alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.13





Supplementary Agreement to Breeding Pig Exclusive Sales Agreement





(unofficial English translation)





Party A: Heilongjiang Senyu Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd.


Legal Representative: Shang Zhenyu





Party B: Harbin Golden Lotus Inc.


Legal Representative: Li Xinqiang








As of Article 5 of the Breeding pig Exclusive Sales Agreement by and between Heilongjiang Senyu Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd. and Harbin Golden Inc., the parties agree the following supplementary agreement:





Article 1.
In the original agreement, it provides that "the target sales quantity of Harbin Golden Lotus Economy Trade Co., Ltd. shall be no less than 7800 breeding pigs per year and 1950 breeding pigs per season". Such quantity is subject to the normal operation of Heilongjiang Sengyu Breeding Pig Factory;





Article 2.
If the operation of Heilongjiang Sengyu Breeding pig Factory is not in normal condition, then the target sales quantity of Harbin Golden Lotus Inc. shall be equal to the actual produced breeding pigs.





Party A: Heilongjiang Senyu Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd.


(Signature and stamp)


[Stamp of Party A here]





January 8, 2010





Party B: Harbin Golden Lotus Inc.


(Signature and stamp)


[Stamp of Party B here]





January 8, 2010
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-84,068-01

EX PARTE JEFFERY PREVOST

ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR A

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN CAUSE NO. 1414421

IN THE 351 DISTRICT COURT

ST

HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

This case is before us because applicant has filed a motion for an extension of time

to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the provisions of Texas Code

of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071.

1

On April 5, 2014, a jury convicted applicant of capital murder and the trial court

Unless otherwise indicated all references to Articles refer to the Code of

1

Criminal Procedure.
Prevost - 2

sentenced him to death. The trial court immediately appointed the Office of Capital

2

Writs to represent applicant on an Article 11.071 writ application. During several

3

months of 2015, the Office of Capital Writs found itself in transition and without a

director. By Court appointment, the Office installed a new director on October 1, 2015.

On June 30, 2015, the State filed its brief on applicant’s direct appeal. Under

Article 11.071 § 4(b), this initially made applicant’s writ application due in the trial court

no later than August 14, 2015. Because the OCW timely requested and received the

statutorily allowed 90-day extension for filing, applicant’s writ application is now due in

the trial court on or before November 12, 2015. However, as the due date draws closer,

the new director of the OCW has expressed concern over whether he will have enough

time to complete his review of the case. Acknowledging that the trial court is without the

authority to grant the OCW another extension, the Office has filed with this Court an

early motion for an extension of time under Article 11.071 § 4A.

4

Under the circumstances, this Court holds that the OCW has shown good cause

supporting its request for additional time to file applicant’s writ application. Although

the extension allowed by Article 11.071 § 4A is technically only invoked after a party has

Applicant’s direct appeal is currently pending before this Court.

2

The Office of Capital Writs has been renamed. It is now the Office of Capital

3

and Forensic Writs.

The motion for an extension of time will not be sealed. However, the affidavit

4

accompanying the motion shall be sealed by order of this Court.
Prevost - 3

failed to timely filed a writ application, we grant the OCW’s preemptive motion and hold

that it shall have an additional 75 days from the day the writ application is currently due

to file the application. Thus, applicant’s writ application shall be due in the trial court on

or before January 26, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015.

TH

Do Not Publish
II

Calendar No. 137

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 468

[Report No. 104–104]

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the

construction of a hydroelectric project in Ohio, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 23 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 22), 1995

Mr. GLENN (FOR HIMSELF AND MR. DEWINE) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

JULY 11 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in Ohio,

and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period

5 specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16
2

•S 468 RS

1 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal En2 ergy Regulatory Commission project numbered 9423, the

3 Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the

4 project, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence,

5 and public interest requirements of that section and the

6 Commission’s procedures under that section, extend the

7 time period during which the licensee is required to com8 mence the construction of the project, under the extension

9 described in subsection (b), for not more than 3 consecu10 tive 2-year periods.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

