alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Proposed EPA Agenda

Meeting between U.S.EPA and 

Toray Fluorofibers (America) Inc. 

April 30, 2010

Agenda

 Brief History of Toray Fluorofibers 

America) Inc. (TFA)

 Description of TFA’s actions to reduce 

PFOA emissions since start of 

manufacture

 Status of conversion to Non-PFOA 

Polymer
2

History

 The TEFLON® Fiber business was commercialized by The 

DuPont Company in 1959

 TORAY purchased the business in Oct. 2002

 TORAY moved the mfg. to Decatur from Richmond, VA during 

2004

 TORAY has manufactured and sold TEFLON® brand fibers in 

Decatur since Aug. 2004

 Asked by DuPont to convert to low PFOA Dispersion shortly 

after start-up

 Work to convert all customers starts and progress allows 

conversion of filament yarns to be announced on 11-30-05. 

 Total conversion completed by January 1, 2007

 As a result our PFOA emissions are estimated at ~4 pounds 

during the past 12 months

Status of Conversion

 Conducted our first spinning campaign in July 2009

 Started sampling our Customers in August of 2009

 We have sampled ~ 15% of our domestic Customer base which 

cover our most sensitive applications: Bearings – Automotive, 

Industrial and Aerospace

 We have also sampled Filtration and mechanical packing 

customers

 We are now beginning to receive meaningful results which 

indicate the new polymer is acceptable

 Our supplier is installing the needed equipment and capacity to 

meet our needs

 This allows us to state that we are on track for a conversion by

October 2010 barring unforeseen delays during the equipment 

start-up at our vendor
3

Agenda

 Discussion of EPA’s PFOA 

Stewardship Program

 Does the EPA plan to press forward with the Stewardship 

Program?

 Discussion of impacts of TFA's indirect participation in 

Stewardship program, costs of participation vis a vis

competition; 

 Under this program, how will the EPA acknowledge/credit 

processors such as TFA in the face of ongoing 

investigations and competition from Overseas Imports?

Agenda

 Discussion of EPA’s PFC Action Plan

 How does the EPA plan to address finished articles made 

from polymers using Long Chain PFC’s?

 What plans does the EPA have to address materials made 

with short chain PFC’s?

 Discuss Impact on companies, like TFA, from import of 

finished articles made from long chain PFC’s.

 What can EPA do to help?

 What is EPA’s plan regarding manufacturers of final 

articles of fluoropolymer materials that are sourcing 

materials made using long-chain PFC’s?
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Fansteel Inc. as of September 30, 1997 and the
related consolidated statement of operations for the nine months ended September
30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Company's Form
10-Q filing for the period ended September 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       8,547,172
<SECURITIES>                                   297,318
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,115,779
<ALLOWANCES>                                   280,440
<INVENTORY>                                 18,488,403
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,226,042
<PP&E>                                      63,192,913
<DEPRECIATION>                              48,607,008
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              86,306,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,261,141
<BONDS>                                      1,643,818
<COMMON>                                    21,497,145
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,839,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                86,306,004
<SALES>                                    103,595,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           103,595,100
<CGS>                                       87,992,339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              100,350,791
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (322,717)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                46,294
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,567,026
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,514,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,053,026
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,053,026
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0982 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-CE-035-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. 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 same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. 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 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 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 with 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, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Exhibit 10.1 03.09.14 Clinton Group Agreement






Exhibit 10.1




March 9, 2014


Clinton Group, Inc.
601 Lexington Avenue, 51st Floor
New York, NY  10022


The Wet Seal, Inc.
26972 Burbank
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Attention: Board of Directors


Ladies and Gentlemen:
Clinton Group, Inc. on behalf of its affiliates and associates (the “Clinton Group”) hereby agrees to vote any and all shares of the  Class A Common Stock, par value $0.10 per share, of The Wet Seal, Inc. beneficially owned by Clinton Group, and over which Clinton Group has voting authority, at the 2014 annual meeting of the Company’s shareholders (and any adjournment or postponement thereof) in favor of director nominees Lynda Davey, John Mills, Kenneth Reiss, John Goodman, Dorrit Bern, Kathy Bronstein, Adam Rothstein, Deena Varshavskaya and Nancy Lublin.  
Sincerely,
/s/ Gregory P. Taxin
Gregory P. Taxin
President
#### Charles L. VENICE and Anne M. Venice, his wife, Appellants, v. Leo McLEAN and State Farm Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation, Appellees.

