alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply12451Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Chonya  (not verified)PermalinkMay 15, 2023 - 9:44pmAbsolutely a joy and a blessing always!! Thank you for your serviceand especially the years of openning locked doors for me. 😊😉
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                             250
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                        79
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,660
<PP&E>                                           4,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,899
<BONDS>                                             16
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,146
<SALES>                                          5,054
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,054
<CGS>                                            1,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,989)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,989)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,989)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.21)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63300]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25240]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0666; Special Conditions No. 25-566-SC]

Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace, Models BD-500-1A10 and 
BD-500-1A11 Series Airplanes; Isolation or Airplane Electronic System 
Security Protection From Unauthorized Internal Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; corrections.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects two errors that appeared in Docket No. 
FAA-2014-0666, Special Conditions No. 25-566-SC, which was published in 
the Federal Register on September 12, 2014 (79 FR 54572). There is an 
error in the header information and in one instance of one of the 
airplane model numbers in the publication.

DATES: The effective date of this correction is October 23, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight 
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, 
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 
Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-1298; facsimile (425) 227-
1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 12, 2014, the Federal Register 
published document designated as ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0666, Notice No. 
25-566-SC,'' (79 FR 54572). The document issued special conditions 
pertaining to network security in the digital systems architecture, 
access from internal sources, on the BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series 
airplanes.
    As published, the document contained two errors:
    1. In the header of the document, ``Notice No.'' should have been 
``Special Conditions No.''
    2. In one instance, the airplane model number was published as 
``BD-500-1A1'' instead of ``BD-500-1A11.''

Correction

    In Final special conditions document (FR Doc. 2014-21788), 
published on September 12, 2014 (79 FR 54572), make the following 
corrections:
    1. On page 54572, third column in the header information, correct 
``Notice No.'' to read ``Special Conditions No.''
    2. On page 54574, first column, last line in the introductory text 
of the section titled, ``The Special Conditions,'' correct ``BD-500-
1A1'' to read ``BD-500-1A11.''

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 16, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-25240 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply2386Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Angeline Sturgis (not verified)PermalinkJanuary 16, 2021 - 8:41amI want to thank all of the hardworking, dedicated staff that care about our treasure, the Capitol building of the United States. The events of January 6 paralyzed me, angered me, and brought a steady stream of tears for days. Where hate and disrespect and defiance and selfishness set out to destroy the physical embodiment of justice and history, you all did your jobs and the nation benefited, even those who didn’t deserve your loving care. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I have avoided coming to DC for the last four years, but as a resident of Maryland’s Eastern Shore, my family and I will be regular visitors from now on. Thank you for being there when we weren’t. I make a pledge to seek out the employees at AOC each time I come and thank them personally. I am grateful for your safety. God bless you all.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
August 16, 2007

26733

#### Dias v. State, Dept. of Human Services

Affirmed
### Colusa Generating Station Royall, Steve t o : Shaheerah Kelly 01/07/2011 10:35 AM
Cc: "Price, Charles"
From: "Royall, Steve" <SGR8@pge.com> To: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Price, Charles" <CRPF@pge.com> History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Shaheerah, In regards to our conversation yesterday afternoon here is the background of our discussion. Since the Colusa Generating Station (CGS) became commercial in late December 2010, we have experienced several startups where we are having difficulty in meeting the startup pound per hour limits. In investigating, we recognized that there appear to be errors in the attached table in regards to the pounds per hour limits (this table is pulled from the PSD section E table 5 page 8. As you are well aware, typical permitting for a facility of this type while in a startup centers around the requirements to heat and load the steam turbine. That start type (cold, warm, hot) would have provisions for the highest emission totals to occur during a cold start, followed by a warm start condition and lastly the least allowable emissions would occur on a hot start. This table has those numbers transposed in several areas. For example the table as written provides for the highest CO emissions to occur during a hot start. Within the table, we have attempted to show you where the corrections need to be made. We would ask that you consider the following. With the proposed changes, daily and annual mass emissions do not change. The modifications being requested in the Amended Startup Table are not modifications of any values in the "lb/event" columns. Maximum daily and maximum annual mass emissions were calculated by multiplying the lb/event values times the number of those events in the respective period (daily or annual) and summed for all events of any type. Therefore, because there are no changes to the lb/event numbers and no changes to the number of events per period, there are no changes to the maximum daily or maximum annual mass emissions.

