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

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6515]

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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in open session at 
10 a.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, to consider the following matters:
    Summary Agenda: No substantive discussion of the following items is 
anticipated. These matters will be resolved with a single vote unless a 
member of the Board of Directors requests that an item be moved to the 
discussion agenda.
    Disposition of minutes of previous Board of Directors' Meetings.
    Summary reports, status reports, reports of the Office of Inspector 
General, and reports of actions taken pursuant to authority delegated 
by the Board of Directors.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Amendments to the Guidelines for 
Appeals of Material Supervisory Determinations and to the Guidelines 
for Appeals of Deposit Insurance Assessment Determinations.

Discussion Agenda

    Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
Assessments, Large Bank Pricing.
    Memorandum and resolution re: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
Regarding the Enforcement of Subsidiary and Affiliate Contracts by the 
FDIC as Receiver for a Covered Financial Company.
    The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of 
the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC.
    This Board meeting will be Webcast live via the Internet and 
subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the 
event. Visit http://www.vodium.com/goto/fdic/boardmeetings.asp to view 
the event. If you need any technical assistance, please visit our Video 
Help page at: http://www.fdic.gov/video.html.
    The FDIC will provide attendees with auxiliary aids (e.g., sign 
language interpretation) required for this meeting. Those attendees 
needing such assistance should call 703-562-2404 (Voice) or 703-649-
4354 (Video Phone) to make necessary arrangements.
    Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be 
directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the 
Corporation, at 202-898-7043.

    Dated: March 13, 2012.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6515 Filed 3-14-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

256) ll-K- (I) -69 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:57AM Sheet 256 of 325 
P.2 

f

^ °o 

II-K-(I)-69 

INDUSTRIAL BOILER NSPS IMPACT ANALYSIS - SEVENTH ROUND 

TEST CASES. 

EEA, Inc. 

October 8, 1980. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-69
Protecting Children at Schools and 

Other Outdoor Environments

Kathy Murray, Moderator

Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources

Kathy.murray@maine.gov
Session Goals

• Discuss IPM practices used effectively at 

schools and other outdoor environments to 

reduce children’s risks of exposure to tick-borne 

diseases

• Identify priority needs and knowledge gaps in 

research, education, regulation and 

implementation to protect children at schools 

and other outdoor environments.

• Develop coordinated strategies for community 

IPM programs and strengthen partnerships 

among organizations, agencies, schools and 

other public facilities.

Tick IPM is People Management 

at Schools

Communication and 

Coordination is Key

Coaches & Athletic Directors
Role of the School Nurse

 Prevent and identify tick borne 

illnesses in schools

 Early detection and referral

• Monitor student’s symptoms to 

improve outcomes

• Advocate for post-diagnosis 

accommodations for students 

with ongoing symptoms

 Provide guidance to parents and 

guardians

• Prevention, detection and 

treatment

 Assist with school district policy 

development
Friends Community School

Multiple Point IPM Plan

•Field policy and dress code

•Teacher education

•Parent education

•Biannual testing

•Duct tape for each teacher

•Repellent

•Pyrethrins on socks

•Garlic barrier spraying 

program

•Deer feeder

•Tick tubes spring and fall

•Chickens
Tick Threat
What’s Needed to Protect Children 

from Tick-Borne Diseases?

• Research needs?

• Education needs?

• What are the barriers?

• Opportunities?
Panel

• Thomas Green, IPM Institute of North America

• Christine Dunathan, Friends Community School, 

College Park, MD 

• Benedict Pagac, U.S. Army Public Health 

Command-Region North 

• Sally Schoessler, National Association of School 

Nurses 

• Herbert Bolton, USDA National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture

• Audrey Moore, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 2 

• Clara Fuentes, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 
Charge questions

1) What is your organization doing to protect children 

from tick-borne diseases at schools and other public 

spaces, what challenges do you face, and what should 

EPA do to help you to overcome those challenges and 

support your programs.

2) What guidance can you offer to school administration 

and staff, or to managers of parks, children’s camps and 

other outdoor spaces frequented by children, in terms of 

facilities management, education, and stable funding 

sources if needed, to reduce risk of tick-borne diseases. 