12 on the date of the expiration of the extension of the period

13 required for commencement of construction of the project

14 described in subsection (a) that the Commission issued,

15 prior to the date of enactment of this Act, under section

16 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806).
Calendar No. 137

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 468

[Report No. 104–104]

A BILL

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power

electric project in Ohio, and for other purposes.Act applicable to the construction of a hydroJULY 11 (legislative day, JULY 10), 1995

Reported without amendment
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7020
JOHN DAVID SIMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; CHARLES J. HARLAND, Chief Dentist, Virginia Department of Corrections;DR. KOPELEVE, Chief Dentist, Powhatan Correctional Center, Medical Unit; OFFICER COCHRAN,Security Official, Powhatan Correctional Center, and other unknown at this time, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-15-2) Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 10, 1997 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. John David Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court properly required exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1997e(a) (West Supp. 1997). Because Appellant did not demonstrate to the district court that he had exhausted administrative remedies or that such remedies were not available, the court's dismissal of the action was not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm the district court's order but modify it to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice toAppellant's right to refile the action after exhaustion. 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 AS MODIFIED
^ 

IT OF ^ 5/ ^01 0 

SEP 13 P 1-38 QFlh&LOOO^. (f^Ppicl^K)^ 

(b(^<^Z 

/le\jif(/^ c^Q-/ /d A^/" f/^c^, /Q-e(/e.y^ osf^c^ * 3 -f 

j/lo ^ /^J/J^iA^^J. 0 ^ Slnodit<^<J air Kou^ Sty e 

^/) ^ k ^ 4c^ )Ac^ JT^/^u.'c f /^^- s /7^i^<rp^ ^c/e/'^ ^ 

4 Merce r / ? W / >? gC^ ^ ^O^-^c: ^ 1 ~ffe< ^ Kr^. .J ^ J ff U-. 

yfn^^ V p 

T>T 

^ r ^ ^ > 

-few* -

^^'H 3 0 2010 

""2** '
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7241

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

HELENIA LOUISE BOYD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (7:04-cr-01008-GRA)

Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 18, 2007

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

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jessica Ann Salvini, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South

Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United

States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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

PER CURIAM: 

Helenia Louise Boyd appeals the district court’s order

denying her motion to expunge her criminal record. 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 United States v. Boyd, No. 7:04-cr-01008-GRA

(D.S.C. Aug. 9, 2007). 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
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00353-CV

RUSH SEARCH PARTNERS, LTD. APPELLANT

V.

DEKALB MEDICAL CENTER, INC. APPELLEE

----------

FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION

1

----------

Appellant Rush Search Partners, Ltd. attempts to appeal from the trial 

court’s September 16, 2010 order granting Appellee DeKalb Medical Center, 

Inc.’s special appearance. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. However, 

the trial court subsequently signed an order vacating the September 16, 2010 

order.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

On January 6, 2011, we informed the parties that it appeared the trial 

court’s rescinding order rendered this appeal moot and that the appeal would be 

dismissed as moot unless, on or before January 18, 2011, any party desiring to 

continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.

Neither party filed a response.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 

43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: February 24, 2011
IB

House Calendar No. 162

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 369

[Report No. 104–419]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 6, 1995

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

DECEMBER 18 (legislative day, DECEMBER 15), 1995

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

AN ACT

To designate the Federal Courthouse in Decatur, Alabama,

as the ‘‘Seybourn H. Lynne Federal Courthouse’’, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The Federal Courthouse in Decatur, Alabama, is des5 ignated as the ‘‘Seybourn H. Lynne Federal Courthouse’’.

6 SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in any law, regulation, document,

8 record, map, or other paper of the United States to the
2

•S 369 RH

1 building referred to in section 1 is deemed to be a ref2 erence to the Seybourn H. Lynne Federal Courthouse.

Passed the Senate August 9 (legislative day, July

10), 1995.

Attest: KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

Secretary.

