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

Notes from Cyhalofop Focus Meeting- July 11, 2014

Jill Bloom- author

Introductions

Dow provided a little history and addressed each of the questions previously posed by the team in 

its PowerPoint presentation.

Cyhalofop was registered in Japan and the Philippines before it was registered here. It is effective 

against grass weeds only, and is most effective before the grass when the wax cuticle is not too far 

developed. 

Cyhalofop is very phytotoxic to peaches and nectarines and Dow has conducted drift testing to 

determine what size buffer is protective. Product labels specify which adjuvants should be used. 

Dow conducts training every year with aerial applicators in California to facilitate proper use in 

peach-growing country. 

Dow does not intend to register cyhalofop for use on wild rice. EFED will identify labels in which 

they saw use instructions for wild rice to Jolene so the issue can be resolved.

Dow also provided a list of data submissions for cyhalofop. Many of the studies were submitted to 

European authorities two years ago.

Granular product is used to control submerged weeds up to the 3-leaf stage. It needs 

water/moisture to be effective. When water is removed from the paddies, weeds tend to be bigger 

and harder to control. Liquid formulations of cyhalofop can be used as a “rescue treatment” at this 

stage. Rescue treatments are made more often in the southern states.

For drill-seeded (dry-seeded) rice, a pre-emergence herbicide may be used after planting. Flushing is

conducted to keep moisture levels high in the paddy, but there is no “discharge” out of the paddy per 

se. As rice grows taller and starts to tiller, the paddy can be flooded, which helps with weed control. 

If weeds are not very well submerged, liquid formulations of cyhalofop can be used at that point. 

Weed leaves need to intercept the herbicide for it to be effective, and growers may draw down the 

water level to facilitate.

Rice is grown in fields surrounded by levees and with a relatively impermeable barrier under the 

plants. This land is not good for cultivation of other crops because of the heaviness of the soil.

Clincher GR labels appear to discuss the use of Clincher DR. DR is not a registered product and 

should be removed. EFED will identify labels referencing its use for Jolene so the issue can be 

resolved. 

Clincher can be used for spot treatments in rationed rice. Ratooning is relatively rare but can be 

used in Lousiana.

There is a 60d PHI for cyhalofop. About 20% of the rice crop is treated with cyhalofop. Buffers on 

multi-ai labels are driven by cyhalofop. Dow does not sell Rebel X in CA. 24(c) uses should be 
2

assessed because Dow believes the registrations will be renewed. Some of the rates are a little hi gher 

and will have to be assessed.

Follow-up items: 

Labels to Jolene for clarification

Dow will advise on “confidentiality” of powerpoint with regard to docketing.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OR RULE 15d-14(a)

OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Mark R. Tauscher, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of PLC Systems Inc.;

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

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

 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b) [Paragraph omitted inaccordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SEC Release 34-47986];

 

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

d) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a) All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: May 11, 2004 | /s/ Mark R. Tauscher    |   |
|--------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|               | Mark R. Tauscher        |
|               | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
# Rupprecht Law P. A.
324 Datura Street, Suite 200 | West Palm Beach, FL 33401 P: (561) 222

- 6979 | E: jon@jrupprechtlaw.com | W: www.jrupprechtlaw.com

July 12 , 2015 U. S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12

- 140, Washington, DC 20590
Re: Petition for Amendment to A dd A ircraft to Exemption # 11 815 Issued to Enviroskycam

. (Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1101 )
Dear Sir or Madam: Enviroskycam was granted an exemption to conduct aerial d ata collection using a DJI Phantom 2 Vision +

. Enviroskycam (Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1101) requests for an amendment to th at exemption to add onto its fleet the DJI Phantom 3 and Action Drone AD

- 2

. Envi roskycam agrees to operate under the same restrictions i n the exemption. The aircraft flight manuals will be confidentially submitted to 333exemptions@faa.gov Granting the additional aircraft wil l benefit the public because instead of dangerous helicopters being used, safer and quieter unmanned aircraft can b e used under the restric tions outlined in the exemption.
Since the Phantom 3 and aircraft similar to the Action Drone AD

