22 - 0100 - 35 - 006, R1 --- 12/15/11 B/E AERO 1XC22 - 0100 - 35 - 006 --- 4/8/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
#### The HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Inc., a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-321.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 13, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James C. Downey, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit
      23.1
























**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**







We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement on Form
      S-8
      (No. 0-18849) of The Female Health Company and Subsidiaries of our report,
      dated
      November 21, 2005, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of The Female
      Health Company and Subsidiaries for the year ended September 30,
      2005.








Schaumburg,
      Illinois     /s/   
      McGladrey & Pullen, LLP


December
      29, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<PERIOD-TYPE>			6-MOS		
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>			JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>			DEC-31-1997
<CASH>						9,364		
<SECURITIES>					4,499
<RECEIVABLES>			2,230	
<ALLOWANCES>			200	
<INVENTORY>			2,008			
<CURRENT-ASSETS>			22,362
<PP&E>						16,803
<DEPRECIATION>					10,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>					34,489	
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>				 4,200
<BONDS>						0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>			0
<PREFERRED>					0
<COMMON>						562
<OTHER-SE>						29,727				
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>		34,489
<SALES>						11,660
<TOTAL-REVENUES>				12,092
<CGS>						0
<TOTAL-COSTS>					10,430				
<OTHER-EXPENSES>				177
<LOSS-PROVISION>				0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>				2
<INCOME-PRETAX>				1,483
<INCOME-TAX>					563
<INCOME-CONTINUING>				920
<DISCONTINUED>0
<EXTRAORDINARY>				0
<CHANGES>						0					
<NET-INCOME>					920
<EPS-PRIMARY>					.21
<EPS-DILUTED>					.21


	


</TABLE>
#### Frederick Brannon DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-932.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 5, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
U.S. flag
          Un sitio oficial del Gobierno de los Estados Unidos
            Así es como usted puede verificarlo
          Así es como usted puede verificarloDot gov**El .gov significa que es oficial.**
                
                Los sitios web del gobierno federal siempre usan un dominio .gov o .mil. Antes de compartir información confidencial en línea, asegúrese de estar en un sitio .gov o .mil.
          Https**Este sitio es seguro.**
                
                El **https://** medios todos los datos transmitidos son cifrados - en otras palabras, cualquier información o el historial de navegación que proporcione se transmite de forma segura.

    
          FTC: Translation Menu
  

        
EnglishFTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas **
Menú


    close


                  FTC: Main navigation (ES)
  

        
  
  Consejos para consumidores
      
    Guía para negocios
      
    Reembolsos
      
    Noticias
      
    Acerca de la FTC
      
    Buscar
        
        
        FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        
    
    Reporte las estafas
                                
                          
        
                Reciba alertas

          
  
          Consejos para consumidores
      
    
              Guía para negocios
      
    
              Reembolsos
      
    
              Noticias
      
    
              Acerca de la FTC
      
    
              Buscar Advocacy Filings Tagged with Advertising and Marketing
  


  Sobrescribir enlaces de ayuda a la navegación
      Inicio
                                                                        AdvocacyView this page in English BCP Staff Comment to U.S. Department of Education Concerning Proposed Regulations Protecting Postsecondary Students (21  de Jun de 2023
 )
          FTC Comment Before the Federal Communications Commission In the Matter of Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape (MB Docket No. 09-194) (1  de Mar de 2010
 )
          Possible Anticompetitive Barriers to E-Commerce: Contact Lenses: A Report from the Staff of the FTC (1  de Mar de 2004
 )
  
    
    
    

  Return to top **
Menú
FTC: Secondary Menu (ES)
  

        


      Reporte las estafas
                              Reciba alertas
  
  
      FTC: Footer (es)
  

        


      Política de privacidad y noticias
#### Pamela A. Liapakis, Respondent, v Robert G. Sullivan et al., Appellants.

[736 NYS2d 675]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered October 17, 2000, which, in an action by a law firm partner against other partners for defamation and for breach of an agreement providing for plaintiff’s resignation from the firm and for the exchange of general releases, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motions to change venue to Nassau County, seal the court file and sanction plaintiff and her attorney for frivolous conduct, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ motions to change venue to Nassau County were properly denied. The “Resignation Agreement” on which they rely was apparently intended to settle, with certain exceptions not here relevant, Nassau County actions that the parties brought against each other and which have never been formally discontinued. Paragraph 6.9 thereof provides for “this court’s” retention of “continuing jurisdiction,” apparently referring to the Nassau County Supreme Court since that is the only court *394where actions between the parties were then pending, not over the Resignation Agreement itself but over a contemplated “separate agreement” that was to be “incorporated herein by reference” but was never executed. This language, which was handwritten, replaced stricken typewritten language that explicitly gave the Nassau County Supreme Court “jurisdiction” to decide any disputes that might arise under the Resignation Agreement and directed the referral of any such disputes to a particular justice of that court “to the extent practical.” Even if paragraph 6.9, in its handwritten form, were applicable to the Resignation Agreement, as opposed to a contemplated separate agreement, it would constitute nothing more than a permissive “Service of Suit Clause” consenting to jurisdiction, not a mandatory forum selection clause (see *generally, Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488,*87 NY2d 530, 534; see *also, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold,*48 NY2d 51, 55; *Pfeifer v Liss,*275 AD2d 254).

The other aspects of defendants’ motions were also properly denied. Defendants fail to show that the prejudice to their reputations caused by plaintiffs allegations of unethical and criminal conduct outweighs the clear public interest in such allegations, and there appears to be no other claim that any other good cause exists for sealing the record (22 NYCRR 216.1 [a]; *see, Danco Labs. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter,*274 AD2d 1, 7-8). Although sanctions could be awarded should it be shown that plaintiffs allegations of unethical and criminal conduct are materially false or were made merely to harass or injure defendants or gain some leverage in the instant litigation (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2], [3]), the record, at this early stage of the action, does not permit such findings. Concur— Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Buckley, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Cubic Corporation (the “Corporation”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, WalterJ. Zable, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ W. J. Zable                                  |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | W. J. Zable                                      |   |
|   | Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |                                             |   |
|   | Date:  May 5, 2008                          |   |

 

----