alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Douglas W. Domenech Secretary ofNatural Resources 

# COMMONWEALTH ofVIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Street address: 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219

Mailing address: P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 23218 Fax (804) 698-4500 TDD (804) 698-4021 www.deq.virginia.gov 

## \JlJN 03 2013 Ms. Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division (3APOO) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 David K. Paylor Director (804) 698-4020 1-800-592-5482

Reference: Northern Virginia PM2.s Nonattainment Area

- Maintenance Plan and Mobile Source Budget Dear Ms. Esher: Pursuant to the requirements of 

### § 110 ofthe Clean Air Act, we are officially requesting approval of a revision to the Conunonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved under the authority of§ 10.1-1307.2 A ofthe Virginia Air Pollution Control Law and submitted in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal oflmplementation Plans). As provided in§ 174 ofthe Clean Air Act, the plan was prepared by the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Conunittee (MWAQC). The revision consists of an air quality maintenance plan in support of a concurrent, separate request to redesignate the 1997 Northern Virginia PM2 .5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard Nonattainment Area (Counties ofArlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William; Cities ofAlexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, and Manassas Park) to attainment. The purpose ofthe plan is to ensure that emissions ofPM2. 5, sulfur dioxide (S02), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) do not exceed the 2007 attainment year levels through 2025, enabling the area to continue to meet the 1997 NAAQS for PM2 .5 . The plan contains control measures that are currently in place and will be continued in order to maintain PM2. 5, S02 , and NOx emissions at or below the 2007levels. The revision also contains motor vehicle emissions budgets for the years 2007, 2017, and 2025. The purpose ofthe motor vehicle emissions budgets is to ensure that transportation emissions conform to the requirements ofthe proposed plan for maintaining compliance 

### with the 1997 PM2 .5 NAAQS (transportation conformity).Enclosed are the following: 1. Maintenance plan, which includes the motor vehicle emissions budgets. 2. Certification of public participation activities. 3. Record ofhearing and summary ofpublic comment. 4. An electronic copy (CD) ofthe complete submittal. This electronic copy is an exact duplicate ofthe hard copy . If you have any questions or need additional information, please let us know.

David 

### K. Paylor DKP\kgs TE.MPLATES\SIP-PLAN\PLNOO SIP\NONATIN PLANS\NVA3-PM\NVPM-MP-SIP

.DOC Enclosures
Re: Request for extension [J 

Jessica Winkler to: Charland, Jay 03/23/201009:22 AM 

Cc: "DONNELLAN Michael 0" 

Jay, 

EPA approves your request for a 15 day extension extending the review deadline to April 7, 2010. Thanks 

for the call this morning. Jessie 

Jessie Winkler 

US EPA. Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue. Suite 900. Mailstop ETPA-083 

Seattle. Washington 98101 

winkler.jessica@epa.gov 

(206) 553-7369 

"Chl:)rlan~.Jay" . March 19 Greetings to you both. 03/19/201010:45:22 AM 

From: "Charland. Jay" <jay.charland@state.or.us> 


To: Jessica Winkler/R10/USEPAlUS@EPA 


Cc: "DONNELLAN Michael 0" <michael.d.donnellan@state.or.us> 


Date: 03/19/201010:45 AM 


Subject: Request for extension 


March 19 

Greetings to you both, 

Attached is our formal request for an extension of the review period for the Siuslaw Dredge Material 

Disposal Sites. Jessie, the hard copy is on its way to you. This extension will take us to April 7, which 

should give Mike enough time and still allow EPA to meet its June deadline. Please let me know if you 

have any questions. 'believe we are still on for our phone call next Tuesday morning at 8 am. 

Jay 

Jay Charland I Coastal State-Federal Relations Coordinator 

Oregon Coastal Management Program 

Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development 

635 capitol Street NE, Suite 150 I Salem, OR 97301-2540 

Office: (503) 373-0050 ext. 253 I Cell: (971) 239-9460 I Fax: (503) 378-6033 

jay.charland@state.or.us I www.oregon.gov/LCD 

[attachment "Extension 3-19-1O.pdf' deleted by Jessica WinklerlRlOlUSEPAlUS]
#### In the Matter of Technicon Instruments Corp., Appellant, v Assessor of the Town of Greenburgh et al., Respondents, and Central School District of the Tarrytowns, Intervenor-Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7, the petitioner appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), dated October 12, 1988, which denied its motion, *inter alia,*to compel the respondents to pay interest on a tax refund from the date of the judgment awarding the tax refund, and (2) as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated May 4, 1989, as, upon the granting of reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 12, 1988, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated May 4, 1989, made upon reargument; it is further,

Ordered that the order dated May 4, 1989, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the order dated October 12, 1988, is vacated, the petitioner’s motion is granted to the extent of directing the *834respondents to calculate interest from the date of service upon them or their attorneys of the underlying judgment, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment.

