alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHIN GTON , D.C 20460 

# D

EC 1 2 2011 QFFICE ,)F ':" .R A ·10 PADI':'.TI'A,J Mr. Michael 

### J. Stanton President & CEO Association of Global Automakers, Inc . 1050 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20001 Dear Mr. Stanton: Thank you for your letter of October 21,2011, to Administrator Jackson. Your letter expresses interest in the U.S . Environmental Protection Agency adopting more stringent gasoline sulfur standards and harmonizing such standards with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program. As you know, the EPA is currently developing a proposal designed to reduce air pollution from passenger cars and trucks by establishing new "Tier 3" motor vehicle and fuel standards. We are committed to pursuing a systems approach, in which we consider both the vehicle and its fuel as an integrated system. We recognize the important role offuel properties, particularly sulfur, in vehicle emissions. Our research indicates that reducing gasoline sulfur content would provide significant emissions benefits for existing vehicles in addition to enabling more stringent standards for new vehicles. The EPA and CARB have been carefully coordinating the Tier 3 and LEV III standards, with the intent ofdeveloping a harmonized motor vehicle program. The EPA agrees that harmonizing Tier 3 and LEV III standards is a common-sense approach that provides cost savings to your industry at the same time it provides important public health benefits . I appreciate the input we have received from you and your members as we have been considering these issues. I look forward to continuing to work together 

### in the development of a Tier 3 program. Again, thank you again for your letter. I appreciate the opportunity to be of service and trust the information provided is helpful. Sincerely,

ina McCarthy Assistant Administrator cc: John Cabaniss

Intemt! l AdcJreS5 (UR L) . hltp Ilwww epa gOY Recyc ledJRecyclab le • Pflnted wl lh Vegelable 011 Based Inks o n 1 00%. Postconsumer. P rocess Chlllf1nf" FIeF Re-cYC.'E'd Paper
Executive Health Program



 Exhibit 10.16 
  
 On December 3, 2004, the Compensation Committee of Verity, Inc. approved an Executive Health Program for Verity’s
Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Senior Vice Presidents. Under the Executive Health Program, each of these executives will receive an annual comprehensive physical exam paid for by Verity.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BARON BEMENT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

JAMES G. COX and GREG SMITH,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17225

D.C. No. 

3:12-cv-00475-MMD-WGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 18, 2017** 

San Francisco, California

Before: D.W. NELSON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS,*** Chief

District Judge.

 

FILED

APR 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States Chief District

Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
Baron Bement appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment in

favor of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) on his claim under section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Bement also appeals the district

court’s alternative holding, dismissal for failure to state a claim. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.

The district court erred in granting summary judgment on a ground not

raised in the Appellees’ initial motion because the district court did not give

Bement “notice and a reasonable time to respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); see also

Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 972–73 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). 

Bement was not required to invoke section 504 by name in his complaint. See

Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346, 347 (2014) (per curiam).

The district court also erred in dismissing Bement’s section 504 claim for

failure to state a claim without giving him the opportunity to amend his complaint. 

Absent a determination that the complaint “could not possibly be cured by the

allegation of other facts,” the district court was required to grant leave to amend. 

See, e.g., Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. LARSEN of Washington:
        H.R. 6419.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       As described in Article 1, Section 1 ``all legislative 
     powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.''
```
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Leo B. Dorfman, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

June 5,, 1959.

*561*Samuel Gottesman*and *Harold H. Wolgel*for Austin S. Brunjes, petitioner.

*Krieger & Tick (Jerome Tick*of counsel), for Lillian Cohen, as executrix, respondent.

*S. Hazard*Gillespie, Jr., *United States Attorney (Joseph P. Altier*of counsel), for United States of America, respondent.

*Innerfield & Innerfield*for Irene Dorfman, respondent.

*Mortimer M. Kassell*and *John Ross*for State Tax Commission, respondent.

S. Samuel Di Falco, S. The court finds that the decedent received from the petitioner five New York City bonds and five State of Arkansas bonds on the express promise of the decedent to return the same bonds to the petitioner. The bonds were pledged by the decedent with Colonial Trust Company to secure a loan made by it to the decedent, and the bonds are still held by the trust company for the person determined to be entitled to the bonds. It was conceded at the trial that the bonds in the loan account with the trust company are the same bonds originally purchased by the claimant. Apart from that concession the description of the bonds on the loan card corresponds exactly with the description on the document executed by the decedent when the bonds were delivered to him. The loan by the trust company has been satisfied, and the trust company makes no claim to the bonds.

The transaction between the parties was in the nature of a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee, that is, the decedent. After using the property for the purpose presumably contemplated by the parties, the decedent was under obligation to return the bonds to the owner, as he explicitly agreed to do. The decedent could not legally sell the bonds and use the proceeds as his own. His personal representative and creditors are in no better position. *(Matter of Cooke,*147 Misc. 528.) The petitioner is entitled to the return of his bonds in accordance with the decedent’s promise.

The United States Attorney has raised the point that the trust company should have satisfied its claim by resorting to the collateral rather than by proceeding in the manner it did to collect the loan. That issue was not litigated at the hearing and is not before the court.

Submit decree on notice accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blast Energy Services, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Peterson, Interim President and CEO and Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 12, 2009





By:
/s/ Michael PetersonMichael PetersonInterim President and CEO(Principal Executive Officer)
```

