alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JAN ‘1 aoa EPA. REGION III Mr. Donald S. Welsh CffICEOFREGIONALADMINIS1RATOR

Regional Administrator, EPA-Region 3

Mail Code 3RA00

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PADear Mr. Welsh,

Pursuant to the authority set forth in the District of Columbia Air Pollution Control Act of 1984 (“the

Act”), Mayor’s Order 98-44, effective April 10, 1998, and Mayor’s Order 2006-61, effective June 14,2006, the District of Columbia is hereby requesting approval ofthe attached revisions to the State

Implementation Plans (SIPs) pertaining to attainment ofthe 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS). This SIP revision contains elements that, once approved by EPA, will provide a

federally enforceable written confirmation of how the District of Columbia will continue to comply with

the Section 1 10(a)(2)(A)-(M) requirements ofthe Clean Air Act.

Please find attached:• Three copies of the proposed SIP revisions to meet the requirements ofthe CAA section

11 0(a)(2)(A)-(M);

• The public hearing notice and affidavit of publication; and• The hearing officer’s certification.

Your expeditious review and approval ofthe attached documents is requested. Should you have any

questions or require additional information, please contact me at (202) 535-2615 or Ms. Cecily Beall,

Associate Director for the Air Quality Division, at (202) 535-2626.

Sincerely,

I

George S. Hawkins

Director

cc: Judith Katz, Director, Air Protection Division, EPA-Region 3

Cecily Beall, Associate Director, Air Quality Division, DDOE

Attachments (5)

51 N Street N.E., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20002 (202) 535-2600 FAX (202) 535-2881
#### Manuel E. SIRES, Appellant, v. STATE FIRE *&*CASUALTY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-150.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 30, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 24, 1969.

*876Alfred D. Bieley, Miami, for appellant.

Broward Williams, Tallahassee, for ap-pellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, and BARKDULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by one of the defendants, Manuel E. Sires, in a suit for declaratory judgment filed by State Fire & Casualty Company, arising from an automobile accident. Sires was insured by State Fire, with uninsured motorist coverage. The other party to the collision also carried insurance. However, the latter’s insurer became insolvent more than a year after the accident. The trial court held in favor of State Fire, against the claim of the plaintiff under its uninsured motorist clause. State Fire & Casualty company subsequently has been placed in receivership. The receiver obtained 'the right to appear in this appeal but has filed no brief on behalf of the appellee.

Of the four points presented in the brief of the appellant, three were abandoned at the argument and the sole contention urged was that the general five year statute of limitations for written (unsealed) contracts (§ 95.11 Fla.Stat, F.S.A.) should be held to entitle the plaintiff to recover notwithstanding the one year limitation which results from the provisions of § 627,0851(2) and (3), whereby a motor vehicle is considered uninsured when its insurer is unable to respond because of insolvency, but makes that provision applicable “only to accidents occurring during a policy period in which its insured’s uninsured motorist coverage is in effect where the liability insurer of the tort-feasor becomes insolvent within one year after such an accident.” On consideration of the brief and argument of the appellant, we find that contention to be without merit.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Cone Mills
Corporation consolidated financial statements dated December 31, 1995, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             336
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,955
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,200
<INVENTORY>                                    162,374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               233,892
<PP&E>                                         465,396
<DEPRECIATION>                                 198,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 584,320
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          150,872
<BONDS>                                        161,782
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     38,395
<COMMON>                                         2,738
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   584,320
<SALES>                                        910,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               910,217
<CGS>                                          785,232
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  874,793
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (14,518)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,314
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,256)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,256)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
Table 10.  Percent Distribution by Type of Unit for the United States and 
                  for Inside and Outside MAs:  First Quarter 2000 and 1999

(Percent distribution may not add to total, due to rounding)



                                                     First quarter 2000
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       8.7        7.9       11.3
      For rent............................       2.5        2.6        2.0
      For sale only.......................       1.0        0.9        1.2
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.6        0.6        0.5
      Held off market.....................       4.5        3.7        7.5
        For occasional use................       1.6        1.1        3.1
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.8        0.8        0.9
        For other reasons.................       2.2        1.8        3.5

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.9        1.6        8.0

    Occupied..............................      88.4       90.5       80.7



                                                     First quarter 1999
Type of housing unit
                                              United   Inside     Outside
                                              States     MAs        MAs

