alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
"..,--:--"--"'-.",-", .... ,.~ ~ ," . " ~. ..'
 

, :1.Y'~;::~",\ 

A.,,~~:,i~':,.'.."."'" ,\,.. ,..I,j -""i"'..' .:; "....'."...
 't' \ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ( JAN ~ i 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION '",,.',,.!2~;l2t;~:.~"~,,".'" 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) In the Matter of ) 

) Docket No. 9327 

POL YPORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., ) Respondent. ) 

) 

ORDER EXTENDING THE ONE YEAR 

DEADLINE FOR FILING THE INITIAL DECISION 

Commission Rule 3.51(a) requires that initial decisions be fied within one year 

following the issuance of the complaint, but allows the Administrative Law Judge to 

extend the one year deadline by an additional period of 
 up to sixty days, upon a finding of extraordinar circumstances. 16 C.F.R. § 3.51(a). The Complaint in this matter was 

issued on September 9,2008. One year from the issuance ofthe Complaint was 

September 9, 2009. By Order dated September 8,2009, extraordinar circumstances
 

were found to support an extension of the one year deadline by an additional period of
 

sixty days, to November 9,2009. By subsequent Order dated November 9, 2009,
 

additional extraordinary circumstances were found to support an additional extension of
 

the one year deadline by a period of sixty days, to Januar 8, 2010.
 

By Order dated October 15,2009, the record was reopened for the limited 

purpose of 
 receiving proffered evidence and a hearng was held on November 12, 2009.
 

Post-hearing supplemental briefs and proposed findings and replies thereto were fied on
 

November 24,2009 and December 4,2009. 

The record in this case is extensive, with over 2, 100 exhibits, 35 witnesses, and
 

5,590 pages of trial transcript in the hearng, and an additional 48 exhibits, 3 witnesses
 

and 305 pages of 
 trial transcript in the supplemental hearng. To thoroughly review the 

record and properly develop the findings of fact and legal analysis and evaluate the 

evidence from the supplemental hearing, additional time is necessary. Accordingly, 

extraordinary circumstances are present. The one year deadline for fiing the Initial 

Decision in this case is hereby extended to February 22,2010, which is an additional 

period within sixty days. 

Commission Rule 3.51(a) also requires that initial decisions be fied within 90 

days of the close of the record. Ninety days from the initial close of the record after the 

hearng was September 21, 2009, but was extended by Order of the Commission to 

November 20,2009. Following the reopening of 
 the record and the supplemental hearng 

/

~

14' ~,.;;.!Y 
on November 12, 2009, the record in this case was closed on November 23,2009. Ninety 

days from that date is February 22, 2010. 

ORDERED: 

J) ~ ~ot 

D. Michael Chapp 1
 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: January 7, 2010 

2
BOBBY JINDAL GOVERNOR PEGGY M. HATCH SECRETARY

## ~tate 

# of 1Louisiana
DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

### OFFICE OFTHE SECRETARY

Mr. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator US EPA, Region 6 (6-RA) 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

RE: 2006 PM2.s National AmbientAir Quality Standards Revision Certification of11O(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)

DearMr. Curry:**~** w ::!: 

## """ -< N CD


# ., :Jr:: 

### Cf.1 0 

### ....:

OnMay 16, 2011, the State ofLouisiana submitted the infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SlP) Checklist which provided assurance that Louisiana fully complies with the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 110(a)(1)and (2) for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate (PM2.s) national ambient air quality standards. This Checklist includes Louisiana's analysis for the interstate transport requirements of ht CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requiring that sources within a state do not significantly contribute to the interstate transport ofpollutants that impact nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 2006 PM2.sNational AmbientAir Quality Standards (NAAQS).

Because the more recent and improved air quality modeling data evaluating transport for the 2006 PM2.s NAAQS conducted by EPA for the Cross State Air Pollution Rule is now available and supports the conclusion that emissions in Louisiana do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance ofthe 2006 PM2

.5NAAAQS in any other state, we submit it as basis for our conclusions in lieu ofthe previous technical information provided. We understand that the Cross State 

### Air Pollution Rule has been vacated by the court, but the technical analysis regarding transport ofparticulate matter and its precursors from Louisiana is stillrelevant and valid.