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28059]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 21, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 13, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 144 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-119, CP2024-125.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-28059 Filed 12-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Addendum to Indenture



 Exhibit 4.5 
  

ADDENDUM 
 TO 
 INDENTURE 
 OF 
 JULY 31, 1997 
 Between

 Brooke Credit Corporation and First National Bank and Trust 
  
 Now on this 25th day of June, 2001, comes Brooke Credit Corporation, a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Kansas (hereinafter called the “Company”), having a principal
office in Phillipsburg, Kansas and First National Bank and Trust, a national banking association, having its principal corporate office at 225 State Street, Phillipsburg, Kansas 67661, and authorized to accept and execute trusts (hereinafter
referred to as “Trustee”) and do hereby, amend the Indenture Agreement dated July 31, 1997, pursuant to the authority contained in Article 12.02 of said agreement as follows: 
  
 Pursuant to the authority of Article 12.02, the provisions of Section 4.04 of said Indenture Agreement is hereby modified by
adding the following sentences: “The Trustee is specifically authorized to accept as security, promissory notes payable to the Company by Brooke Corporation. Furthermore, the Trustee is specifically authorized to accept as security accounts
and commissions receivables from Brooke Corporation.” 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Brooke Credit Corporation, the Company, has caused this Addendum to be signed by its President and its corporate seal to be affixed hereunto and attested by its Chairman, and First National Bank and Trust, Trustee, has
caused this Addendum to be signed by its Trust Officer and its corporate seal to be affixed hereunto and attested by its Secretary, all as of the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	Brooke Credit Corporation
		
	By	 	 /s/ Leland G. Orr


	 	 	Leland G. Orr, President


  
 (Corporate Seal) 
  
 Attest: 
  

	
	 /s/ Robert D. Orr


	 Robert D. Orr, Chairman & CEO


  

					
	 	  	First National Bank and Trust
			
	 (Corporate Seal)
	  	By:	 	 /s/ David C. Cooper


	 	  	 	 	David C. Cooper         (name)
	 Attest:
	  	 	 	Trust Officer                (title)
			
	 /s/ Stacye Redlinger

	  	 	 	 
	 Secretary
SECOND AMENDMENT

TO

WILD OATS MARKETS, INC.

1996 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 

On August 19, 1996, the Board of Directors of Wild OatsMarkets, Inc. (the "Company") adopted the Wild Oats Markets, Inc. 1996Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan") under which the Company may, fromtime to time, issue options exercisable for shares of the Common Stock, stockbonuses and rights to purchase restricted Common Stock of the Company.

 

RECITALS

 

A. The Board of Directors of the Company resolved on    February 3, 2000 to increase the number of shares of the Company's Common    Stock reserved for issuance under the Plan, by 1,560,000 shares.

> 
 

B. Shareholder approval to amend the Plan by increasing    by 1,560,000 the number of shares of the Company's Common Stock reserved for    issuance under the Plan was requested and given at the Shareholders Annual    Meeting on May 5, 2000.

> 
 

 

AMENDMENT

 

1. Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting    the existing Section 4(a), as previously amended, in its entirety and    replacing it with the following Section 4(a):

> 
 

(a) Subject to the provisions of Section 12 relating        to adjustments upon changes in stock, the stock that may be issued        pursuant to Stock Awards shall not exceed in the aggregate 4,650,221        shares of Common Stock (including previously reserved shares). If any        Stock Award shall for any reason expire or otherwise terminate, in whole        or in part, without having been exercised in full (or vested in the case        of Restricted Stock), the stock not acquired under such Stock Award        shall revert to and again become available for issuance under the Plan.

