alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0727 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-NM-012-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
**Exhibit23.1**

** **

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the following registration statements of Nexen Inc.:

 

•      Registration Statement No.’s033-26582, 033-34467, 033-43426, 033-66538, 033-81334, 333-05494, 333-07344,333-09286, 333-13574, 333-118019 and 333-119276 on Form S-8;

 

•      Registration Statement No.’s333-09288, 333-10646 and 333-84786 on Form F-3; and

 

•      Registration Statement No.’s333-125019 and 333-128510 on Form F-10.

 

of our reports dated February 9, 2007,relating to the consolidated financial statements of Nexen Inc. (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion on the financial statements and includes aseparate report on Canada-United States of America reporting differences) andmanagement’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Nexen Inc. for theyear ended December 31, 2006.

 

 
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche  LLP                |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                          |
| Independent  Registered Chartered Accountants |
| Calgary,  Canada                              |
|                                          |
| February  26, 2007                            |

 

----
#### State v. Mara

24703

09/19/2003

Denied

102 Hawai'i 346, 76 P.3d 589
19222

#### State v. Garcia

Affirmed
# C_2016202EN.01005801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/58

---

Article 24

(ex Article 21 TEC)

(ex Article 21 TEC)

The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the provisions for the procedures and conditions required for a citizens' initiative within the meaning of Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union, including the minimum number of Member States from which such citizens must come.

Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to petition the European Parliament in accordance with Article 227.

Every citizen of the Union may apply to the Ombudsman established in accordance with Article 228.

Every citizen of the Union may write to any of the institutions or bodies referred to in this Article or in Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union in one of the languages mentioned in Article 55(1) of the Treaty on European Union and have an answer in the same language.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 924 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 924

To require that the prevailing wage utilized for purposes of subchapter 
IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code (commonly referred to 
     as the Davis-Bacon Act), be determined by the Bureau of Labor 
                              Statistics.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2015

 Mr. Gosar (for himself, Mr. Jolly, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. 
Farenthold, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Stewart, Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Latta, 
Mr. McClintock, Mr. Barton, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Jones, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. 
 Hensarling, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Grothman, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Pompeo, and 
    Mr. Miller of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require that the prevailing wage utilized for purposes of subchapter 
IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code (commonly referred to 
     as the Davis-Bacon Act), be determined by the Bureau of Labor 
                              Statistics.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Responsibility in Federal 
Contracting Act''.

SEC. 2. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS DETERMINATION OF PREVAILING WAGE.

    Section 3142(b) of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(acting through the Bureau of Labor 
        Statistics of the Department of Labor)'' after ``Secretary of 
        Labor''; and
            (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
        following: ``, using surveys carried out by the Bureau of Labor 
        Statistics that use proper random statistical sampling 
        techniques''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016202EN.01015801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/158 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/158

---

Article 253

(ex Article 223 TEC)

(ex Article 223 TEC)

The Judges and Advocates-General of the Court of Justice shall be chosen from persons whose independence is beyond doubt and who possess the qualifications required for appointment to the highest judicial offices in their respective countries or who are jurisconsults of recognised competence; they shall be appointed by common accord of the governments of the Member States for a term of six years, after consultation of the panel provided for in Article 255.

Every three years there shall be a partial replacement of the Judges and Advocates-General, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The Judges shall elect the President of the Court of Justice from among their number for a term of three years. He may be re-elected.

Retiring Judges and Advocates-General may be reappointed.

The Court of Justice shall appoint its Registrar and lay down the rules governing his service.

The Court of Justice shall establish its Rules of Procedure. Those Rules shall require the approval of the Council.

---
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection
with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2020 (the “Report”), I, L’Sheryl D. Hudson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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







Dated: November 16, 2020





|EQUUS TOTAL RETURN, INC.   
|---------------------------
|                           
|/s/
    L’Sheryl D. Hudson 
|L’Sheryl
    D. Hudson     
|Chief
    Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Shamsher Medih Chisti v. Sana Chisti aka Kiran Wilwerding

Appellate case number: 01-13-00780-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-12431

Trial court: 257th District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is denied. Costs are taxed against the 

appellant as he is the only party to the appeal. The appeal is from a dismissal for want of 

prosecution before any other party was joined in the suit. Appellee has not been served with 

process in the trial court, nor did appellee appear in the trial court or in the court of appeals.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Jane Bland_

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale.

