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

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [A(32b)-3-2011]

                    On December 22, 2011, the Port of Portland, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 45, requested to expand the scope of manufacturing authority approved within Subzone 45F, on behalf of Epson Portland, Inc. (EPI), in Hillsboro, Oregon. The request involved the use of privileged foreign (PF) status (19 CFR 146.41) inputs in manufacturing of ink for inkjet printer cartridges. Notice was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (A(32b)-3-2011, 76 FR 81475-81476, 12/28/2011).                

Section 400.32(b)(1) of the FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) allows the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration to act for the Board in making decisions on new manufacturing authority when the zone benefits sought do not involve the election of non-privileged foreign status on items involving inverted tariffs. Pursuant to that regulatory provision, on March 8, 2012, the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration approved authority to include the use of certain PF status inputs in the manufacturing of ink for inkjet printer cartridges within Subzone 45F, subject to the FTZ Act (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

The applicant's request for broader authority, including the manufacturing of inkjet ink involving foreign-sourced inputs that would be admitted to the subzone under nonprivileged foreign (NPF) status (19 CFR 146.42), will continue to be reviewed and processed under FTZ Docket 7-2012 (77 FR 4006, 1/26/2012).

Dated: March 20, 2012.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-7272 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
#### STATE ex rel. Melvin TRIBBET v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-0889.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Tribbet, Melvin; applying for supervisory writs; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “K”, No. 76-829.

Denied.
Exhibit 32.1

 

**STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Village Bank and Trust Financial Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2008, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on their knowledge            and belief: (1) the Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented.

 

 

| /s/Thomas W. Winfree                       |   |  

DateAugust 14, 2008 |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
| Thomas W. Winfree

Chief Executive Officer |   |                        |

 

| /s/C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.                       |   |  

DateAugust 14, 2008 |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
| C. Harril Whitehurst, Jr.

Chief Financial Officer |   |                        |
•	 

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 44 D 

Permit Modification 

STATE ANALOG IS: 

FEDERAL ANALOGOUS	 MORE BROADFEDERAL RCRA	 STATE EQUIV- STRIN- ER IN 

REQUIREMENT CITATION	 CITATION ALENT GENT SCOPE 

PART 270 - EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS:
 

THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
 

SUBPART D - CHANGES TO PERMITS
 

MAJOR MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION AND REISSUANCE OF PERMITS 

statutory 

requirements 270.41 (a)(3) 830(3)(a){iii) X 

modification by 

the director 270.41 (a)(3)(i) withdrawn in 1988 X 

permittee request 

for modification 270.41 (a)(3)(ii) withdrawn in 1988 X 

t	 renumber old (3)(ii) 

as (3){iii) and revise 270.41 (a)(3){iii) withdrawn in 1988 X 

• 

•	 December 1, 1987 - Page 5 of 8
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

| (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                respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                       |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Robert M. Blodgett                                                                                                |   |   |   |
| Name:                Robert M. BlodgettTitle:                Chief Financial OfficerDate: May                14, 2007 |   |   |        |
|                                                                                                                            |   |   |        |

----
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B) OR RULE 15D-14(B)

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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of El Pollo Loco,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph Stein, Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|/s/ Joseph Stein                                                
|Joseph Stein                                                    
|Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|El Pollo Loco, Inc.                                             
|August 12, 2005                                                 



This certification is made solely for
the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and not for any other purpose. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Pollo Loco, Inc. and will be retained by El Pollo Loco, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US

To: jamie.hancock@hydro.com

Cc: Todd Russo/R4/USEPA/US@EPA, Denis Kler/R4/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/15/2012 08:11 AM

Subject: Switching Furnace Classifications

Hi Jamie, I was looking through your permit and noticed that you are allowed to switch from Group 1

controlled to Group 1 uncontrolled or Group 2. I am looking for some information in regards to the

frequency at which these switches take place. For at least a 5 year period, please list how many switches

occurred each of those years for each furnace that switches and specify whether the number of sw itches

during that year were due to unplanned maintenance, planned maintenance or other reason (please

specify). Please confirm that you have received this e

- mail. Thanks

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243

- 02

Ph: (919) 541

- 1390 Fax: (919) 541

- 3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.govFrom: Timothy.Keesling@hydro.com

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Jamie.Hancock@hydro.com

Date: 08/20/2012 08:49 AM

Subject: Use of AOS

- Henderson, KY

Hello Rochelle,

Jamie Hancock went through all of the malfunction reports and we have

boiled down the ones where we ran the melt furnace under the Alternative

Operating scenario.