After the making of a final order directing a taxing authority to refund real property taxes which were improperly or illegally paid, the accumulation of interest on the award is suspended until an "application for audit and payment of such refund shall have been duly made” (RPTL 726 [2]). However, in *People ex rel. Ottley Estate Corp. v Lilly*(302 NY 278), the Court of Appeals, construing the provisions of former Tax Law § 296 (2) which was the predecessor to RPTL 726 (2), held that a taxpayer’s transmission to the Department of Finance of an order directing a refund constituted an "application for audit and allowance” sufficient to start the running of interest *(see also, Matter of Longken, Inc. v Ornstein,*36 NYS2d 533, *affd*264 App Div 733). This rule has more recently been applied by the Appellate Division, First Department, in *Trump-Equitable Fifth Ave. Co. v City of New York*(160 AD2d 7).

In accordance with this rule, the court should have granted the petitioner’s motion to the extent of directing that the respondents pay interest from the date upon which they or their attorneys were served with the underlying judgment. Since the date of service is not altogether clear from the record on appeal, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a determination as to when service was made, and for a proper calculation of interest. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Balletta, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2069 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on flutolanil. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. CARPER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on flutolanil. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FLUTOLANIL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.82 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 N-[3-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl]-2-(trifluoromethyl) benz7 amide (Flutolanil)) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2069 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# C o urt o f A ppe a ls

o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg ia

A TLA N TA ,_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The C o u rt o f Appea ls h ereb

y p a s s es the fo llo wi

n g order:

A 24D 036 6

. J ON A TH A N D A ILY v

. B EN T A L GREEN OA K S d /b/a A N N ETT.

The M agistrate Co u r t o f Co bb Co u nty entered a j ud gment in f av o r o f B ental
Green Oak s d/b/a A nnett in this d isp o s sesso ry a c tio n. D ef end ant J o nathan D aily f

iled
this ap p lic atio n seek ing d isc ret i o n a r y rev iew o f t he m agistrate co u rt’ s o rd er. W e, ho w ev er, lac k j u risd ic tio n.

“ [ T]he o nly av enu e o f ap p eal av ailable f ro m a magistrate c o u r t j u d gment is

p ro v id ed by OCGA § 1 5- 1 0 -41 (b) (1 ), w hic h allo w s f o r a d e no v o ap peal to the state

o r su p erio r c o u r t

. ” T

a te v

. Ha b i

f , 36 7 Ga. Ap p

. 435, 438- 439 (2) (886 SE2d 389 ) (2023) (p u nc tu a t io n omitted ). Thu s, this Co u rt has j u risd ic tio n to ad d ress an o rd er

o f the magis t r a t e c o u rt o nly if that o rd er has been rev iew ed by a s tate o r su p erio r

c o u rt. See W

es twi n d Co rp. v

. W

a s hi n gto n Fed. S & L As

s n

. , 1 9 5 Ga. A p p

. 41 1 , 41 1 (1 ) (39 3 SE2d 47 9 ) ( 1 99 0); Ba ker v

. G. T. , Ltd. , 1 9 4 Ga. A p p

. 450, 451 (3) ( 39 1 SE2d 1) (1 9 9 0). The G e o rgia Co nstitu tio n, ho w ev e r, p ro v id es that “ [a]ny co u rt shall transf er

to the ap p ro p riate c o u r t i n t h e state any c iv il c ase in w hic h it d etermines that j u risd ic tio n o r v enu e lies elsew here. ” Ga. Co nst. o f 1 9 83, A r t. V I , Sec

. I , Par. V I I I

. See
also Bo s ma v

. G u n ter , 258 G a. 6 6 4, 6 6 5 ( 3 7 3 SE2d 36 8) (1 9 88); ac c o rd Co u r t o f

A p p eals Ru le 1 1 (b). June 18, 2024Acco r d i n gly, this a p p lic atio n is hereby TRA N SFERRED to the Su p erio r Co u r t

o f Co bb Co u nty.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e

x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. 06/18/2024
Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft Confederation suisse Confederazione Svizzera Confederaziun svizra

EOCA CH-3003 Bern Mr. Paul Gretch Director, Office for International Aviation Federal Department of the Environment, Transport , Energy and Communications DETEC Federal Office of Civil Avi ation FOCA Av iation Policy and Strategy

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs U
.S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 6402 Washington, DC 20590 USA