Date: April 21, 2015
Exhibit 32.2





Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or


Rule 15d-14(b) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code





In connection with the Quarterly Report of OHA Investment Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cory E. Gilbert, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 to my knowledge:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:November 9, 2015/s/ Cory E. GilbertCory E. GilbertChief Financial Officer and Treasurer
#### Robert C. Jenne, Plaintiff, *v.*Ralph Barone, Defendant.

County Court, Schenectady County,

July 8, 1959.

*Vorton B. Boghosian*for defendant.

*Maynard, O’Connor & Smith (J. Vincent Smith*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Archibald C. Wemple, J.

It appears that a default judgment for $2,220.15, was taken in Schenectady County Court on November 23,1955, approximately four years ago. The defendant then and during all proceedings here and in Bankruptcy Court, has been represented by competent counsel at all times. In fact it appears from the moving papers that the defendant *1011has been represented by several different counsel during successive periods prior to and subsequent to the time judgment was taken. Following the judgment an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding was instituted against this defendant by several creditors. This proceeding is still pending.

The defendant has failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the long delay in making the application herein. Neither has this defendant attached to his moving papers a proposed answer to the claim under which the judgment herein was granted. In fact, no meritorious defense to the claim has been indicated, nor has there been shown any mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect on the part of the defendant or any of his several attorneys.

The defendant’s contention that the opening of the judgment herein would permit the vacating or discontinuance of the involuntary bankruptcy proceeding is without merit. Bankruptcies are predicated upon creditors’ claims, not judgments as such. If indeed this defendant has any claim against one Alexander Grasso, as alleged in the defendant’s affidavit, such claim appears to belong to the defendant’s trustee in bankruptcy, and/or the defendant herein, as their interests may appear. Frankly, it is beyond the understanding of this court how' any claim against Grasso, a third party, has any bearing upon any alleged defense of the defendant to the claim of the plaintiff herein.

The defendant herein has had ample time and opportunity to move to open the default judgment entered herein. In fact the defendant was once given an opportunity by this court to open this default and have his “ day in court ”, but defendant neglected to take advantage of this order. There has been no satisfactory explanation for the long delay or for defendant’s failure to proceed to open the default herein and try the case on the merits, under the terms as provided in the decision of this court on January 31,1956.

The court herein points out that section 108 of the Civil Practice Act designates a limit of one year after notice of judgment for a person to apply to be relieved from a judgment taken against him, through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.

Since the application was not made within one year, nor any showing of any of the four grounds above specified, nor is any fraud apparent, nor any valid reason stated for the long delay, nor any meritorious defense or proposed answer submitted, the application herein is denied.

Enter order accordingly. _
# C_2016202EN.01016501.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/165 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/165

---

Article 273

(ex Article 239 TEC)

(ex Article 239 TEC)

The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States which relates to the subject matter of the Treaties if the dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement between the parties.

---
# C_2016202EN.01019201.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/192 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/192

---

Article 337

(ex Article 284 TEC)

(ex Article 284 TEC)

The Commission may, within the limits and under conditions laid down by the Council acting by a simple majority in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties, collect any information and carry out any checks required for the performance of the tasks entrusted to it.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This Certification is intended to accompany the Quarterly Report of Finlay
Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 3, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002. The undersigned hereby certifies 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: June 13, 2003

                                                 /s/ Arthur E. Reiner
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Arthur E. Reiner
                                                 Chairman, President and Chief
                                                 Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Finlay Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Finlay Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Irvin HAYS and Patricia Hays, husband and wife, Appellants, v. FRIENDLY NATIONAL BANK, a national banking institution, Appellee.

No. 52870.

Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, Division No. 1.

Feb. 20, 1979.

Released for Publication by Order of Court of Appeals March 15, 1979.

Jernigan, Groves, Bleakley & Moorman by G. David Bryant, Oklahoma City, for appellants.

Davis & White by James W. Dawson, Oklahoma City, for appellee.

REYNOLDS, Judge:

Irvin Hays and Patricia Hays, plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal the granting of a Summary Judgment in favor of defendant, Friendly National Bank (Bank), arising out of a suit alleging wrongful deduction by defendant from plaintiffs’ account.