- 2 platform has been previously granted in other exemptions and would not set any precedent , there is good cause to waive the publishing of this petition in the Federal Register. Sincerely,

__________________________________________________ Jonathan B. Rup precht, Esq.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

(required by Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the combined report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 of
Ameren Corporation, Union Electric Company, Central Illinois Public Service Company, CILCORP Inc., Central Illinois Light Company and Illinois Power Company (the Registrants) as separately filed by each Registrant with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), each undersigned officer of each of the Registrants does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(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 each of the Registrants to which it relates.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:  March 7, 2006



/s/ Gary L. RainwaterGary L. RainwaterChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)




/s/ Warner L. BaxterWarner L. BaxterChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6804

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ONE MALE JUVENILE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (2:07-cv-00005; 2:06-cv-00030; 2:01-cr-00004)

Submitted: September 12, 2007 Decided: September 25, 2007

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

One Male Juvenile, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

One Male Juvenile (1MJ) seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000)

petition and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

Regarding the denial of 1MJ’s § 2241 petition, we have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. One Male Juvenile v.

United States, No. 2:06-cv-00030 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2007).

The order denying relief on 1MJ’s § 2255 motion is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims

by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any

dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise

debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that 1MJ has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny 1MJ’s motion for a certificate of

appealability, deny as moot his motion to expedite the appeal, and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
- 3 -

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1020

GINO CORNELIUS CAUTHERN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, of Northwest North Carolina,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-98-693-1)

Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 20, 2000

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gino Cornelius Cauthern, Appellant Pro Se. Penni Pearson Bradshaw,

Eugene Hamilton Matthews, Sr., KILPATRICK STOCKTON, L.L.P.,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gino Cornelius Cauthern appeals the district court’s order

granting summary judgment in Defendant’s favor in this employment

discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cauthern v.

Goodwill Indus., No. CA-98-693-1 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 1999). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 231 (Monday, December 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84136-84137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26541]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4639-033]


Ampersand Christine Falls Hydro, LLC; Notice of Waiver Period for 
Water Quality Certification Application

    On November 27, 2023, Ampersand Christine Falls Hydro, LLC 
(Ampersand) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) a copy of its application for Clean Water Act section 
401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the New York State 
Department of Environmental Conservation (New York DEC), in conjunction 
with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and

[[Page 84137]]

section 4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,\1\ we hereby notify 
the New York DEC of the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 4.34(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: November 27, 2023.
    Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One 
year (November 27, 2024).
    If New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality 
certification request on or before the above date, then the agency 
certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of 
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

    Dated: November 28, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26541 Filed 12-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Requirements for the Importation of

Bees Other Than Honey Bees from

Canada

Last Modified: 

Print

Only Bombus impatiens, Bombus occidentalis, Megachile rotunda (alfalfa

leafcutter bee), Osmia lignaria (blue orchard bee), and Osmia cornifrons

(hornfaced bees) are allowed to be imported.

The exporter must obtain an export certificate, from the Canadian Food

Inspection Agency (CFIA), verifying that the bees are of Canadian origin (no

more than 10 days prior to shipment).

APHIS headquarters must be notified of the shipment 10 business days prior to

shipping. The notification must include the full name, address, and telephone

number of the consignee, consignor, and full details of the arrival into the

United States. If the shipment is arriving by airline, the full flight details must

be included. If the bees are trucked across a land border, the port must be

staffed by a Customs and Border Protection Agriculture Inspection officer. You

must also provide full details of how many queens and/or packages of bees will

be shipped. 