Reference : 0/01/01-02
.02
. 187 Your reference : Our reference : fjl Contact person: Laurence Fontana Jungo Tel. +41 31 323 04 10, Fax +41 31 325 92 12, Laurence.fontana-jungo@bazl. admin.ch lttlgen, 30 August 2012
Declaration of Reciprocity Dear Mr. Gretch 

### 1

# ~ 

# paJ_
The Federal Office of Civil Aviation of Switzerland herewith declares, that it will consider applications by U.S
. air carriers for approval to operate charters to and from Switzerland in accordance with the provisions of the Air Transport Agreement between the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America, dated 21 June 2010, and, for those charters not specified in the Annex to the Agreement, on the basis of comity and reciprocity. Yours sincerely

# 'f**.l ef:.** **~** Director Head Aviation Policy and Strategy Laurence Fontana Jungo Chief Negotiator Air Services Agreements

Federal Office of Civil Aviation Muhlestrasse 3, 3063 lttigen Postal address : CH-3003 Bern Tel. +41 31 325 80 39/40 , Fax +41 31 325 80 32 www.aviation
.admin
.ch
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1165 KA 14-00059 PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY A. CARTER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID J. PAJAK, ALDEN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. FLAHERTY, JR., ACTING DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. LOWRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D’Amico, J.), rendered November 20, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [2]), defendant contends that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the issues of intent to cause physical injury and justification.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that the evidence that defendant stabbed the victim in the face and leg is legally sufficient to establish that defendant intended to cause physical injury ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). To the extent that defendant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because the People failed to disprove the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt, we conclude that such contention is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on that ground ( see People v Fafone , 129 AD3d 1667, 1668, lv denied 26 NY3d 1039). In any event, the evidence is legally sufficient to disprove defendant’s justification defense ( see generally Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495).

We further conclude that, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson
, 9 NY3d 342, 349), the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495). Even assuming,-2- 1165 KA 14-00059
arguendo, that a different verdict would not have been unreasonable, we note that “ ‘the jury was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and, on this record, it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded’ ” ( People v Chelley , 121 AD3d 1505, 1506, lv denied 24 NY3d 1218, reconsideration denied 25 NY3d 1070).

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the quarterly Report of Force Energy Corp. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
I, Tim DeHerrera, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and



2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated
financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.



|By:    | /s/ Tim DeHerrera                                                            
|------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:  | Tim DeHerrera                                                                
|Title: | Principal Executive Officer,
        Principal Financial Officer and Director
|Date:  | June 24, 2011                                                                



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### Jack and Rita R. FRANCIS v. Samir C. MOWAD, D.P.M. and Pacific Insurance Company.

No. 88-C-0668.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1988.

In re Francis, Jack; Francis, Rita R.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-CA-0610; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “0”, No. 335-214.

Prior report: La.App., 523 So.2d 8.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
# L_2006279EN.01001501.xml

| 11.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 279/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 279/15

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1498/2006

of 10 October 2006

amending the rates of refunds applicable to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the market in the sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 33(2)(a) and (4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The rates of the refunds applicable from 29 September 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1433/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The rates of the refunds applicable from 29 September 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1433/2006 (2).

| (2) | It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 1433/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 1433/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The rates of refund fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1433/2006 are hereby altered as shown in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 October 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 October 2006.

For the Commission

Günter VERHEUGEN

Vice-President

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p. 58.

2

---

ANNEX

Rates of refunds applicable from 11 October 2006 to certain products from the sugar sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty (1)

| CN code | Description | Rate of refund in EUR/100 kg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| In case of advance fixing of refunds | Other |
| 1701 99 10 | White sugar | 26,48 | 26,48 |

CN code

Description

Rate of refund in EUR/100 kg

In case of advance fixing of refunds

Other

1701 99 10

White sugar

26,48

26,48

---

(1)  The rates set out in this Annex are not applicable to exports to Bulgaria, with effect from 1 October 2004, to Romania with effect from 1 December 2005, and to the goods listed in Tables I and II to Protocol No 2 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 exported to the Swiss Confederation or to the Principality of Liechtenstein with effect from 1 February 2005.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LSP-WHITEWATER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AS OF AND FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,470
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,397
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,384
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,803
<PP&E>                                           8,172
<DEPRECIATION>                                     523
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 300,265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,150
<BONDS>                                        177,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,115
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   300,265
<SALES>                                          1,224
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,298
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,068
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
ARV Assisted Living, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
333-16269 on Form S-3 of ARV Assisted Living, Inc. of our report dated March
24, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of ARV Assisted Living,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and March 31, 1997, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows for the nine-month period ended December 31, 1997 and each of the years
in the two-year period ended March 31, 1997, and related financial statement
schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1997, annual report on Form
10-K of ARV Assisted Living, Inc.

                                        /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Orange County, California
March 31, 1998