Ifyou have any questions concerning this technical supplement to the May 16, 2011 Checklist, please contact Tegan Blades Treadaway, Administrator ofthe Air Permits Division at (225) 219- 3408 or tegan.treadaway@la.gov. Thank you for your consideration of this supplemental information.

C: GuyDonaldson,EPARegion 6 Sam Phillips, OES, LDEQ

Post Office Box 4301 • Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4301 • Phone 225-219-3953 • Fax 225-219-3971 www.dea.louisiana._gov**~::t:)** :::01"'"1 

### -u"**.~** 

### >< :ZITI ::z:O ::z: I ClCT>

## ~~ n'
ACC CPI High-pressure Safety & Health Training Through 

April 2014

Test Scores through April 2014 100% 90-99% 70-89%

Percent achieving test scores: English 41% 53% 6%

Percent achieving test scores: Spanish 40% 35% 25%

March 2014

English

March 2014

Spanish

April 2014

English

April 2014

Spanish

Total Through

April 2014

Job

Description Fully Complete Fully Complete Fully Complete Fully Complete Fully Complete InProgress

Instructor Online Instructor Online Instructor Online Instructor Online Instructor Online Started, not 

finished

Applicator 12 155 0 9 54 32 0 5 504 3277 1190

Helper 2 23 0 2 1 3 0 0

69 526 394

Other 7 30 0 1 21 10 0 0

356 2224 853

Supervisor 10 64 0 0 8 48 0 0 482 1697 783

Total 31 272 0 12 84 93 0 0 1407 7724 3220

Total Students Fully Completed Through 

April 2014

Total Students Started or Finished 

Through April 2014

9131 12351
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1181

In Re: JOSEPH J. CAMPBELL,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:04-cr-01046-DCN-7)

Submitted: May 13, 2009 Decided: June 9, 2009

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph J. Campbell, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph J. Campbell petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order dismissing the indictment in his underlying criminal conviction. We conclude that Campbell is not entitled

to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. &

Loan Ass'n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal.

In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The relief sought by Campbell is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7523 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7523

To amend title 23, United States Code, to make certain airport projects 
             eligible under TIFIA, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 9, 2020

 Mr. Garamendi (for himself, Mr. Schiff, and Mr. Lamb) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation 
                           and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 23, United States Code, to make certain airport projects 
             eligible under TIFIA, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``TIFIA for Airports Act''.

SEC. 2. PROJECT ELIGIBILITY.

    (a) In General.--Section 601(a)(12) of title 23, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (E) by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
                    ``(F) is an eligible airport-related project by a 
                public agency, as such terms are defined in section 
                40117(a) of title 49; and''.
    (b) Airport Projects.--Section 602(c)(1) of title 23, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting ``, the requirements of appendix A and 
sections 3, 9, and 10 of part 158 of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, or the procurement procedures allowed under section 40117 
of title 49 and preference under section 50101 of title 49 for airport 
projects'' after ``transit projects''.
    (c) Special Rule for Airport Projects.--Section 602 of title 23, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Special Rule for Airport Projects.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of this chapter, a project described in section 601(a)(12)(F) 
shall only be eligible for funding under this chapter with respect to 
any unobligated or uncommitted balance remaining from a fiscal year 
prior to the fiscal year in which such project receives approval under 
subsection (d)(2).''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.3

 

Equity Incentive Plan Non-Qualified Stock Option Grants to Directors

 

On February 8, 2014, as approved by the Compensation Committee of  the Pernix Group, Inc. Board of Directors, stock option grants were awarded  in the amount and upon the terms and conditions set forth below.

 

General Terms of Grant:

 

·                                          Form of grant: Stock option awards for non-employee Directors of Pernix Group, Inc. 

 

·                                          Term and vesting of stock options: The stock option grants vest equally over a 3 year period and are coterminous with the expiration date of the plan or 10 years from the date of the grant, whichever occurs sooner. 