All housing units.........................       100        100        100

    Year-round vacant.....................       9.2        8.5       11.6
      For rent............................       2.6        2.8        2.0
      For sale only.......................       1.1        1.1        1.2
      Rented or sold, awaiting occupancy..       0.7        0.7        0.6
      Held off market.....................       4.8        3.9        7.8
        For occasional use................       1.7        1.2        3.3
        Temporarily occupied by persons
        with usual residence elsewhere....       0.8        0.8        0.8
        For other reasons.................       2.3        1.9        3.7

    Seasonal vacant.......................       2.6        1.4        7.1

    Occupied..............................      88.2       90.1       81.2
ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY EVALUATION

Regulatory Evaluation Form, Revision 2.5 Page 1 of 1

1/15/10

AD Title: SP3075EN-E_Thielert_TAE_125_Clutch_EASA-2011-0152-E

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., engine, propeller)

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

WorkhoursLabor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Replace 16.0 $1,360.00 $1,796 $3,156.00 104 $328,224

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $328,224

Costs covered under warranty

Special considerations for Economic Analysis: Work hours per engine estimated by ECO. Parts cost from 

Thielert illustrated parts catalog, pro-rated from standard replacement interval.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES explain below NO 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES explain below NO 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES explain below NO 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES explain below NO 

Explanation: Not significant per Airworthiness Directives Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1B, paragraph 2. b.
261 La. 531

#### *Warren*LATHAN, Jr. v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE and Parish of East Baton Rouge.

No. 52347.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 13, 1972.

In re: Warren Lathan, Jr. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 258 So.2d 615.

Application denied; the result is correct.
Order entered January 2 5 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00030
- CV
GOLDEN SUMMIT INVESTORS GROUP, LTD , Appellant
V.
APEX CLEARING CORPOR ATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dalla s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12
- 00151 Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang
- Miers and Lewis



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s January 10, 2013 motion for temporary orders and request for expedited consideration and appellees’ Januar y 15, 2013 response. In the motion, appellant seeks to stay all district court proceedings against Golden Summit pending the outcome of this interlocutory appeal. After considering the motion and response, appellant’s motion is
DENIED . This interlocutory appeal will be set in due course.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BIRNER
DENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,306,387
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,807,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                   396,619
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,828,308
<PP&E>                                       6,062,769
<DEPRECIATION>                                 313,081
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,107,123
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,682,216
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    17,323,058
<OTHER-SE>                                     512,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,107,123
<SALES>                                      9,261,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,261,072
<CGS>                                        7,663,221
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,663,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,025,655
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              95,898
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                476,298
<INCOME-TAX>                                   177,659
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            298,639
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   298,639
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
#### ARISON SHIPPING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, et al., Appellants, v. KLOSTERS REDERI A/S, doing business as Norwegian Caribbean Lines, Appellee.

No. 72-788.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 31, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE


ADIAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


2017 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


This amendment (the “Amendment”)
to the Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2017 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), is hereby adopted this day of September
1, 2022, by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”).
All capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan.


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, the Company
adopted the Plan for the purposes set forth therein; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Section 15 of the Plan, the Board of Directors has the right to amend the Plan with respect to certain matters, provided that any
material increase in the number of Shares available under the Plan shall be subject to stockholder approval; and


 


WHEREAS, the Board of
Directors has approved and authorized this Amendment to the Plan and has recommended that the stockholders of the Company approve this
Amendment; and


 


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that the Plan is hereby amended, subject to and effective as of the date of stockholder approval hereof, in the following particulars:


 


		1.	Section 4(a) of
the Plan is hereby amended by increasing the share references in such section from 7,500,000 to 9,500,000, so that Section 4(a) reads
in its entirety as follows:



 


“(a) Shares Available
for Awards. The maximum aggregate number of shares of Company Stock reserved for issuance under the Plan (all of which may be granted
as Incentive Stock Options) shall be Nine Million Five Hundred Thousand (9,500,000) shares. Shares reserved under the Plan may be authorized
but unissued Company Stock or authorized and issued Company Stock held in the Company’s treasury. The Compensation Committee may
direct that any stock certificate evidencing shares issued pursuant to the Plan shall bear a legend setting forth such restrictions on
transferability as may apply to such shares pursuant to the Plan.”


 


		2.	Except
as specifically set forth herein, the terms of the Plan shall be and remain unchanged, and the Plan as amended shall remain in full force
and effect.