House Calendar No. 162

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 369

[Report No. 104–419]

AN ACT

To designate the Federal Courthouse in Decatur,

D

Courthouse’’, and for other purposes.Alabama, as the ‘‘Seybourn H. Lynne Federal

ECEMBER 18 (legislative day, DECEMBER 15), 1995

Referred to the House and ordered to be printed
#### Homer BROWN, d/b/a Homer Brown Coal Company, Appellant, v. Robert GREGORY and Workmen’s Compensation Board, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 28, 1966.

*711Charles G. Cole, Jr., Cole & Cole, Bar-bourville, for appellant.

Robert Matthews, Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Pleaz Wm. Mobley, Manchester, for ap-pellees.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This appeal is from a judgment upholding an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board in favor of appellee, Robert Cregory, against appellant, Homer Brown Coal Company. The only questions presented for our determination are whether the Board made sufficient findings of fact and whether it erred as a matter of law in not apportioning the liability between appellant and the Special Fund pursuant to KRS 342.120.

Gregory sustained an injury to his back by an accident arising out of his employment with appellant during 1962. The Special Fund was made a party to the proceedings before the Board.

The Board, after noting that the Special Fund had been made a party and after reviewing certain medical evidence found that Gregory was totally disabled and awarded him maximum compensation benefits against appellant.

Appellant contends the Board failed to make sufficient findings of fact as required by KRS 342.275, specifically in not finding the amount of disability caused by trauma and the amount which resulted from a pre-existing condition. While the Board was remiss in not making specific affirmative findings of fact, it assessed appellant with full liability. Hence it is implicit in the award that no pre-existing condition, as that term is used in KRS 342.120, contributed to Gregory’s present disability. Department of Highways v. McCoy, 301 Ky. 765, 193 S.W.2d 410.

Appellant next contends the evidence required the Board to find that Gregory had a pre-existing condition which contributed to his disability. The medical witnesses had not examined Gregory before he received his back injury. One physician stated that his examination convinced him that Gregory had a 5% disability before the accident. Two physicians opined that Gregory had a degenerative disc before his accident which contributed 50% to his present disability. Another physician testified Gregory’s condition was due solely to trauma. It is doubtful if a non-disabling degenerative condition which is due to normal aging processes is the type of condition intended to be covered by KRS 342.120. However, we need not determine that question since there is medical evidence to support the Board’s finding that the disability was entirely caused by the 1962 accident. This forecloses the apportionment question. Mullins v. Blanton, Ky., 385 S.W.2d 779; Imperial Elkhorn Coal Co. v. Newsome, Ky., 382 S.W.2d 864. We conclude there is no merit in appellant’s contentions.

The judgment is affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 530

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit State and

local government workers to perform volunteer services for their employer

without requiring the employer to pay overtime compensation, and for

other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 10 (legislative day, MARCH 6), 1995

Mr. GREGG introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit

State and local government workers to perform volunteer

services for their employer without requiring the employer to pay overtime compensation, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘State and Local Volun5 teer Preservation Act’’.
2

•S 530 IS

1 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION.

2 Section 7(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

3 (29 U.S.C. 207(o)) is amended—

4 (1) by redesignating paragraph (6) as para5 graph (7); and

6 (2) by inserting after paragraph (5), the follow7 ing new paragraph:

8 ‘‘(6) A public agency which is a State, political

9 subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental

10 organization shall not be required to pay an em11 ployee overtime compensation or provide compen12 satory time under this section for any period during

13 which the employee—

14 ‘‘(A) volunteered to perform services for

15 the public agency; and

16 ‘‘(B) signed a legally binding waiver of

17 such compensation or compensatory time.’’.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned Presidentand chief executive officer of First Republic Preferred Capital Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report") fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

| Date: August 13, 2002 | /s/ JAMES J. BAUMBERGER                                    |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |                                                       |
|                  | James J. Baumberger  President and chief executive officer |
UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPO I FEDERA LAVIATIO NADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D.C
. J& B ENTERPRISES , INC. , d^/a / RHYTH M SHINE , Complainant , V
. METROPOLITA NNASHVILL EAIRPOR T AUTHORITY , Respondent
. 