<<Amended Start Up Table.pdf>> Air dispersion modeling impacts do not change. Screening modeling was conducted to determine the conditions resulting in the worst-case 1-hour dispersion. For CGS this was at 50 percent load, with no duct firing, at 114F ambient temperature. These stack parameters were used for all the 1-hour modeling of startups regardless of the type of startup to provide a conservative value for pollutant dispersion. The worst-case 1-hour impacts were reported. Therefore, the proposed changes to the lb/hour values in the Amended Startup Table will have no impact to the air dispersion modeling results.
After review of this e-mail please give me a call to discuss, thanks.

Steve RoyallSenior Plant Manager Colusa Generating Station 4780 Dirks Road Maxwell Ca 95955 Office- 530 934-9098 Cell- 925 783-8031
Exhibit 21

                         KANEB PIPE LINE PARTNERS, L.P.
                                 SUBSIDIARY LIST


Kaneb Pipe Line Partners, L.P.
Kaneb Pipe Line Operating Partnership, L.P.
Statia Terminals Holding Company LLC
Statia Technology, Inc.
Statia Marine, Inc.
Statia Terminals International N.V.
Statia Terminals Corporation N.V.
Statia Terminals Canada, Incorporated
Port Tupper Marine Services Limited
Statia Terminals Canada Partnership
Statia Terminals Canada Holdings, Incorporated
Statia Terminals Antilles N.V.
SABA Trustcompany N.V.
Bicen Development Corporation N.V.
Statia Terminals N.V.
Statia Laboratory Services N.V.
Statia Tugs N.V.
Statia Terminals Delaware, Inc.
Statia Terminals, Inc.
Statia Terminals New Jersey, Inc.
Seven Seas Steamship Company, Inc.
Seven Seas Steamship Company (Saint Eustatius) N.V.
Support Terminal Operating Partnership, L.P.
ST Services Ltd
ST Eastham  Ltd.
ST Linden Terminal, LLC
ST/Center Chillicothe Terminal LLC
ST Australia Pty Ltd.
Terminals Pty Ltd.
ST New Zealand Pty Ltd.
Bulk Storage Terminals Limited
BST (Auckland) Limited
Support Terminal Services, Inc.
StanTrans, Inc.
StanTrans Holding, Inc.
StanTrans Partners, L.P.
Shore Terminals LLC
#### Franklin National Bank of Long Island, Plaintiff, *v.*Inter-County Air Conditioning Corp., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County,

December 18, 1958.

*Sahn, Shapiro •& Epstein*for plaintiff.

*Walter B. Kempner*for defendant.

L. Barron Hill, J.

The parties entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to buy commercial paper used to finance the defendant’s business operations. This agreement provided for full recourse against the defendant in the event there was a default in payment under any of the paper transferred, and stated in part: “ 9. If by any provision of this agreement we are obligated to repurchase any Note or Instrument : (a) it will not be necessary for you to make a formal *652tender of any such Note or Instrument, and you may continue to make collections on such Note or Instrument until we have repurchased it; (b) if we fail to repurchase on demand any such note or Instrument, then, at your option, we will on demand repurchase any and all Notes and Instruments sold to you by us hereunder, whether or not we would be obligated to repurchase such Notes or Instruments by any other provision of this agreement; and (c) the repurchase price of any Note or Instrument repurchasable by us under any provision of this agreement shall be an amount equal to the unpaid balance due on such Note or Instrument plus the amount of any legal fees and disbursements incurred by you, less unearned finance charges. ’ ’

The complaint alleges that defendant failed to repurchase certain notes whereupon it was called to repurchase “ all of the contracts negotiated and assigned by defendant to the plaintiff. ’ ’ This suit is to recover the price of such paper as defined in the agreement, allegedly totaling the sum of $47,643.39.

The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint claiming the action should be in equity where the court would have stricter control over the litigants. In essence, defendant feels the plaintiff may be ‘ ‘ unjustly enriched” where it can sue for the balance due on the obligations at the commencement of the action, retain the paper and continue to make collections. However, I do not believe that merely because the action is in law, the result will be inequitable. The defendant can, in its answer, plead the appropriate affirmative defenses by way of setoff, recoupment or partial payment, so that whatever judgment is obtained will reflect the true financial status of the parties.

. The motion is, therefore, denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Troiano Fuel Oil Co., Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

September 9, 1970.