No. 72-1436.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 26, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-20502

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAY LATSON,

 Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-95-174-3

 ________________________________________

March 12, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ray Latson appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack

cocaine and aiding and abetting same. He argues that he was entrapped by the Drug Enforcement

Agency. Accepting every fact in the light most favorable to the jury’s guilty verdict, the evidence

established that a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Latson was
predisposed to engage in the criminal conduct at issue. An officer acting undercover did no more

than provide Latson with an opportunity to break the law, and Latson readily accepted the

opportunity. Latson’s lack of reluctance to engage in criminal conduct was sufficient to

demonstrate predisposition. See United States v. Byrd, 31 F.3d 1329, 1334-35 (5th Cir. 1994),

cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1432 (1995). 

There is no plain error concerning the alleged sentencing- factor manipulation, see United

States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Garcia, 79 F.3d 74, 75 (7th

Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 158 (1996), or the jury’s inquiry regarding entrapment. See Byrd,

31 F.3d at 1335; United States v. Calverly, 37 F.3d 160, 162 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995). 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27704]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12778]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 149

[Docket ID: DOD-2017-OS-0050]
RIN 0790-AJ59


Policy on Technical Surveillance Countermeasures

AGENCY: Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, DoD.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule removes DoD's regulation concerning the 
Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM) Program. DoD originally 
determined that rulemaking was required based on the portion of this 
part that speaks to providing assistance to non-DoD agencies. However, 
this part places no burden on other agencies. The description of the 
relationship with other agencies is in accordance with federal law, and 
this part is unnecessary. Therefore, this part can be removed from the 
CFR.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 14, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Davison, 703-697-4850.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: It has been determined that publication of 
this CFR part removal for public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, 
and contrary to public interest since it is based on removing DoD 
internal policies and procedures that are publically available on the 
Department's issuance website.
    This part contains internal DoD requirements and thus, does not 
fiscally impact parties outside of DoD. DoD's internal DoD Instruction 
5240.05, ``Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM),'' remains in 
effect exclusively for the management of TSCM in DoD and is available 
at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/524005_2014.pdf.
    This rule is not significant under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' therefore, E.O. 13771, ``Reducing 
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' does not apply.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 149

    Classified information, Investigations.

PART 149--[REMOVED]

0
Accordingly, by the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 32 CFR part 149 is 
removed.

    Dated: June 11, 2018.
Shelly E. Finke,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2018-12778 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 15


Exhibit 15.  Letter regarding unaudited interim financial information from KPMG
             Peat Marwick LLP



The Board of Directors
First American Corporation:

We have reviewed the consolidated balance sheets of First American Corporation
and subsidiaries as of September 30, 1995 and 1994, the related consolidated
statements of income for the three-month and nine-month periods ended September
30, 1995 and 1994, and the related consolidated statements of changes in
shareholders' equity and cash flows for the nine-month periods ended September
30, 1995 and 1994.  These consolidated financial statements are the
responsibility of the Corporation's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken
as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to
be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of First American Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1994; and the related consolidated statements
of income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated January 20, 1995, we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.
Our report refers to changes in accounting principles related to the adoption
in 1993 of the provisions of the Financial Accounting Standards Board's
Statements of Financial Accounting Standards No. 109, Accounting for Income
Taxes; No. 106, Employers' Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other Than
Pensions; No. 112, Employers' Accounting for Postemployment Benefits; and No.
115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities.


/s/  KPMG Peat Marwick LLP          
--------------------------
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

October 19, 1995, except for the fifth paragraph of Note 5, as to which the
date is November 1, 1995
Nashville, Tennessee
EXHIBIT 10.3
                             SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT

This SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT when signed by John G. Pierce located at 800 N.
Ferncreek Ave. Orlando, Florida 32803 hereafter referred to as the "PARTICIPANT"
and RAVEN MOON INTERNATIONAL, INC. a public reporting Florida corporation
located at 120 International Parkway, Suite 220, Heathrow, Florida 32746
hereafter referred to as RMOO shall constitute a binding agreement.

THEREFORE FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION the parties agree as follows:

The PARTICIPANT has made a loan to RMOO acknowledged by a Promissory Note in the
amount of $40,000 in legal services.

THEREFORE BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT by the transfer of 290,000 shares of
common stock to RMOO and the execution of this SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT, RMOO
shall give the PARTICIPANT 870,000 Shares of Preferred RMOO stock and
irrevocably pay the PARTICIPANT a FULL REPAYMENT of $40,000 plus 10% interest
from the first funds received from RMOO's planned Public Offering plus 40,000
Tradable Common Shares of Stock plus a Gross Revenue Royal o 0.5% of Gross
Revenues received by RMOO for TEN (10) Years. The LOAN REPAYMENT AND ROYALTY
PAYMENTS shall be paid on a pro rata basis with other PARTICIPANTS.