3) What are the top priority needs for research to reduce 

children’s risk of exposure to tick-borne diseases at 

schools and other outdoor environments.
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE CRIMINAL DIST RICT COURT 3 OF DALL AS COUNTY OF DALLAS COUNTY,
GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 13th day of January, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Larry Jermaine Wigenton, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00057

- CR

Trial Court No. F

- 1371124

- J

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Larry Jermaine Wigenton, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appe al. Therefore, we waive payment of costs. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our sai d Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 12th day of March , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Cle rk
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2449 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2449

To extend and make technical corrections to the temporary suspension of 
 duty on 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-2-(2-
                     propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend and make technical corrections to the temporary suspension of 
 duty on 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-2-(2-
                     propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide.

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

SECTION 1. 4-CHLORO-N-[2-[3-METHOXY-4-(2-PROPYNYLOXY) PHENYL]ETHYL]-2-
              (2-PROPYNYLOXY) BENZENEACETAMIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.07 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 4-chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-
(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-2-(2-propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking the article description and inserting the 
        following: ``4-Chloro-N-[2-[3-methoxy-4-(2-
        propynyloxy)phenyl]ethyl]-2-(2-propynyloxy)benzeneacetamide 
        (Mandipropamid) (CAS No. 374726-62-2) (provided for in 
        subheading 2924.29.47)''; and
            (2) by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
        2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply to 
goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 
the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Transportation Safety Board

# TIME AND DATE: 

9:30 a.m., Tuesday, April 10, 2012.

# PLACE: 

NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.

# STATUS: 

The ONE item is open to the public.

## Matter To Be Considered

8349A Safety Recommendations to the National Air Racing Group (NAG) Unlimited Division and Reno Air Racing Association (RARA) concerning the September 16, 2011, accident at the Reno National Championship Air Races (NCAR) in Reno, Nevada.

# NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: 

*Telephone:*                         (202) 314-6100.                    

The press and public may enter the NTSB Conference Center one hour prior to the meeting for set up and seating.

Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Rochelle Hall at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, April 6, 2012.

                        The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by accessing a link under “News & Events” on the NTSB home page at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

                        Schedule updates including weather-related cancellations are also available at                         *www.ntsb.gov.*

# FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: 

                        Candi Bing, (202) 314-6403 or by email at                         *bingc@ntsb.gov.*

Dated: April 23, 2012.

Candi R. Bing,

Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-7462 Filed 3-23-12; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7533-01-P
Exhibit 32


      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 Tower Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Michael H. Lee,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Francis M. Colalucci,
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;
and


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





/s/  Michael H. Lee
-------------------------------------
Michael H. Lee
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 3, 2006





/s/  Francis M. Colalucci
-------------------------------------
Francis M. Colalucci
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
November 3, 2006





                                       32
#### GREATER NEW ORLEANS HOMESTEAD ASSOCIATION v. WASHINGTON SQUARE COMPANY.

No. 87-C-2677.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Washington Square Company; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review, supervisory writ; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 87-CA-0274; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 325-847.

Prior report: La.App., 514 So.2d 251.

Denied.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

KEVIN A. RIVERA-RIVERA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-3481 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. )

) Opinion filed September 16, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Mark J. O'Brien, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Chelsea N. Simms, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. KHOUZAM, C.J., and BLACK, J., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
#### George CRAWFORD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1668.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 6, 1987.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Milton Hirsch, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Ralph Barreira, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before HENDRY, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Parker v. State,*476 So.2d 134 (Fla.1985); *Phillips v. State,*476 So.2d 194 (Fla.1985); *Troedel v. State,*462 So.2d 392 (Fla.1984); *Simpson v. State,*418 So.2d 984 (Fla.1982), *cert. denied,*459 U.S. 1156, 103 S.Ct. 801, 74 L.Ed.2d 1004 (1983); *Rose v. State,*492 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 5th DCA), *review denied,*500 So.2d 545 (Fla.1986).
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL


EXECUTIVE 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 this Quarterly Report of Profire Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brenton W. Hatch, 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) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











Date:
November 12, 2010

By:
/s/ Brenton W. HatchBrenton W. HatchChief Executive Officer
#### The VILLAS OF ST. GEORGE, a Florida joint venture, and Villas Development of Florida, Incorporated, a joint venturer, Appellants, v. Roger NEWTON, Appellee.

