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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





(Date of report)October 25, 2012(Date of earliest event reported)October 24, 2012





ONEOK PARTNERS, L.P.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





Delaware1-1220293-1120873(State or other jurisdiction(Commission(IRS Employerof incorporation)File Number)Identification No.)





100 West Fifth Street; Tulsa, OK


(Address of principal executive offices)





74103


(Zip code)





(918) 588-7000


(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)





Not Applicable


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)





[] Written communication pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





[] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





[] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





[] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))








---




Item 7.01Regulation FD DisclosureOn October 24, 2012, we announced that the board of directors of our general partner, ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C., approved a cash distribution of 68.5 cents per unit for the quarter ended September 30, 2012.  A copy of the news release is attached as Exhibit 99.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.The information disclosed in this Item 7.01, including Exhibit 99.1 hereto, is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.Item 8.01Other EventsOn October 24, 2012, the board of directors of our general partner, ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C., approved a cash distribution of 68.5 cents per unit effective for the third quarter 2012.  The third-quarter distribution is payable on November 14, 2012, to unitholders of record as of November 5, 2012.Item 9.01Financial Statements and ExhibitsExhibits99.1News release issued by ONEOK Partners, L.P. dated October 24, 2012 - Quarterly Distribution.





2








---







SIGNATURE





Pursuant to the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, hereunto duly authorized.





ONEOK Partners, L.P.By:  ONEOK Partners GP, L.L.C.,General PartnerDate:October 25, 2012By:/s/ Robert F. MartinovichRobert F. MartinovichExecutive Vice President,Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer








3
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3828]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United 
States v. Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas was lodged on January 30, 
1997 with the United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Texas. The proposed Consent Decree requires Formosa to pay a $150,000 
civil penalty and conduct a Supplemental Environmental Project at its 
Point Comfort, Texas facility. The Supplemental Environmental Project 
includes the replacement of two ethylene dichloride cracking furnaces 
at Formosa's facility before the end of the useful life of the 
furnaces. Replacement of the furnaces before the end of the useful life 
of the equipment will reduce emissions from existing furnaces and 
reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated by the furnaces.
    Contemporaneously with lodging the Consent Decree, the United 
States filed an action against Formosa pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq, the Standards of Performance for New Stationary 
Sources, 40 C.F.R. Part 60, Subpart VV, and the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subparts F, 
V, and FF. This action is based upon violations that occurred at 
Formosa's facility located in Point Comfort, Texas (``Formosa's 
facility'').
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to 
Civil Action No. 97-287, United States v. Formosa Plastics Corporation, 
Texas, DOJ Reference Number 90-5-2-1-2005.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Region VI Office 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 
75202; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th 
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed 
Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. 
In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a 
check in the amount of $4.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel Gross,
Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environmental and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-3828 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Order entered February 4 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 00410

- CR

REYES DAVID GARCIA A/K/A DAVID GARCIA REYES , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16

- 70522

- S



### O RDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the October 3, 201 8 m otion of

Sharita Blacknall for leave to withdraw as appointed counsel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk

of the Court to remove Sharita Blacknall as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and all future correspondence to Reyes David

Garcia , TDCJ No. 0 1988364

, Daniel Unit, 938 South FM 1673, Snyder, Texas, 79 549.

/s/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
1

Ogulei, David

From: Paddock, Nancy <nancy.paddock@veolia.com>

Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 8:29 AM

To: Ogulei, David

Cc: Dennis Warchol

Subject: Greenhouse Gas numbers

Attachments: Veolia GHG.xls

Hi David! 

Hope you didn't think I forgot about you. : ) Attached you will find the greenhouse gas spreadsheet. Hopefully 

this is what you need. 

Have a great day! 

Nancy 

Nancy Paddock 

Environmental Engineering Specialist 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 

7 Mobile Avenue 

Sauget, IL 62201 

618.271.2804 (x-115) 

618.271.2128 (fax) 

 

Please note that my e-mail address has changed:

Nancy.Paddock@Veolia.com 

 

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. is for the sole use of the intended 

recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, 

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communicate 

with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and delete it from all 

computers.
Sl()-M)03()9-()5 

METROPOLITA N 

KNOXVILL E 

AIRPOR T 

AUTHORIT Y 

March 2, 2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington. DC 20590 

Docket DOT-OST-2010-aP' 

Dear Secretary LaHood: 

American Airlines and American Eagle Airlines have served the Knoxville, Tennessee area for 

over 75 years. Today, American and their onev^forld alliance partner carriers connect Knoxville's 

world-class research and development centers with the global community. 