 

·                                          Grant date: February 8, 2014. 

 

·                                          Exercise Price for Stock Options: To be determined based on fair market value. 

 

·                                          Number of stock options:

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Stock Option
    	
 
    
	
Don Gunther, Chairman
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
25,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
C. Robert Campbell, Director
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
26,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Trudy Clark, Director
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
13,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Max Engler, Director
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
13,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Ibrahim Ibrahim, Director
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
13,000
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Carl Smith, Director
    	
 
    	
-
    	
 
    	
13,000
#### Harry S. DEAN and Douglas Eugene Ingram, Appellants, v. Sylvester FISHER and Lillian Fisher, individually and as husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 69-685.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 31, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Robert S. Hewitt, Judge.

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

No. DA 21-0280

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DANIEL GEORGE RICHARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until October 22, 2021, to 

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

September 15 2021

09/15/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0280
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4664]

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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

Ocean Freight Forwarder License Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 
20573.

Orion International Freight Forwarders, Inc., 1670 NW 94th Avenue, 
Miami, FL 33172. Officers: Juan R. Cobo, President; Pedro L. Bocchini, 
Director.
AAA International Freight Forwarding Group, Inc., 8366 Northwest 66th 
Street, Miami, FL 33166. Officers: Carlos Mendez, President; Miriam 
Muniz, Vice President.

    Dated: February 20, 1997.

Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97-4664 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
```
#### Willie Page BURNS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-411.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 14, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Willie Burns, in pro. per., for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full considera*40tion, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### H. B. FULLER COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and Globe Indemnity Company, a New York corporation, Appellants, v. Donald BYRUM and Pacolet V. Byrum, his wife, Appellees.

No. 72-912.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 28, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Alvin McBRIDE.

No. 62740.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 26, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana through Harry F. Connick, District Attorney, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and stay order. Parish of Orleans.

Writ granted. Upon the showing that the witnesses did not have available advice of counsel at the time, the order of the Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans, Section D, holding Police Officer Rhett Magnon and Police Officer Donald Curóle in contempt of court, is set aside, without prejudice to the trial court’s right to conduct an in camera hearing at which the police officers could be required, after advice by counsel, to respond. In lieu thereof, the trial judge may order the prosecutor to divulge in camera the name of the confidential informant described in the application for the search warrant, or he may sustain the motion to suppress the evidence upon the prosecutor’s failure to do so. Under the present circumstances, the state may acquiesce in suppression of the evidence rather than divulge the name of the informant.

SANDERS, C. J. and MARCUS, J.,

would grant the writ and place the case on the docket for argument. In the present case, there appear to be no exceptional circumstances requiring the disclosure of the name of the confidential informant.
No. 10557.

#### John A. Roebling Sons Co. et al. *v.*The Shawnee Valley Coal & Iron Co. et al.

Decided April 7, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Licking county.

*Mr. A. A. Stas el,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Messrs. Flory & Flory; Messrs. White, Johnson, McCaslin & Cannon; Mr. Jonathan Rees*and *Messrs. Kibler & Kibler,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
No. 99-31075 - 1 -

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-31075 Conference Calendar

GREGORIO R. MACHADO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus MARTHA L. JORDAN; JANET RENO, Attorney General of the United States of America; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-1156

- - - - - - - - - - February 17, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Federal prisoner Gregorio R. Machado, #52519-004, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition. Machado pending “emergency” motions to expedite the appeal and requesting summary judgment are DENIED. Section 2255 provides the primary method of collateral attack on a federal sentence. Cox v. Warden, Fed. Detention
Ctr. , 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). Section 2241 is the proper habeas remedy for a prisoner challenging the execution ofNo. 99-31075 - 2 - his sentence rather than the validity of his conviction and
sentence. United States v. Cleto , 956 F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992). Machado sought to challenge his conviction based upon an alleged breach of the plea agreement. Section 2241 may be used only if “the petitioner establishes that the remedy provided for under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Cox , 911 F.2d at 1113 (internal quotations and citation omitted). The petitioner bears the burden of affirmatively showing that the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective. McGhee v. Hanberry , 604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979). Machado fails to meet this burden. He offers no reasoned argument for extending § 2241 relief to his breach-of-the-plea-agreement claim. A § 2255 motion must be filed in the district where the prisoner was convicted. United States v. Weathersby , 958 F.2d 65, 66 (5th Cir. 1992). Machado was convicted and sentenced by the district court for the Southern District of Florida. The district court for the Western District of Louisiana thus lacked jurisdiction to consider his § 2255 motion on the merits. The district court’s dismissal of Machado’s petition is AFFIRMED.
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Kelly, Shaheerah

Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 8:28 AM

To: Pallante - HC, Amy; Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: RE: NHPA Consultation - Colorado Historic Preservation Office

Amy,

Thank you for your response. The materials were also sent on September 30 by postal mail to the following address. It

would be very helpful if you could ensure that when it arrives at your agency that it gets to the correct person. Again,

thanks.

Stefanie Baltzell 

Archaeology & Historic Preservation 

State of Colorado Historic Preservation Office 

1200 Broadway 

Denver, CO 80203

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

Shaheerah Kelly 

Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Phone: 415-947-4156 

Fax: 415-947-3579 

Email: kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov

From: Pallante ‐ HC, Amy [mailto:amy.pallante@state.co.us]  

Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 6:21 AM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Subject: Fwd: NHPA Consultation ‐ Colorado Historic Preservation Office

Hello, 

Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, our office is not able yet to receive Section 106 

consultations by email. Please send a hard copy of the Section 106 submission to: 

Edward Nichols 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

History Colorado 

1200 Broadway 

80203 

Sorry for any inconvenience. 

Thank you, 

Amy 
2

Amy Pallante

Intergovernmental Services Director

Colorado State Historic Preservation Office

History Colorado Center

1200 Broadway

Denver, CO 80203

303-866-4678

amy.pallante@state.co.us
Petition for Exemption under Section FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 

FEB. 14, 2012

I, Siegfried Langmann, hereby submit this petition for exemption under Section 333; FAA Modernization 

and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333.

I request this exemption in order to operate my UAV/UAS, DJI Inspire, Yuneec Q500 and Blade Chroma, 

in order to provide services for profit to include aerial photography, aerial cinematography, aerial 

filming and photography for real estate, construction firms, agricultural modeling, crop monitoring 

operations, aerial mapping, special events to include but not limited to business advertising, 

promotional events, geological surveying, and environmental studies.

The ability to provide these services to local businesses and individuals in my community will benefit 

them by opening up opportunities they otherwise did not have before. Traditional methods of aerial 

photography/videography are simply not viable options for the average consumer as they are to costly 

and involve greater risks to everyone involved; i.e. the use of larger aircraft carrying humans and 

flammable fuel. By utilizing the UAV/UAS the same results can be achieved with much safer conditions.

Prior to each flight/operation of the UAV/UAS, I will conduct a Pre-Flight Safety Inspection. 

Any and all repairs will be performed only by the manufacturers authorized repair facilities/ providers. 

Flights will not take place over densely populated areas or private property without the owners 

permission. The UAV/UAS will only be operated within visual line of sight and will not be flown near 

airports or above 200 feet. The FAA can be confident that operations of this UAV/UAS will achieve at 

least the equivalent or greater level of safety.

I have operated remote controlled aircraft in a hobby setting safely for more than 20 years now and am 

also a member of the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics).

The requests of this petition are similar to those of Mr. Jase W. Robak, Mr. Todd Thomas Drone Pics, and 

Mr. Mike Lloyd Lloyd & Associates, all of whom have received Section 333 exemptions for comparable 

aircraft for similar operations.

The specific sections of 14 C.F.R from which I am seeking exemption are as follows:

14 C.F.R. Part 21;

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4), & (5);

14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 61.133 (a);

14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) & (c);

14 C.F.R 91.7(a)

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2);

14C.F.R. 91.109(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.119;
14 C.F.R. 91.121;

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1);

14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(2};

14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b).

Please find attached the User Manuals, Safety Guides and UAV/UAS Specifications.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Siegfried Langmann