alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

FEDERAL 

UNITED STA 

TRADE 

~~~, OF 

COMMISSION 

AMERICA " ORIGINAL

OFFICE OF ADMI~~T~ATIVE LAW'JUUGES ~ t .; ~ ., .. ' , 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

McWANE, INC., ) 

a corporation, and ) DOCKET NO. 9351 

) 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., ) 


a limited partnership, ) 


Respondents. ) 


------------------------------~) 

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION OF 


NON-PARTY ILLINOIS METER, INC. 


FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 


On March 16, 2012, non-party Illinois Meter, Inc. ("Illinois Meter") filed an unopposed 

motion to extend the time for Illinois Meter to move to limit or quash (1) a Subpoena Duces 

Tecum and (2) a Subpoena Ad Testificandum (collectively, the "Subpoenas") served on it on 

March 6,2012 by Respondent McWane, Inc. ("McWane"), with a response date of March 23, 

2012. Illinois Meter seeks an order extending the deadline to March 30, 2012. 

In support of its motion, Illinois Meter states that it has entered into discussions with 

McWane regarding the scope ofthe Subpoenas, its objections, and the time required for Illinois 

Meter to produce its documents and data and to conduct depositions. Illinois Meter further states 

that McWane does not oppose the extension oftime for Illinois Meter to file a Motion to Limit or 

Quash the Subpoenas through March 30, 2012, in order to afford its counsel sufficient time to 

continue negotiating with McWane's counsel on reasonable limitations and modifications of 

McWane's requests to reduce the burden on Illinois Meter of responding, thereby potentially 

avoiding the necessity of filing a motion to quash or limit the Subpoenas. 

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, the Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby 

ORDERED that the deadline for non-party Illinois Meter to file any motion to limit or quash 

Subpoenas shall be March 30, 2012. 

ORDERED: 


D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: March 16,2012
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8430-8436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4563]


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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates

AGENCY: DoD, Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee.

ACTION: Notice of revised non-foreign overseas per diem rates.

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

SUMMARY: The Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is 
publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 192. This 
bulletin lists revisions in per diem rates prescribed for U.S. 
Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto 
Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United 
States. Bulletin Number 192 is being published in the Federal Register 
to assure that travelers are paid per diem at the most current rates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document gives notice of revisions in 
per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation 
Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental 
United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin 
Number 191. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by 
mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the 
Federal

[[Page 8431]]

Register now constitute the only notification of revisions in per diem 
rates to agencies and establishments outside the Department of Defense. 
For more information or questions about per diem rates, please contact 
your local travel office. The text of the Bulletin follows:

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
      

[[Page 8432]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE97.000



[[Page 8433]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE97.001



[[Page 8434]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE97.002



[[Page 8435]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE97.003



[[Page 8436]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN25FE97.004


    Dated: February 20, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-4563 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determ ined 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 6, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60273 Summary Calendar RONNIE ADRIAN WILSON,

Petitioner,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

-------------------------------------------------------- Petiti on for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A34 607 336

--------------------------------------------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ronnie Adrian Wilso n, a native and citizen of Trinidad, peti tions for review of the order of th e Board of Im

migration Appeals (BIA) denying his mo tion to reopen his removal proceedings on th e basis of INS v. St. Cyr , 533 U.S. 289 (2001), and of amended immigrat io n regulations providing-2-

fo r th e filing of “special” mo ti ons to reopen pursuant to th e rationale of S t. Cyr. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.44. We review the denial of a mo ti on to reopen under a “‘highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.’” A ltimirano-Lopez v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Moti ons to reopen rem

oval proceedings are “‘disfavored,’” and “the moving party bears a ‘heavy burden.’” I

d

. (citation om

it ted). We review the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo, but “defer to the BIA’s int erpretations of immigrat io n regulations if th at int erpretation is reasonable. ” HernandezCastillo v. Moore , 436 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 28, 2006) (No. 05-1251). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilso n’s “special” mo tion to reopen. First, Wilso n was prohibited by th e very regulation on which he relies from filing a second mo tion to reopen based on St. Cyr

. S ee 8 C.F.R. § 1003.44(g)(3). In any event, Wilson’s S t. Cyr claim was merit less. The “aggravated felony” forgery offense to which Wilson pleaded guilty on May 31, 1996, did not qualify as an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(R) at the time he entered the plea. However, Congress explicit ly included Wilso n’s of fense as an aggravated felo ny as part of an explicit ly retroactive redefinition of his of fense, in § 321 of th e Illegal Im

migration Reform and Im

migrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which became effective on April 1, 1997. See St. Cyr , 533 U.S. at 319. Wilso n’s petition for review is DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9236-9237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4982]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

February 20, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Special Request: In order to begin the survey described below in 
April 1997, the Department of the Treasury is requesting that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approve this 
information collection by March 4, 1997. To obtain a copy of this 
survey, please contact the IRS Clearance Officer at the address listed 
below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1432.
    Project Number: M:SP:V 97-004G.
    Type of Review: Revision.
    Title: 1-900 Tax Practitioner Hotline Focus Group Interviews.
    Description: The IRS is conducting a series of nine (9) focus group 
interviews with tax practitioners. The objective of these focus groups 
is to determine:
    <bullet> Are they willing to pay for the 1-900 hotline service?
    <bullet> What services would they be willing to pay for?
    <bullet> What services would they not be willing to pay for?
    <bullet> Their suggestions for alternatives to a 1-900 hotline?

[[Page 9237]]

    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 81.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 3 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Other.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 318 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-4982 Filed 2-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
12.31.2013 - 10-K -Ex 10.64






Exhibit 10.64


EXTENSION OF AMENDED AND RESTATED REFINING AGREEMENT
This EXTENSION OF AMENDED AND RESTATED REFINING AGREEMENT (this “Extension”) is made effective as of the 1st day of October, 2013 (the “Effective Date”), by and between JOHNSON MATTHEY INC., a Pennsylvania corporation (“JM”), and STILLWATER MINING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (“SMC”).
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, SMC and JM have previously executed the Amended and Restated Refining Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2010 (the “Original Agreement”), which has a term expiring September 30, 2010; and
WHEREAS, SMC and JM desire to extend the Original Agreement until March 31, 2014.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and of the several and mutual agreements herein contained, value and sufficiency being hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
1.    All references to “September 30, 2013” in the Original Agreement, including, without limitation, in Sections 3.1 and 4.1(i) and Exhibits C and D, are hereby deleted and replaced by references to “March 31, 2014.”
2    Except as expressly amended by this Extension, the Original Agreement remains in full force and effect.
3.    This Extension shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York as though this Extension were performed in full in the State of New York, without giving effect to any choice of law or conflict of law provision or rule (whether of the State of New York or any other jurisdiction) that would cause the application of the laws of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York.
IN WTINESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Extension to be executed by their duly authorized officers to be effective as of the Effective Date regardless of the date signed. 
JOHNSON MATTHEY INC.                STILLWATER MINING COMPANY


By:     /s/ Robert A. Bullen-Smith            By:      /s/ Terrell Ackerman
Name: Robert A. Bullen-Smith            Name:   Terrell Ackerman
Title:   General Manager                Title:       Vice President
           Refining and Chemical NA and Asia
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A2107. TRAVIS MORRIS v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

The State filed a complaint for forfeiture in which Travis Morris, a non-party,

filed an answer asserting a claim to $41,000 of the subject currency. The trial court

entered an order dismissing Morris’s claim after finding that he did not have standing

to intervene and make the claim. Morris then filed this direct appeal. We lack

jurisdiction. 

“The denial of a motion to intervene is not a final judgment and thus, is

reviewable under the interlocutory appeal procedure” delineated in OCGA § 5-6-34.

Morman v. Bd. of Regents of the University System of Ga., 198 Ga. App. 544 (402

SE2d 320) (1991); see also Wallace v. Bledsoe, 244 Ga. 674 (261 SE2d 399) (1979).

Because Morris has failed to follow the proper procedure, which includes obtaining

a certificate of immediate review from the trial court and filing an interlocutory

application with the clerk of this Court, we lack jurisdiction over this direct appeal,

which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

August 18, 2020

08/18/2020
#### Gertrude SHAKTMAN, Appellant, v. UNION MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 71-397.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Fuller, Brumer, Moss & Cohen, Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, Miami, for appellant.

Nicholson, Howard, Brawner & Lovett, Miami, and Robert A. Freyer, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below appeals from a judgment in favor of the defendant insurer. The stipulation entered into between the parties in the trial court, as to the facts and the questions involved, were such as to bring this case within the authority and control of the decision rendered by the first district court of appeal in Roberts v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 59, on authority of which the judgment appealed from in this case is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9000-9001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4856]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-336]


Northeast Nuclear Energy Company; Notice of Withdrawal of 
Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee) to 
withdraw its October 24, 1995, application for proposed amendment to 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-65 for the Millstone Nuclear Power 
Station, Unit No. 2, located in New London, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical 
Specifications to defer the next required surveillance to inspect steam 
generator tubes, from October 20, 1996, to the next refueling outage or 
no later than October 20, 1997, whichever is earlier.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in

[[Page 9001]]

the Federal Register on November 27, 1995 (60 FR 58402). However, by 
letter dated February 4, 1997, the licensee withdrew the proposed 
change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated October 24, 1995, as supplemented March 
7, 1996, and the licensee's letter dated February 4, 1997, which 
withdrew the application for license amendment. The above documents are 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document 
Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at 
the local public document room located at the Learning Resources 
Center, Three Rivers Community-Technical College, 574 New London 
Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, and the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince 
Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of February 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Daniel G. McDonald,
Senior Project Manager Special Projects Office--Licensing Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-4856 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

QUENTIN INGRAM,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 162 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of October, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Aerial Inspection Resources,Inc.