The chart below indicated since late 2009, we have implemented the AOS a

total of 6 times.

The range of time where the AOS was used was between 4 and 56 hours.

As we discussed on the phone last week, the plant does not regularly use

the AOS as a typical operating process. but rather uses it when part of the

evacuation system needs maintenance or has a malfunction.

Please let us know if you have any other questions.

P.S.

- Jamie indicated that he was supposed to have this to you on Friday,

but their network had problems and he could not get it out.

(Embedded image moved to file: pic27272.jpg)

Timothy L. Keesling, P.E.

Corporate Environmental Director

Hydro Aluminum North America, Inc

Extrusion North America

3301 Carnegie Lane

Matthew s, NC 28105

Phone

- 704

- 301

- 1845

e

- mail

- Timothy.Keesling@Hydro.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5


<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                              885,532
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       582,696
<ALLOWANCES>                        (97,720)
<INVENTORY>                         194,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    1,642,225
<PP&E>                              195,848
<DEPRECIATION>                      (49,893)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      10,489,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               14,552,804
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         240,000
<COMMON>                            669,143
<OTHER-SE>                          (8,242,528)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        10,489,554
<SALES>                             5,192,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    5,192,905
<CGS>                               6,407,813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       2,342,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    (1,390,297)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  411,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (2,579,193)
<INCOME-TAX>                        800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (2,579,993)
<DISCONTINUED>                      (122,584)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        (2,702,577)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.04)


</TABLE>
### NJDEP 126 Petition of 9/17/10 Final Ru le: Air Quality Modeling Data DVD

EPA has placed in the docket a DVD containing certa in air quality modeling data files that were used for the NJDEP 126 petition final rule

Information on the air quality modeling performe d in support of this fi nal rule, including a summary of the model inputs and results, can be found in the final rule Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document (final rule Mode ling TSD) that is located in the NJDEP 126 Petition docket.

The following information is contained on this data DVD:

I. AERMET meteorological preprocessor files

a. AERMET runstream files for Portland Plant site-specific meteorological data with adjusted measurement heights b. Raw upper air, NWS surface, and Port land Plant site-specific meteorological input files

c. AERMET surface and profile output files (for input to AERMOD) d. AERMET input and output files for tests without height adjustments

e. AERMET input and output files for tests without SODAR sigma-w f. AERMET input and output files for te sts without height adjustments and without SODAR sigma-w g. AERMET input and output files for tests with winter snow cover characteristics h. AERMET input and output files for test s with NJDEP surface characteristics i. AERMET input and output files for met variability analyses II. AERMAP terrain preprocessor files

a. AERMAP runstream files for initial c oarse receptor grid and fine receptor grid b. Raw NED terrain input data file

c. AERMAP receptor output files with recepto r elevations and hill height scales for initial coarse recepto r grid and fine receptor grid (for input to AERMOD) III. Ambient SO2 data for Chester, NJ mo nitor for 2007-2009 used for determining monitored background concentrations for cumulative modeling analyses IV. AERMOD model files

a. AERMOD input and output files for in itial coarse recepto r grid analysis b. AERMOD input and output files fo r fine receptor grid analysis

c. AERMOD input and output files for fine receptor grid analysis with remedy d. AERMOD input and output files for tests without height adjustments

e. AERMOD input and output files for tests without SODAR sigma-w f. AERMOD input and output files for te sts without height adjustments and without SODAR sigma-w g. AERMOD input and output files for tests with winter snow cover characteristicsh. AERMOD input and output files for tests with NJDEP surface characteristics i. AERMOD input and output files for load analyses j. AERMOD input and output files for met variability analyses k. AERMOD input and output files for tests with Columbia Monitor V. CALPUFF model output files

a. CALPUFF model files for test s with Columbia Monitor b. CALPUFF model files for tests with PRIME option for validation study

Requests for electronic copies of the NJDEP 126 Petition air quality mo deling data should be sent to Roger Brode ( brode.roger@epa.gov ) or Brian Timin ( timin.brian@epa.gov ).
#### Walter Lewis GOVER and Evelyn Gover Smith v. Dr. Ronze McIntyre BRIDGES, et al.

No. 86-C-1006.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re Gover, Walter Lewis; Smith, Evelyn Gover; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 17687-CA; Parish of Webster, 26th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 44243.