### iiO N DE C 1 4 200 9
AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW , AGC-60 Q
Docke t No. : 16-08-0 7



### NOTIC E O F CHANG E O F ADDRES S Pursuan t t o 1 4 CF R§ 16.3(1) , Attorne y for Complainan t

Thoma s J
. Henderson , hereb y submit s thi s Notic e o f

Chang e o f

Address
. Effectiv e immediately , th e contac t informatio nfor

Mr
. Henderso ni s a s follows : Thoma s J
. Henderso n Henderso nLa w Firm , PLL C 166 6 Connecticu t

Ave. , NW , Suit e 31 0 Washington , D C 2000 9 1:.^ ^ ""^
. C 2 Respectfull y submitted
. By : Thoma s J
. frienOiBrson HENDERSO NLA WFIRM , PLL C 166 6 Connecticu t

Ave. , NW , Suit e 31 0 Washington , D C 2000 9 Telephone : (202 ) 742-744 7 Facsimile : (202 ) 742-777 6 tjh@hendersonfirm.ne t Counse l fo r

Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc
.CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y that o nthi s 8 * da y o f

December , 2009, 1 submitte dth e Notic e o f Chang e o f Addres s t o th e FA A Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l viaU S mai l for filing. A tru e an dcorrec t cop y o f th e foregoin g was served , viaU S mai l upon :

Arthu r P
. Ber g Kapla nKirsc h& Rockwel l LL P 44 5 Park Avenue , 9t

hFloo r Ne w York , Ne w York

1002 2 Thoma s R
. Devin e Kapla nKirsc h& Rockwel l LLP 100 1 Connecticu t

Ave. , N.W
. Suit e 80 0 Washington , D.C
. 2003 6 LisaReynold s Kapla nKirsc h& Rockwel l LLP 167 5 Broadway , Suit e 230 0 Denver , C O 8020 2 Robert Watso n MNA A On e Termina l Drive , Suit e 50 1 Nashville , TN3721 4

Counse l fo r Complainan t J& B Enterprises , Inc
.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Executone Information Systems, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and the related consolidated statement
of operations for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>            1000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                7,727
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        35,217
<ALLOWANCES>                          1,814
<INVENTORY>                          20,436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     70,741
<PP&E>                               19,463
<DEPRECIATION>                       11,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      138,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                42,631
<BONDS>                              14,643
<COMMON>                                497
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                           7,300
<OTHER-SE>                           72,701
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        138,864
<SALES>                             156,396
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    156,396
<CGS>                               103,387
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       103,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     52,919
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        277
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (358)
<INCOME-TAX>                           (137)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (221)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                           (221)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00
        


<PAGE>
## SERVED: March 31, 2014 US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC FAADOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0040

HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thattestimony and evidence will beheard and considered onJune 2 through 6, 2014, inclusive, in the U.S. Tax Court, Courtroom 591, Federal Building, 207 S. Houston Street, Dallas, TX 75202. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at4:30p.m. each day. The parties shall vacate the courthouse on orbefore 5:00p.m. each day. Settled cases will notbe removed from the docket until the Judge receives the properpleading(s). Pleadings 1maybe forwarded by fax, express mail, courier orpostal service2•

·Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

1 Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials which are sealed) also available for viewing at hllp:llwrvw.regulations.gov. For additional information see: http://dms.dot.gov. 2 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes ofthe decisions, the Rules ofPractice, as well as other materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: hllp:llwww.faa.gov/aboutloffice org/headquarters ofllces/agclpol adjudication/agc400/civi1 penaltvl: see also: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgilt/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=lecfrbrowse/Title14114tab 02.tpl. In addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishingpublishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-FAA database. For additional information, see the Web site.SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 ONE COPY 

### Michael L. 

### Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

### Michael L. 

### Dworkin and Associates Law Offices 465 California Street, Suite 210 SanFrancisco, CA 94104-1808 TEL: 415-421-2500 FAX: 415-421-2560 James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

### Agency Attorney, Office ofthe Regional Counsel Southwest Region Federal Aviation Administration 2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 6E FortWorth, TX 76137 TEL: 817-222-5074 FAX: 817-222-5092 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013,.0040 (Civil Penalty Action)

1Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.