alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 1, 2015

Mr. Peter Nugent

Dronez Aerial

9 Leslie Avenue

Lanesborough, MA 01237

Dear Mr. Nugent:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21 and § § 45.23(b), 61.3, 61.195, 91.7 (a), 91.9 (b)(2), 91.103(b), 91 .109, 91.113, 91 .119,

91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 91.205(b), 91.215, 91.405(a)

, 91. 407(a) (1), and

91. 409(a) (2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your April 17, 2015, exemption re quest on behalf of Dronez Aerial into the public

docket (No. FAA− 20 15

− 1214 ), but we are unable to process your request any further. The

information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your r equest any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do N o t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst, Aircraft and

Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 97-30978 Summary Calendar

_______________________
FARON FOLSE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(97-CV-438)

_________________________________________________________________ July 1, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

U pon review of the parties’ briefs, and pert inent portions of the record, we conclude that the judgment is AFFIRMED on the basis of the district court’s opinion.
# ~Afton· CHEMICAL VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY March 3, 2015 Mr. Joseph Sopata Chemist USEP A/OAR/OTAQ/FPSG 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 6306J Washington, DC 20460 

### Re: Availability ofReport Entitled, "Pharmacokinetic Evaluation ofthe Equivalency of Oral Routes ofManganese Exposure in F344 Rats." Dear Mr. Sopata: As you may recall from Afton Chemical Corporation's ("Afton") last communication with you inNovember 2013, Afton opted to sponsor additional "wrap

-up" research designed to verify the biological basis ofthe human physiologically-based pharmacokinetic ("PBPK") models for manganese (Mn) developed as part ofthe Alternative Tier 2 test program for mmt®. 1 One component ofthe "wrap up" research is an animal study to evaluate the pharmacokinetic equivalency ofdietary ingestion ofmanganese compared to manganese ingested via drinking water or gavage (hereinafter "the study"). The final report prepared bythe investigators who conducted the study accompanies this letter. I am sending the report to you to afford EPA staff an opportunity to review and provide comment as has occurred in the past with other similar research Afton voluntarily sponsored as part ofthe Alternative Tier 2 test program for mmt. The report has not undergone review bythe Technical Advisory Panel ("TAP"), although the study design was discussed at the previous TAP meeting in October, 2013. Afton anticipates that the TAP will review any modifications to the human PBPK models for Mnthat may be made based on the results ofthe study. In addition, Afton anticipates that one or more manuscripts will be prepared to report the study results in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

. Once that occurs, I will provide information on where such publications may be found. Ifyou or any EPA staffhas any questions about the report, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely,

## l~ Athena Keene Sr. Toxicologist Attachments: Scientist Report: Pharmacokinetic Evaluation ofthe Equivalency ofOral Routes ofManganese Exposure in F344 Rats

1 mmt® is a registered trademark owned by Afton. Afton Chemical Corporation 500 Spring Street· Richmond,Virginia 23219 •tel:804.788.5800 ·fax: 804.788.5184 •www.aftonchemical.com
**Exhibit 31.1**

Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification

I, Rajesh Kalathur, certify that:

​

1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of John Deere Owner Trust 2023-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

​

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

​

3.Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing, and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

​

4.I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

​

5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

​

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association (as indenture trustee).

​

​

| 4                      | ​ | ​                                     |
|------------------------|---------|---------------------------------------------|
| Date: January 26, 2024 | By:     | */s/ Rajesh Kalathur*                       |
| ​                | ​ | Rajesh Kalathur                             |
| ​                | ​ | President of John Deere Capital Corporation |
| ​                | ​ | (as Servicer)                               |

​

----
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.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

The next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for 18 April 2012, at 10 a.m. in the Commission offices at the National Building Museum, Suite 312, Judiciary Square, 401 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-2728. Items of discussion may include buildings, parks, and memorials.

                    Draft agendas and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our Web site:                     *www.cfa.gov.*                     Inquiries regarding the agenda and requests to submit written or oral statements should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing                     *staff@cfa.gov;*                     or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated: April 11, 2012 in Washington, DC.

Thomas Luebke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-9167 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6331-01-M
391 A.2d 689

#### Commonwealth v. Lennox, Appellant.

Argued June 21, 1977.

Maryclare Lennox, in pro. per., for appellant; Frank T. Hazel, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

HOFFMAN, J., dissented.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 6, 2015

No. 04-12-00430-CR

Charles ARRINGTON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR1663

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing En Banc is 

hereby GRANTED. The motion is due May 4, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
391 A.2d 676

#### Commonwealth v. Bruner, Appellant.

Argued March 14,1978.

Nelson M. Galloway, for appellant; Marion E. MacIntyre, Second Assistant District Attorney, with her LeRoy S. Zimmerman, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgments of sentence affirmed.
#### Loy Chris STEVENS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. 0-78-573.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 27, 1981.