It is with great pleasure that we support the application for antitrust immunity and the proposed 

joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The proposed alliance 

between these two airlines is vital for the oneworld alliance to compete effectively with the Star 

and SkyTeam alliances. This increased alliance competition will in turn enhance the benefits of 

the Department's Open Skies policy - first by solidifying U.S. - Japan Open Skies, then by 

serving as a foundation for further liberalization across Asia. 

After a thorough review, we encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this 

application as it would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to deliver 

highly competitive air transportation services that will benefit both our local travelers, as well as 

those visiting our region. Approval for AA/JAL alliance will have a positive impact on air travel by 

offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that 

customers continue to benefit from the competition afforded by three competitive air alliances. 

We urge you to quickly approve this application. 

Sincerely, 

METROPOLITAN KNOXVILLE-AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

James H. Evans, Jr. 

Vice-President 

Marketing & Air Service Devel6pment 

McGheeTyson Airport • P.O. Box 15600 • Knoxville, TN 37901 • 865/342-3000 • FAX 865/342-3050 • email: mcghee®tys.org iS'fes 
ti l 

S!()-UH)3(W-05! 

^y' ' 

' • i '-*• 

e o 

- a. 

% to 

£ 3 

•v# 

'-sai' 

IS 

o 

X 

CO 

I 

XI 

2 

o 

c 

?a 

CO c 

03 

E 

I si 

o 

o 

CM 

O 

Q 

c" 

i 

c 

Ic 

CO 

(0 

I 

o 

CO 

O 

o 

8 

in 

a: 

z 

< 

1 -

_ J 

O 

0 . 

O 

LU 

-£ 

LU 

- J 

—1 

> 

X 

0 

z 

1 -

a i 

O 

a. 

a: 

< 

>-

H 

c^ 

O 

X 

( -

< 

log 

< vO M 

D o : o
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-501]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Docket A(32b1)-2-94]


Foreign-Trade Zone 50--Long Beach, CA; Withdrawal of Request for 
Export Manufacturing Authority J.M. William & Company, Inc. (Poly/
Cotton Bed Linens)

    Notice is hereby given of the withdrawal of the request submitted 
by the Port of Long Beach, California, grantee of FTZ 50, requesting 
authority on behalf of the J.M. William & Company, Inc., to manufacture 
textile bed linens under zone procedures for export within FTZ 50. The 
request was filed on May 20, 1994 (59 FR 29410, 6/7/94).
    The withdrawal was requested by the applicant because of changed 
circumstances, and the case has been closed without prejudice.

    Dated: December 30, 1996.
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-501 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R ONG HUA ZHOU, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 09-70964 Age n c y No. A099-525-143 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 29, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd R AW L INSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd HUC K , Distric t Judge . *** R ong Hua

Zhou, a native and c itiz e n of C hina , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l ’ s orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from an Im

m igration 

# FIL ED SEP 11 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Pa ul C . Huc k, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for Southe rn Florida , sitting by de signa tion.Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny the pe t ition for re vie w. W e re vie w for substa

ntia l e vide nc e supporting the a g e nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings, a pply ing the sta

nda rds gove rning a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inations c re ate d by the REAL ID Ac t. Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). The IJ e xpre sse d spe c ific and c o ge nt re a sons for his a dve rse c re dibility finding on the

re c ord, inc luding m ate ria l ga ps in Zhou’ s te s tim o ny , la c k of e xpla nation or de ta il, a

ppa re nt e xa gge ra tions, a

nd a fa ilure to providea

founda tion for inc onsiste nt c orroborating e vide nc e . In light of the se findings, a nd be c a use the y are c onsiste nt with the REAL ID Ac t’ s sta tutory fa c t ors, we c o nc lude tha

t substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm i nation. S

e e id. at 1040–44; 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). In the a bse nc e of c re dible te s tim ony , Zhou’ s a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s fa il. Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). Zhou’ s C A T c l a im s a

re ba se d on the sa

m e te stim ony that

the IJ found not c re d ible , and be c a

use Zhou doe s not pre se n t a ny othe r e vide nc e tha

t shows tha

t it is m o re like ly

tha n not shewould be torture d if re turne d to C hina , he r C AT c la im a lso fa ils. Se e id. at

1156–57. -2-PETITION FOR REVIEW

DENIED.

-3-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20 - 0316

_________________ THREE BLIND MICE,

Pl aint iff and Appellee, v. LARRY W. PRICE, JR.,

Defendant and Appellee, P&H TRUCKING, LLC and MY COMPANY, L LC,

In tervenors and Appellants. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to p rovide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Rod Souza , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 14 2020

10/14/2020
Case Number: DA 20-0316
From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Bruce McGlasson [bmcglasson@flygrant.com] 

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 5:03PM 

Adams, Kevin (OST) 

RE: Atka and Nikolski ' ' ~- '; -.!: 2 

Grant Aviation has only recently become aware of the Department's need for EAS proposals to serve Atka and Nikolski, 

Alaska. To allow Grant Aviation to provide a detailed, reasonable proposal for the Department's consideration, we 

respectfully request an extension of the deadline for submittal of our proposal until March 30, 2012. 

As this will be the first time Grant Aviation has made a proposal to provide EAS, the requested extension will be needed 

by our company to ensure that a thorough review of logistical demands and service requirements may be completed 

prior to submittal. 

As current EAS contracts serving these destinations do not expire until the end of June, 2012, the brief extension 

requested should not cause undue hardship to the concerned communities nor any disadvantage to other air carriers 

making competing proposals. 

Thank you for your consideration, 

R. Bruce McGlasson 

President 

Grant Aviation, Inc.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection with the Annual Report of CascadeMicrotech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Eric W. Strid, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge,:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Eric W. Strid       |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Eric W. Strid           |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| Cascade Microtech, Inc. |
| March 16, 2007          |

 

Thiscertification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and notfor any other purpose.  A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CascadeMicrotech, Inc. and will be retained by Cascade Microtech, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1266

CHRISTOPHER A. ODOM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STEPHEN RYAN; JUDGE ARTHUR MCFARLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (3:09-cv-03271-PMD)

Submitted: July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher A. Odom, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher A. Odom appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Odom v. 

Ryan, No. 3:09-cv-03271-PMD (D.S.C. Feb. 4, 2010). 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.

AFFIRMED
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0980 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 -NM - 1 29 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
#### William C. O’BRIEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-138.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 11541 Not in labor force Number in thousands 16 to 19 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value**LNU05000012Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, 16-19 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:07:19 PM)
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

June 17, 2014

Wayne Dale Collins, Esq.

Shearman & Sterling LLP

599 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Re: Ardagh Group S.A., Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc., and 

Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Docket No. 9356

Dear Mr. Collins:

This letter responds to the Application for Approval of Divestiture of Anchor Glass 

Business to Glass Container Acquisition LLC (“Anchor Glass Application”) filed by Ardagh 

Group S.A. (“Ardagh”) on April 24, 2014. The Anchor Glass Application requests that the 

Federal Trade Commission approve, pursuant to the Order in this matter, Ardagh’s proposed 

divestiture of the Anchor Glass Business to Glass Container Acquisition LLC, an affiliate of 

KPS Capital Partners L.P. The Application was placed on the public record for comments until 

May 28, 2014, and no comments were received.

After consideration of the proposed divestiture as set forth in Ardagh’s Anchor Glass

Application and supplemental documents, as well as other available information, the 

Commission has determined to approve the proposed divestiture. In according its approval, the 

Commission has relied upon the information submitted and representations made in connection 

with Ardagh’s Anchor Glass Application and has assumed them to be accurate and complete.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Wright dissenting and Commissioner 

McSweeny not participating.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

cc: Richard Parker, Esq.

O’Melveny & Myers LLP

1625 Eye Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Aidan Synnott, Esq.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

1285 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10019-6064