 

2. The foregoing amendment is effective as of May 5,    2000.

> 
 

 

**WILD OATS MARKETS, INC.**
 

By:  /s/ Mary Beth Lewis

 Title: Secretary

 Date: May 5, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JANUARY 31, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JANUARY 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                          11,529
<SECURITIES>                                     3,669
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,001
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,858
<PP&E>                                           6,249
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,152
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,769
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,299
<OTHER-SE>                                    (34,187)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,187
<SALES>                                         28,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,025
<CGS>                                            4,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (424)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  63
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,987
<INCOME-TAX>                                       354
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,633
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,633
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35


</TABLE>
July

22, 2015 Director, Chemical Control Division US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics EPA East Room 4146 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004

**Re: EPA**  **– HQ**  **– OPPT**  **– 2003**  **- 0012**  **DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100**  **PFOA Data Submittal**

**– Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples**  **June 2015 Sample Data** Dear Chemical Control Division: Attached please find summaries o f PFOA anal ytical results for the DuPont Chambers Works weekl y grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A in June 2015. In accordance with the current site NJPDES permit (NJ0005100, effective September 2011), these results are provided to NJDEP on a monthly basis via electronic discharge monitoring reports. The enclosures include two paper and two electronic copies of the anal ytical results from this monitoring period. Sincerel y, Amutha Jeyarajasingam Area Manager

- Secure Environmental Treatment DuPont Chambers Works AJ/clc Enclosures **The Chemours Company FC, LLC** A wholly
- ow ned subsidiary of E. I. d uPont de Nemours and Company Route 130 & Canal Rd. Deepwater, New Jersey 08023
#### In the Matter of William Robertson, Appellant, v Board of Education of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents dated December 4, 1987, denying the petitioner a line of duty injury leave, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated August 28, 1989, which dismissed the petition on the merits and as time-barred.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

On December 3, 1987, the petitioner, an employee of the New York City Board of Education, submitted an application to his school principal for line of duty injury leave as the result of an injury that he allegedly sustained while on the job on September 18, 1987. The petitioner’s application was rejected by the principal the following day on the basis that the petitioner had failed to file the requisite accident report within 24 hours of the alleged accident. In May 1988 the *837petitioner wrote to the Board’s Medical Bureau for similar relief, which request was also rejected. The petitioner commenced the instant proceeding on August 18, 1988, to review the determination. The Supreme Court denied the petition on the basis, *inter alia,*that the proceeding had not been timely commenced.

An administrative determination is final and binding so as to commence the running of the Statute of Limitations when the petitioner has received notice of the determination and is aggrieved by it *(see, Matter of Biondo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*60 NY2d 832; *Matter of Cauldwest Realty Corp. v City of New York,*160 AD2d 489). In the instant case, the petitioner was aggrieved and placed on notice that the Board would not process his claim for line of duty injury status and back pay when he received the letter from his principal dated December 4, 1987. Therefore, the proceeding was time-barred, since the petitioner failed to commence it within four months of that date. The petitioner’s direction of correspondence to the Medical Bureau, which can be viewed, at most, as a request for reconsideration, did not toll or revive the Statute of Limitations *(see, Matter of Lubin v Board of Educ.,*60 NY2d 974, *cert denied*469 US 823). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly ruled that the petitioner’s proceeding was untimely commenced.

In any event, a review of the entire record shows that there existed a rational basis for the determination *(see, Matter of Purdy v Kreisberg,*47 NY2d 354, 358; *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 231). Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 10.25**

 

PROMISSORY NOTE

 
| $150,000 |   | Worcester, Massachusetts |
|----------|--------|--------------------------|
|     |   | January 31, 2005         |

 

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ADVANCED CELL TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delawarecorporation (the “Maker”), promises to pay to the order of PIERCE ATWOOD, aMaine limited liability partnership (the “Holder”), the principal sum of OneHundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000).  Payment of the principal outstanding underthis Note shall be made in lawful U.S. money in immediately available funds tothe Holder in monthly installments of $50,000 payable on the first day ofMarch, April and May, 2005.

 

All principal outstanding hereunder shall accrue interest at the rateof ten percent (10%) per annum.  In theevent all principal is paid on a timely basis, interest accrued hereunder shallbe waived by the Holder.  If not paid ona timely basis, interest shall be due and payable, together with the finalinstallment of principal due May 2005.

 

The Maker may make prepayments of principal due hereunder at any timeand from time to time without payment of any penalty or premium.  Any such prepayments shall be applied, first,to any costs due hereunder to the Holder from the Maker, and second, tounpaid principal.

 

The Maker waives presentment, demand, notice and protest and agrees topay all costs of collection or attempted collection, including reasonableattorneys’ fees.

 

This Promissory Note shall be governed by and construed in accordancewith the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  If any provision of this Promissory Note isheld to be invalid or unenforceable, that provision shall be ineffective to theextent of such prohibition or shall be modified to conform with applicable law,without invalidating any other provisions of this Promissory Note.

 
| WITNESS:    | MAKER:                         |
|-------------|--------------------------------|
|        |                           |
|        | ADVANCED CELL TECHNOLOGY, INC. |
|        |                           |
|        |                           |
| /s/ K Singh |                           | By: | /s/ William M. Caldwell IV |   |
|        | Its Chief Executive Officer    |
|             |                                |  |  |  |

 

----
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Penn-America Group, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Jon S.
Saltzman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

         (1) The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a)
and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.

/s/ Jon S. Saltzman
-----------------------------
Jon S. Saltzman
President and Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2003