It is understood that the execution of this agreement acknowledges that the
PARTICIPANT is an accredited investor who can bare the risk of losing part or
all of his/her corporate advance made to RMOO. Furthermore the PARTICIPANT
acknowledges that he/she has sought the advise of either his/her legal or
financial advisor and is making this corporate advance of his/her own free will
and that this is a high risk venture and undertaking with no guarantee
whatsoever of success.

The PARTICIPANT shall have three (3) days from the date of this agreement to
rescind this agreement.

Both parties acknowledge that this is a complete agreement that cannot be
amended or change without written approval by both parties.

Both parties agree that any dispute that may arise between them shall be settled
in arbitration in Seminole County, Florida according to the laws of Florida.


THIS AGREEMENT IS ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO ON THIS 17th DAY OF April 2000
                                                 ----        -----

/s/  Joey DiFrancesco
---------------------------
     Joey DiFrancesco
     Raven Moon International, Inc.

/s/  John G. Pierce
---------------------------
     John G. Pierce
#### Burton W. WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner, v. CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 43354.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 270 So.2d 403.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002** We, W. L. Brunson, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of The National Security Group, Inc. and Brian R. McLeod, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

|                                                                  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ William L. Brunson, Jr.                                           |
| William L. Brunson, Jr.                                               |
| President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

 

  |
|                                                                  |
|                                                                  |
| /s/Brian R. McLeod                                                    |
| Brian. R. McLeod                                                      |
| Chief Financial Officer                                               |
|                                                                  |
| Dated: March 27, 2009                                            |

 

 

 

85
#### Louis HENSON v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE CO.

No. 61846.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., applying for certiorari or writ of *1007review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 354 So.2d 612.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                2,383,165
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                        10,967,978
<ALLOWANCES>                             43,500
<INVENTORY>                          14,815,988
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     31,884,770
<PP&E>                               75,825,783
<DEPRECIATION>                       30,904,817
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      108,265,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 7,874,893
<BONDS>                              26,551,321
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                              1,175,261
<OTHER-SE>                           70,657,553
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        108,265,579
<SALES>                              23,087,608
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     35,642,029
<CGS>                                22,297,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        12,145,977
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,329,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (130,979)
<INCOME-TAX>                            708,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (1,274,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      18,629,597
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                         17,354,803
<EPS-BASIC>                               25.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                             25.93


</TABLE>
## Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equipment Costs:

Tanks

Purchased Equipment Costs are the sum of the following cost elements:

(1) Pump Costs

(2) Tank Costs

(3) Chemical Feed System Costs

(4) Mixer Costs

(5) Clarifier Costs

(6) Filter Press Costs

(7) Sand Filter Costs

Each cost component includes the cost of freight and associated ancillary equipment such as piping, valves, and

controllers.

This tele ph one contact report supports EPA’ s development of cost element (2 ) by documenting EPA's

communication with a vendor regarding purchase costs and information for tanks used in the Steam Electric

cost model.Project No.: 0172. 08 .02 9 .0 4 4 DISTRIBUTION

Page _ 1 _ of __ 1

_

Project Name: Steam /Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 06 / 2 8 / 2011 Time: 7:3 0 am P D T

Company Name: Bendel Tank & Heat Exchanger Corporation Contact Name: Vince Petrucci

Phone No : ( 704)

- 596

- 5112

Name: Kavya Kasturi ERG

GENERAL SUBJECT: Vendor cost request for carbon steel shop

- built tanks for a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system.

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On June 2 8 , 20 1 1 at 7 : 3 0 am I contacted Mr. Vince Petrucci . I explained to M r

. Petrucci that we are working

on conceptual level costing of a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system to treat FGD (flue gas

desulfurization) wastewater fr om steam electric power plants

, and a s a part of this project we are trying to

collect cost information on different components or units of a chemical precipitation system

.

I told Mr. Petrucci that we are interested in shop

- b uilt carbon steel tanks . I requested information such as

purchase cost, cost for ancillary equipments and power consumption (if applicable)

. Mr. Petrucci stated that the

maximum tank size they offer is approximately 70,000 gallons

, which corresponds to a tank diameter of 15 feet

and height of 60 feet. Mr

. Petrucci indicated that he would provide cost information via email.