Prior report: La.App., 486 So.2d 1117.

Granted.
#### Edward Fred MUSSLER, Jr., and Rebecca Mussler d/b/a WPS Systems, Inc.; and Water Equipment Manufacturers, Inc., Appellants, v. COMPUTER LEASING OF FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, a division of Finance and Investment Company, Inc., an Alabama corporation, and Ray Garrett Gann, Appellees.

No. 4-86-1945.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 9, 1987.

Bonnie S. Satterfield and Bruce A. Goodman of Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Schus-ter & Russell, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Richard M. Camell, Jr., and Thomas B. Smith of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

DELL, Judge.

Appellants claim that the trial court erred when it granted appellees’ motion for partial final summary judgment. We agree. Appellee filed its original complaint against appellants seeking damages for breach of a lease agreement. The day before a pending motion to dismiss the complaint was granted appellees filed a motion for summary judgment. The original complaint was dismissed and appellee *1125was given ten days to amend. The amended complaint was filed fifteen days after the motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered its order granting summary judgment seventeen days after the amended complaint was filed.

Review of the record shows that appel-lees’ amended complaint superseded the original complaint. Unlike the complaint in *Coffman Realty, Inc. v. Tosohatchee Game Reserve, Inc.,*381 So.2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), the amended complaint here contained material and substantial changes from those alleged in the original complaint. Appellees’ amended complaint is more akin to that considered by the court in *Babb v. Lincoln Auto Finance Co.,*133 So.2d 566, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961):

> Plaintiffs were then granted leave to amend and filed an amended complaint which was complete in itself and did not refer to or adopt the original complaint. This constituted an abandonment of the original complaint which was superseded, ceased to be a part of the record and could no longer be used as a pleading. At this stage in the proceedings, plaintiffs’ only pleading was the amended complaint, (citations omitted).

In our view, the filing of the amended complaint constituted commencement of the action for purposes of determining compliance with the rule regarding summary judgments. Rule 1.510(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the plaintiff may move for summary judgment *“...*at any time after the expiration of twenty days from the commencement of the action....” In *Wood v. Kleaveland,*64 So.2d 684 (Fla.1953), the plaintiff moved for summary judgment four days after the filing of an amended complaint. The supreme court said:

> Within the meaning and clear intention of this rule the “commencement of the action” was June 9, 1952, the date the amended bill of complaint was filed.

*Id.*at 684.

Appellees’ motion for summary judgment was filed less than twenty days after the commencement of the action. Accordingly, we reverse on the authority of *Wood.*

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GUNTHER, J., concur.
Exhibit 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'

The Board of Directors
NYMAGIC, INC.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in registration statements (No.
33-10780, 2-94924 and 33-88342) on Form S-8 of NYMAGIC, INC. of our report dated
February 19, 2002 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of NYMAGIC, INC.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, and related financial
statement schedules, which report appears in the December 31, 2001 Annual Report
on Form 10-K of NYMAGIC, INC.

/s/ KPMG LLP

KPMG LLP
New York, New York
April 1, 2002
#### Darin COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. BH-433.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 22, 1986.

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, Kenneth D. Driggs, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Mark C. Menser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a conviction and sentence for the offense of escape on grounds that he was denied a speedy trial under the 180-day rule. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(d)(3). We affirm the conviction and sentence appealed.

Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion for discharge on July 8, 1985, the 181st day following his arrest. Appellant signed a petition for change of plea to nolo contendere on June 4, but he was not brought to court until July 8. We agree with the trial court’s determination that the “delay in proceeding on this cause was occasioned by Defendant’s [appellant’s] announcement of an intent to enter a plea of guilty or nolo conten-dere ...,” and the motion was therefore properly denied.

Affirmed.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
#### Mary WILLETT, Louise Lewis and Elmenia Harrison v. Shirley Hardy PRICE and Silas Hardy.

No. 87-C-2478.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Price, Shirley Hardy; Hardy, Silas; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 1015; Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court, No. 79-10, Div. A.

Prior report: La.App., 515 So.2d 477.

Denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      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 Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew
      J. Hammer, 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/
                Matthew J. HammerName:
                Matthew J. HammerTitle:  
                Chief Executive OfficerDate: 
                August 14, 2008
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 29, 2013

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2013

142842(88)

KENNETH ADMIRE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 142842

v COA: 289080

Ingham CC: 07-001752-NF

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing is considered and it is DENIED.