 


The foregoing is hereby acknowledged
as being the Amendment to the Adial Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2017 Equity Incentive Plan, as adopted by the Board of Directors on September 1,
2022, and approved by the Company’s stockholders on October 13, 2022.


 


	 	ADIAL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Cary J. Claiborne
	 	Name: 	Cary J. Claiborne
	 	Title:	President and Chief Executive Officer
#### FLOOD *v.*JOHNSTON.

Contracts — Public Policy — Champerty and Maintenance.

Contract under wliich third party is to maintain and finance litigation for cancellation of oil and gas lease, and to profit thereby by receiving lease if litigation is successful, is void as against public policy. Controlled by *Fetters*v. *Wittmer Oil & Gas Properties, ante,*310.

. Appeal' from Isabella; Hart (Ray), J.

Submitted January 15, 1932.

(Docket No. 166, Calendar No. 36,245.)

Decided April 6, 1932.

Bill by Peter Flood against Edmund E. Johnston to cancel an agreement to execute an oil and gas lease. Decree for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Gerald J. Cotter, James E. By am,,*and *Virgil Mc-Clintic,*for plaintiff.

*O’Keefe S O’Keefe,*for defendant.

Sharpe, J.

The contract which plaintiff here seeks to have canceled and declared null and void is similar in all respects to that entered into between Mary Fetters and Johnston in *Fetters*v. *Wittmer Oil & Gas Properties, ante,*310. In that case it was held to be void as against public policy. The decree of the trial court holding it to be null and void in this case is affirmed, with costs to appellee.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February
February 9, 2000 (March 16, 2000 as to the second paragraph of Note 4 and to
Note 19) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cox Communications,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999, in the following Registration
Statements of Cox Communications, Inc. and to the reference to us under the
heading "Experts" in the Registration Statements on Form S-3:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                           Form              File No.
                          ------           -----------
                          <S>              <C>
                           S-8              33-80993
                           S-8              33-80995
                           S-8              33-91506
                           S-8             333-44399
                           S-8             333-85055
                           S-3             333-03766
                           S-3             333-82575
                           S-3             333-82575-01
                           S-3             333-82575-02
</TABLE>

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 22, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 37488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16458]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB)

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference call of the State 
Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act 
requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the 
Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, August 16, 2018 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EDT). To 
receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's 
Designated Federal Officer at the address or phone number listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Li, Designated Federal 
Officer, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585. 
Phone number 202-287-5718; and email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e68b8f858e87838ac88a8fa68383c8828983c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcb1b5bfb4bdb9b0f2b0b59cb9b9f2b8b3b9f2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant 
Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative 
policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as 
designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 
1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).
    Tentative Agenda: Welcome new STEAB members. Discuss 
recommendations from STEAB to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Michael Li at the address or 
telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be 
received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will be 
made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the 
Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on July 27, 2018.
Latanya Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-16458 Filed 7-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### William N. NETTERVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. L. JAMES & COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 4355.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 20, 1973.

Patrick A. McDonough, III, Vidalia, for plaintiff-appellant.

Gold, Hall, Hammill & Little by Jimmy M. Stoker, Alexandria, for defendants-ap-pellees.

Before SAVOY, CULPEPPER and DOMENGEAUX, JJ.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

CULPEPPER, Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss an unlodged appeal predicated on the plaintiff-appellant’s failure to pay the clerk of the trial court the cost of preparing the record of appeal and the filing fee required by the clerk of the appellate court to lodge the appeal not later than three days prior to the return date or the extended return date. The return date in this case was April 10, 1973.

The movers-appellants have attached to their motion the sworn affidavit of the clerk of the trial court, dated July 6, 1973, that no extension of the return date of April 10, 1973 was made by the trial court, and that no payment of the court cost or filing fee have been made.

*663Article 2126 LSA-C.C.P. and LSA-R.S. 13:4445 require that the appellant pay the court costs and filing fee to the clerk of the trial court not later than three days prior to the return day, or extended return day. Since the plaintiff-appellant has not done this, the failure to lodge the record timely is attributable to him, and is a basis for dismissal of the appeal. Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Lasseigne, 255 La. 579, 231 So.2d 278 (1970); Discount Tire Center, Inc. v. Doomes, 269 So.2d 498 (La.App.3rd Cir., 1972); Washburn v. Washburn, 227 So.2d 271 (La.App.2nd Cir., 1969).

Appeal dismissed.