The parties have stipulated to the facts. On September 18, 1976, the Appellants executed a check drawn on Bank made payable to the order of Performance Enterprises, Inc. (P.E.I.) in the sum of $2,909.92. The check was issued pursuant to a written agreement between the Appellants and P.E.I. in exchange for two fruit juice vending machines and 768 cans of fruit juice. P.E.I. subsequently breached this contract by not delivering the aforementioned items. On September 22,1976, P.E.I. presented the check to Bank, who accepted it without P.E.I.1⁄8 endorsement thereon. Bank then issued a cashier’s check in the same sum also made payable to the order of P.E.I. The cashier’s check was subsequently paid by Bank when received with the endorsement.

Should drawee bank be liable to the drawer of a personal check when the drawee bank issues a cashier’s check payable to the same payee, without requiring the endorsement of the payee on the personal check?

In *Swan Air Conditioning Company v. Crest Construction Corporation,*Okl.App., 568 P.2d 1330 (1977), in an opinion by Judge Neptune, the court held that a bank is not liable to the drawer of checks drawn on it for issuing cashier’s checks payable to the same payees in the same amounts, even in the absence of the endorsement of the payees. The court reasoned that the making of the cashier’s check merely changed the form of the instrument without altering the essence of the drawer’s order to pay. *1275The payees received the money ordered by the drawer to be paid without any party being disadvantaged thereby.

Here, Appellants ordered Bank to pay P.E.I. The rights of the parties were not altered by the bank changing the form to a cashier’s check. The drawers were not disadvantaged because their account was immediately chargeable upon presentation and acceptance of the check. The designated payee received the same amount of money as ordered by the drawer.

The trial court correctly granted Friendly National Bank’s motion for summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

ROMANG, P. J., and BOX, J., concur.
ATTACHMENT B



### COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

AMEND MENTS TO RULE 67.4

– METAL CONTAINER, METAL CLOSURE , AND METAL COIL COATING OPERATIONS

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Prior to adopting, amending, or repealing a rule or regulation, California Health and Safety Code Section 40727 requ ires findings of necessity, authority, clarity, consistency, non

- duplication, and reference. As part of the consistency finding to ensure proposed rule requirements do not conflict with or contradict other Air Pollution Control District ( District ) or fede ral regulations, Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2(a) requires the District to perform a written analysis identifying and comparing the air pollution control standards and other provisions of the proposed amend ments to Rule 67.4 with existing or propo sed District rules and guidelines and existing federal rules, requirements, and guidelines applying to the same source category.

ANALYSIS

Proposed amended Rule 67.4 applies to any facility that conducts metal container, closure or coil coating operations , and associated cleaning operations. Federal Subpart HHHHHH (6H) of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) , 40 CFR Part 63 : Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area Sources applies to spray coat ing application at area sources to a metal substrate where the coatings contain hazardous air pollutants (target HAP)

- chromium, lead, manganese, nickel

, or cadmium. The two companies in San Diego C ounty that are regulated by Rule 67.4 conduct spray coat ing operations on metal surfac es. However, t he coatings used at these facilities do not contain any target HAP and therefore are not subject to Subpart 6H.

District New Source Review (NSR) Rule 20.2

- Non

- Major Stationary Sources

, also applies to
any new or modified coating operation that would be subject to amended Rule 67.4

. Rule 20.2 requires that any non

- major new or modified emission unit that has a post

- project potential to emit of 10 pounds /day or more of volatile organic compounds (VOC) be equipp ed with Best A vailable Control Technology (BACT). F or coating operations

, BACT is identified as either use of an add

- on emission control system

, or if such system is demonstrated to be not cost

- effective, compliance with the re quirements of current prohib itory rules. Proposed amend ments to Rule 67.4 contain more stringent emission standards for cleaning materials that will become new BACT.

CONCLUSION

T here are no conflicts or contradictions between the proposed amend ments to Rule 67.4 and existing Distr ict rules or federal regulations.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE IV

FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL

FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL

CHAPTER 3

SERVICES

Article 56

(ex Article 49 TEC)

(ex Article 49 TEC)

Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended.

The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may extend the provisions of the Chapter to nationals of a third country who provide services and who are established within the Union.

---