*Bennett E. Aron*for appellant. *William Cahn, District Attorney (Raymond Q. Lavallee*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Appellant’s contention that the county may not adopt ordinances regulating measuring devices on fuel delivery trucks because of article 16 of the Agriculture and Markets Law is untenable. The ordinance is neither inconsistent with nor contrary to the State statute. It prohibits the use of a meter having a device by which any measured liquid can be diverted from the measuring chamber of the meter. Thus it supplements the State statute which is silent as to the type of measuring devices to be employed. In our opinion, .the ordinance is an entirely reasonable regulation and has as its intended purpose *136the prevention of consumer frauds *(Grimm*v. *City of New York,*56 Misc 2d 525; *People*v. *Lewis,*295 N. Y. 42).

The judgment of conviction should be affirmed.

Concur — Hogan, J. P., Glickman and Pittoni, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Okazaki v. Namuo

17241

9/08/95

Reversed
#### 305 Broadway Company, Appellant, *v.*Sidney Feltenstein, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 30, 1959.

*Max Chertoh*for appellant.

*Bichard Ives Budell*and *Sidney J. Feltenstein*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

A final order obtained in a summary proceeding against a tenant is conclusive in an action for rent covering the same period against tenant’s defenses of surrender and acceptance, recall and revocation, and waiver and estoppel of the lease and its provisions *(Hughes*v. *Goldstein,*124 Misc. 518).

The order denying cross motion for summary judgment should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted; appeal from order granting examination before trial dismissed.

Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Steuer and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.
#### STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE *v.*EDAN F. CALABRESE

(AC 19545)

Lavery, C. J., and Foti and Landau, Js.

Argued June 6

officially released June 27, 2000

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1565

___________

Shirl D. Driver, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Michael Groose; Allen Luebbers; * Eastern District of Missouri.

Nancy Belt; Cyndi Prudden; Robert *

Capowski, * [PUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: November 7, 2001

 Filed: December 13, 2001 

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Shirl D. Driver, a Missouri inmate, alleged that prison officials violated her

first- amendment, due-process, and equal-protection rights when they censored a

music- cassette tape she had ordered through the mail, purportedly because the tape

was determined to be a security risk under the prison’s mail policy. The District
1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

Court1 granted summary judgment for defendants and denied Driver’s post-judgment

motion. Driver appeals.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we agree that

summary judgment was proper, essentially for the reasons stated by the District

Court. See Liebe v. Norton, 157 F.3d 574, 578 (8th Cir. 1998) (de novo review).

Concerning Driver's equal-protection claim, though her pleadings show that she is a

member of a protected class, to avoid summary judgment it was incumbent upon her

to come forward with evidence that would create a triable issue of fact as to whether

she had been treated differently from similarly situated white inmates, and this she

failed to do. In particular, her evidence does not show that any white inmates were

allowed to receive through the mail, uncensored, the same explicit-lyric tape that she

had ordered. There being no error in the District Court's grant of summary judgment,

we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Driver’s postjudgment motion. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988)

(standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 4:00 P.M. CT September 13, 2019

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of Cotton. The cotton bales were sold under 

Invitation 2019U0013 dated September 10, 2019.

Invitation 2019U0013

Catalog Lot 

No. Catalog Location Purchaser Pounds Sold 

Price Sold 

(per Pound) CCC Revenue 

9 Portland, TX Gulf Compress 482 0.03 $ 14.46 

10 Portland, TX Gulf Compress 12,462 0.03 $ 373.86 

20 Corpus Christi, TX Gulf Compress 19,812 0.03 $ 594.36 

31 Corpus Christi, TX Gulf Compress 5,883 0.03 $ 176.49 

32 El Campo, TX Gulf Compress 6,112 0.03 $ 183.36 

37 Raymondville, TX Gulf Compress 10,608 0.03 $ 318.24 

40 Raymondville, TX Gulf Compress 1,420 0.03 $ 42.60 

56779 $ 1,703.37
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
  SECTION 1350
    CERTIFICATION OF AMEREN CORPORATION
    (required by Section 906 of the
    Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  Form 10-K Form 10-K),
  (1)
    The
    Form 10-K
    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
    Form 10-K
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Date: March 1,
    2007
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003* In connection with the Quarterly Report of IEA Income Fund XII, L.P. (the
Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the
undersigned, Dennis J. Tietz, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Cronos Capital Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant, and John Kallas,
the Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., certify, based on their
knowledge, that: (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operation of the Registrant. May 14, 2004 By
    
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,General Partner of the Registrant/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial
Officer of CronosCapital Corp., General Partner of
the Registrant
 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.   *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2003, other than as required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be
filed with the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.