David M. Jordan, Foshee, Manger & Yaf-fee, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Larry Oakes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

CORNISH, Judge:

The appellant pled guilty to Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon in Oklahoma County District Court Case No. CRF-75-3151. He was sentenced to four (4) years imprisonment, the first six months to be served in the county jail and the remainder was suspended.

The suspended sentence was subsequently revoked on the ground that the appellant had been convicted of Possession of Marijuana in Marshall County, Oklahoma, Case No. CRM-76-843. The appellant was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence in the State penitentiary, and he appeals.

*122The sole proposition of error is that the court was without jurisdiction to either hear or revoke the suspended sentence as the sentence was improper. It is argued that because the statute under which he was charged provides that Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon is punishable by up to one year in the county jail or up to five years in the penitentiary, the court lost jurisdiction over the appellant when it originally sentenced him to six (6) months in the county jail and suspended the remainder. The appellant urges that there is no statutory authority which authorizes sentencing a person in both the county jail and the penitentiary. We do not agree.

On the initial plea of guilty the appellant was sentenced to four (4) years in the State penitentiary. The sentence is in conformity with the provisions of 21 O.S.1971, § 645. Further, the suspension of the execution of 31⁄2 years of the sentence is valid pursuant to 22 O.S.Supp.1979, § 991a. The fact that the appellant was allowed to serve the initial unsuspended portion of the sentence in the county jail rather than the Department of Corrections did not render the sentence defective. The court had jurisdiction to sentence the appellant up to five (5) years in the penitentiary. Therefore, a sentence of four (4) years was valid.

Having maintained continuing jurisdiction over the case because of the suspended portion of the sentence, the order revoking the suspended sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 
of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee 
(SITAC) will meet on May 1, 2012, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. Hoover 
Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania 
Avenues NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions 
that affect the level of export controls applicable to sensors and 
instrumentation equipment and technology.

Agenda

Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.
    2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
    3. Industry Presentations.
    4. New Business.

Closed Session

    5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 
Sec. Sec.  10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 
participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the 
conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d881aebdacacbdf68ba8aab1b6bfbdaa98bab1abf6bcb7bbf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="124b64776666773c4162607b7c75776052707b613c767d713c757d64">[email protected]</span></a> no later than April 24, 2012.
    A limited number of seats will be available during the public 
session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 
that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to 
the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time 
before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of 
public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee 
suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. 
Springer.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the General Counsel, formally determined on September 27, 2011 pursuant 
to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 
U.S.C. app. 2 Sec.  10(d), that the portion of this meeting dealing 
with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. 
export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to 
public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 Sec. Sec.  10(a)(1) and 
10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the 
public.
    For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: April 11, 2012.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-9351 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Permits/NSR/Toxics Integration

Subcommittee 

Report to CAAAC 

January 8, 2008 

Kimber Scavo/Jeff 

Muffat 

Agenda for January 7 

z Bill Becker: NACAA’s recommendations 

z John Walke, NRDC: Environmental 

transition recommendations 

z Robert Wyman: Implications of State’s 185 

Fee Programs 

z Regulatory update for NAAQS 

Implementation 

1 
NACAA Recommendations

z Strong Majority/Consensus Views 

z Legislative action on Global Warming 

– Also use existing authorities 

z Regulatory and Statutory Initiatives 

– Interstate transport, CAMR, Air toxics standards, ocean-going 

vessels, SAFETEA-LU 

z Rescind/reverse ill-advised actions 

– CA waiver, NSR, science-based NAAQS process, reverse policy 

on exempting AFOs, reissue area source standards, reissue 

residual risk, rescind start-up/shutdown/malfunction rule 

z Increase financial and technical assistance to State and Local 

Air agencies 

Environmental Recommendations

z Power plants: stronger CAIR & proposed FIP 

z Mercury MACT: abandon the cert petition 

z Ozone and PM: the NAAQS and implementation 

z Diesel Engines: HDD Truck and bus engines and ships 

z Adopt protective cancer risk policies for all future HAPs, revise 

recent rules that allow excessive risk, reverse loopholes for 

toxic emissions from solid and hazardous waste incineration 

and promulgate an industrial boiler MACT 

z Legislative recommendations as well (power plants, toxics and 

monitoring) 

z Global Warming: regulatory and legislative 

2 
Regulatory Update

z 24-hr PM2.5 Designations finalized 12-22 

z .080 ozone proposal on Subpart 1 & 2: 

signature today 

z .075 ozone proposal: March/April 

z NO2/SO2 implementation rule proposals this 

year 

z .080 ozone SIP disapprovals on Jan 9 

z Regional Haze findings on Jan 9 

Next Steps

z Section 185: interim discussions with small 

group to report back at next meeting 

z Next meeting: May 2009. 

3
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kathleen P. McSherry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Energy L
Fund, LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



Date: May 15, 2006
/s/ Kathleen P. McSherry
Kathleen P. McSherry
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer (principal financial and accounting officer)