4380 SW Macadam Ave.

Suite 515

Portland, OR 97239

Drew.p@aerialinspectionresources.com

U.S. Department of Transportation Feb. 27, 2016

Docket ManagementSystem

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Amendment to Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc. ExemptionNo. 11467

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-0261

Dear Sir or Madam:

Aerial Inspection Resources, Inc. (AIR) is requesting an amendment to our FAA Exemption No. 

11467, Docket No. FAA-2015-0261 for the purpose of conducting commercial UAS operations. AIR 

wishes to add the DJI Inspire 1.

For your ease in reviewing this request, please refer to the exhibit list which begins on page 2.

If we can provide any additional information to assist your understanding or review of this 

document, please do not hesitate to contact us at 503-312-9804 or via email at Drew.P@air-uas.com.

Thank you,

Drew Pairamore

Director of Regulatory Compliance

Aerial Inspection Resources,Inc.
Table of Contents 

Exhibits

Exhibit 1: Link	to	DJI	Inspire Specifications ............... ..............................www.dji.com/product/inspire-1/info
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000864177
<NAME>                        ENEX OIL & GAS INCOME PROGRAM IV - SERIES 7, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                         15380
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  36477
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               53961
<PP&E>                                         2327688
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1920402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 461247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29737
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     431510
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   461247
<SALES>                                        342367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               342367
<CGS>                                          358076
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  401013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               42937
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (58646)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSIO!

}
In the Matter of }
)
CIUCAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY N.V.,  )
)
a foreign corporation, )
>
CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, )
)

2 corporation, y Docket No. 9300
)
and }
)
PITT-DES-MOINES, {NC., )
}
a corporation. )
_—.. . a —)

ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION of the Respondents’ Motion For A Sixty-Day
Extension of Time, filed on June 14, 20092, and heing fully advised in the premises,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, because I find that the following extraordinary
circumstances exist here, the Rule set forth in Rule of Practice 3.51{a) requizing a decision to be
tendered within one year of the filing of the complaint shall be extended by sixty days:

(1) After issuance af the compiaint on October 25, 2001, the parties engaged
in good faith settlement negotiations. Respondents’ received two ex:ensions on the answer date
frora this Court based on motions made jointly by Respondents and Complaint Counsel, both ot
whom wished to avoid turning the proceedings adversarial and to conserve lit:gation expenses
when settlement prospects looked realistic. Thus, discovery in this case did noc begin until

March 2002.


(2) Once settlement negotiations failed, the parties have worked diligently and
cooperatively to complete discovery. The parties have completed twenty (20) depositions to
date, and have scheduled twenty (20) more within the next three weeks. However, that leaycs an
addiiional twenty (20) or more depositions that the parties wish to take before the close of
discovery.

Q@) On June 7, 2002, Complaint Counsel served a series of discovery requests
upon Respondent Chicago Bridge & Iron ("CB&I"). CB&I has stated that it will take it at least
lwo montis Lo respond Lo these discovery requests.

(4) This is a complex case chailenging a consummated merger where the
Camplaine alleges six different product markets, cach of which have different customers,
competitors, and witmesses. Discovery cannot be completed within the ume permitted by the
First Revised Scheduling Order. In the interest of having ail of the relevant evidence before it,
this Court has determined that the parties should be given an opportunity to complete the
additional depositions and for Respondents ta gather and produce information responsive to

Complaint Counsel's June 7th discovery requests.

ORDERED: - PR. hewoky
James P, Timony \
we ubdge

Administrative La

June, 2002
Slip Op. 06 - 70 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x SERGIO U. RETAMAL, : Plaintiff, : v. Court No. 03-00613 : U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, : Defendant. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Memorandum & Order Dated: May 11, 2006 AQUILINO, Senior Judge: Pursuant to this court's slip opinion 04-149, 28 CIT (Nov. 24, 2004), final judgment wasentered, dismissing this action. Upon subsequent denial of a motion for rehearing per slip opinion 05-15, 29 CIT (Feb. 3,2005), the originally-pro-se plaintiff's adoptive counsel prosecuted an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handed down a decision that concluded:The judgment of the United States Court of International Trade is vacated in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss.Sergio U. Retamal & John J. Galvin v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection , 439 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed.Cir. 2006). That court's judgment issued as a mandate on April 27, 2006 to the foregoing effect causes this court to reaffirm that allCourt No. 03-00613 Page 2 that its judgment did on November 24, 2004 was to do what the appellate remand now seemingly requires, to wit, dismiss this action. Ergo, it is once again so ordered. Dated: New York, New York May 11, 2006 Thomas J. Aquilino, Jr. Senior Judge