No. 88-64.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 7, 1988.

Byron S. Camp, of Pennington, Wilkinson & Dunlap, Tallahassee, for appellants.

J. Ben Watkins, of Watkins & Russell, Apalachicola, for appellee.

*1052WIGGINTON, Judge.

Appellants appeal and appellee cross-appeals an amended final judgment finding that appellee is entitled to recover $15,000 from appellants pursuant to an oral agreement, plus $4,714 in interest, and $5,000 in attorney’s fees. We affirm except for the attorney’s fee award.

This action arose from a dispute between appellants and appellee over an oral agreement, whereby appellants’ predecessor obligated to pay appellee $15,000, and a promissory note indebting appellants to appel-lee. The amended final judgment allowed appellee recovery only on the $15,000 oral agreement, after making the obvious determination that the obligation on the promissory note had been satisfied prior to or shortly after the filing of this action by appellee. All parties agree, and the trial judge properly found, that appellee is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees incurred in the collection of the $15,000 due under the oral agreement although he is entitled to an award of fees incurred in regard to the note.

The record does not support a $5,000 attorney’s fee award in this case. Appel-lee’s attorney’s time sheets show that although he invested a substantial amount of time prosecuting this suit, he spent only a minimal amount of time on the case prior to the filing of the cause of action. The suit resulted in appellee prevailing in the trial court only on the oral agreement issue and we affirm that result.

Since indisputably appellee is not entitled to an award of an attorney’s fee for services rendered in regard to the oral agreement, the only award of attorney’s fees to which he might be entitled is that minimal amount of time spent by his attorney, according to the record, in obtaining collection on the promissory note which, as determined by the trial court, was achieved prior to or shortly after the filing of this action below. Therefore, we reverse the $5,000 attorney’s fee award and remand to the trial court for the award of an attorney’s fee, if at all, based on that amount of time spent by appellee’s attorney on the collection of the promissory note. *See Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe,*472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph CATHEY.

No. 86-K-2054.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 23, 1987.

In re Cathey, Joseph; applying for supervisory writs of certiorari, prohibition and *420mandamus; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-KA-lll; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. *“I”,*No. 83-1875.

Prior report: La.App., 493 So.2d 842.

Denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,522
<SECURITIES>                                    47,090
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (41)
<INVENTORY>                                         80
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,679
<PP&E>                                          29,122
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,763)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  99,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,036
<BONDS>                                          2,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           666
<OTHER-SE>                                      83,707
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    99,272
<SALES>                                         81,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,939
<CGS>                                           68,214
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,055
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 266
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,991
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,719
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,719
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .47
        

</TABLE>
cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge Rayford Carlos Willis Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 

### e 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-12-01124-CR

Style: Casey Demon Carmon

v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: September 6, 2013

Type of motion: Extension of time to file appellant’s brief

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: May 6, 2013

Number of previous extensions granted: 4 Current Due date: September 9, 2013

Date Requested: September 30, 2013

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is denied. Appellant’s brief was originally 

due May 6, 2013. Counsel has previously requested four extensions of time to file appellant’s brief.

Most recently, on August 20, 2013, counsel requested an extension of time because of deadlines faced

in unrelated cases. That motion was granted, with an admonition that no further extensions would be

granted. In the current motion, counsel again requests an extension of time because of recent deadlines

faced in unrelated cases, however, all such deadlines have passed. Accordingly, counsel has not provided

a reasonable explanation why additional time is necessary, nor established extraordinary circumstances

for a further extension. If appellant’s brief is not filed by September 18, 2013, the case will be abated and

remanded to the trial court for a recommendation as to whether new counsel should be appointed to

prepare and file a brief on appellant’s behalf.

Judge's signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: September 12, 2013