For questions about permits for regulated organisms and soil:

Pest Permits Team
Email: pest.permits@usda.gov

Phone: 301-851-2285

Alt-Phone: 866-524-5421
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                     

        <S> <C>                            

<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND>                     

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
FORM 10-KSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN 
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
                                 
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1                       

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997 
<CASH>                             17,628 
<SECURITIES>                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                           0 
<ALLOWANCES>                            0 
<INVENTORY>                             0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   17,628 
<PP&E>                                  0 
<DEPRECIATION>                          0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     17,628
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              37,804 
<BONDS>                                 0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0 
<COMMON>                              320 
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       17,628 
<SALES>                                 0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   46,246
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (46,246) 
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0 
<CHANGES>                               0 
<NET-INCOME>                      (46,246)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.01) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.01)



         

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85329-85330]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27028]


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

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  2:00 p.m., Monday, December 18, 2023.

PLACE:  1255 Union Street NE, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20002.

STATUS:  Parts of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of 
the meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Regular Board of Directors Meeting

    The Interim General Counsel of the Corporation has certified that 
in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (4) permit 
closure of the following portion(s) of this meeting:

<bullet> Executive (Closed) Session

Agenda

I. Call to Order
II. Sunshine Act Approval of Executive (Closed) Session
III. Executive Session: Report From CEO
IV. Executive Session: Report From CFO
V. Executive Session: GAO Workplan Update
VI. Executive Session: Report From Interim General Counsel
VII. Executive Session: Report From CIO
VIII. Executive Session: NeighborWorks Compass Update
IX. Action Item: Approval of Meeting

[[Page 85330]]

Minutes--October 2 Audit Committee Meeting and October 19 Regular 
Board of Directors Meeting
X. Action Item: Delegation of Authority--Venue Contracts--
Philadelphia (February 2025) and New Orleans (August 2025)
XI. Discussion Item: November 29 Audit Committee Meeting
XII. Discussion Item: Delegation of Authority--Future Venue 
Contracts
XIII. Discussion Item: Strategic Planning Process
XIV. 2024 Board Meeting Schedule
XV. Management Program Background and Updates Other Reports
    a. 2024 Board Calendar
    b. 2024 Board Agenda Planner
    c. CFO Report
    i. Financials (through 9/30/23)
    ii. Single Invoice Approvals $100K and over
    iii. Vendor Payments $350K and over
    iv. Exceptions
    d. Programs Dashboard
    e. Housing Stability Counseling Program (HSCP)
    f. Strategic Plan Scorecard--FY23 Q3

PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:  Everything except the Executive (Closed) 
Session.

PORTIONS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC:  Executive (Closed) Session.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Jenna Sylvester, Paralegal, (202) 
568-2560; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bf1e8e2f7edfee8effee9dbf5ecb5f4e9fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7ddc4cedbc1d2c4c3d2c5f7d9c099d8c5d0">[email protected]</span></a>.

Jenna Sylvester,
Paralegal.
[FR Doc. 2023-27028 Filed 12-5-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial statements of Checkers Drive-in  Restaurants,  Inc., for the quarterly
period ended September 8, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-29-1997 
<PERIOD-START>                         DEC-31-1996 
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-08-1997 
<CASH>                                       3,721   
<SECURITIES>                                     0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,427  
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0  
<INVENTORY>                                  2,045  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,724  
<PP&E>                                     132,180  
<DEPRECIATION>                              42,216  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             121,300  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,234  
<BONDS>                                     38,507  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0  
<PREFERRED>                                      0  
<COMMON>                                        70  
<OTHER-SE>                                  51,300  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               121,300  
<SALES>                                     95,481  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           100,603  
<CGS>                                       90,800  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              102,623  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (298)  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,666  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,388)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,388)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0  
<CHANGES>                                        0  
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,388)  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (.15)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0  
                                                     
<FN>
Footnote (1):

  Receivables consist of --
           Accounts Receivable - net   $1,810
           Notes Receivable               617
                                     ---------
                                       $2,427
                                     =========



                                       25
</FN>

 
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00603-CV

Richard LARES,

Appellant

v.

Martha MUNIZ,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-107990

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s October 22, 2020 

judgment is AFFIRMED. We do not tax costs against appellant Richard Lares because he qualifies 

as indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1.

SIGNED July 20, 2022.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice