alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Comment on DOD**  **- 2014**  **- OS**  **- 0101**  **- 0001:**  Having had friends serving in the military ,

who have suffered from such assaults, this new amendment will certainl y increase m y confidence in the DOD's service to the members of the armed forces. The statistical data that will become available will be integral to future development of regulations regarding sexual assault and victims of such. However, the availability of the information may

be concerning, and more information about the access methods would be beneficial to the decision of amending this existing regulation. **DoD R** **esponse:** One commenter expressed concern regarding the availability of information and indicated that more information about the access methods would be beneficial. The access to records described i n the sy stem of records notice addresses how the subject of the record may request access to his/her record. Disclosure of these records not from the subject of the record must also be in accordance with the Privacy Act which does allow for the disclosure of a record (in this instance) (b) (1) to those officers and employees of the agency

which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties , and (b) (2) required under section 552 of this title [the Freedom of Informati on Act ] . There are additional condit ions of disclosure established at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), however, the remainder generally would not appl y to these records. There are no specific routine uses established for this sy stem of records. **Comment on DOD -**  **2014 -**  **OS -**  **0101 -**  **0001:** What intention is this proposal offering other than moving records or record holders? Idon't feel that moving records without a clear, reasonable and justifiable need is appropriate. What exactly are the implications? I

think there is no desire to, victim

- wise, to shuffle information and simply make a copy . This information should be classified as "need to know". . .? **DoD Response:** One commenter was concerned about the change in sy stem location and that it was made without a clear, reasonable and justifiable need. The Privacy Act and OMB Circular A

- 130 require Federal agencies to publish formal notification in the Federal Register when changes are made to Privacy Act Sy stem of Records Notices (SORNs). When publishing changes, the DoD publishe s the entire section of the SORN rather than just the paragraph being changed. In this instance, the only change was with the Department of the Army which had moved these records to Quantico, VA (where the Departments of the Nav y and Air Force were already maintaining their records on this matter). This commenter had a second concern that the information be “need to know”. The Department of Defense considers all Privacy Act protected information “need to know” and the safeguard section of this SORN identifies that access to these records is, among other identified safeguards, role

- based.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000095779
<NAME> SWANK, INC.
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<CASH>                                             652
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,631
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,806
<INVENTORY>                                     24,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,868
<PP&E>                                          24,875
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  49,777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,364
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,684
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    49,777
<SALES>                                         27,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,567
<CGS>                                           14,729
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   137
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 224
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     76
<INCOME-TAX>                                        30
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 46
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        46
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
### Re: IPM FF Model **William Stevens** to: Joe Kordzi 10/03/2011 07:22 PM
From: Wi lliam Stevens/DC/USEPA/US To: Joe Kordzi/R6/USEPA/US@EPA

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Joe - C1 and C2 are editing oversights (should have been deleted) - non -functional leftovers from the model from which this FF model was derived.

- Bill

_____________________ Wi lliam A Stevens, P.E. Senior Advisor - Power Technologies U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Clean Air Markets Division stevens.william@epa.gov 202 - 343 - 9642

-----Joe Kordzi/R6/USEPA/US wrote: ----- To: Wi lliam Stevens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From : Joe Kordzi/R6/USEPA/USDate: 10/03/2011 06:45PM

Subject: IPM FF Model (See attached file: Cost FF S&L 3 - 11.pdf) Bill, Attached is our version (prepared by our contractor assisting us in addressing our OK FIP comments) of the S&L IPM FF spreadsheet. T ab le 1 and 2 note constants C1 and C2, which are not defined in the documentation. C an yo u assist? O ur contractor's comments are due to us by the end of the week - thanks. Regards, Joe " ... and miles to go before I sleep."

-- Robert Frost (See attached file: Cost FF IPM 3 - 11 LN.xls) (See attached file: Cost FF S&L 3 - 11.pdf)
EXHIBIT 32.2









CERTIFICATE 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 Report of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period from April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the period indicated. This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.








Dated: June 29, 2010


/s/ Steven R. Blake


Steven R. Blake


Chief Financial Officer
Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 2/6/14

Regional Airline Association 2/6/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 2/6/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 2/6/14
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2994 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2994

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for 1 year the 
   exclusion from gross income of discharges of qualified principal 
                        residence indebtedness.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 2, 2013

    Mr. Reed (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Thompson of 
California, Mr. Brady of Texas, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. 
Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Kind, Mr. Neal, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. 
Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Watt, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Ribble, Mr. Capuano, 
Mr. Turner, and Mr. Buchanan) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for 1 year the 
   exclusion from gross income of discharges of qualified principal 
                        residence indebtedness.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mortgage Forgiveness Tax Relief Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF DISCHARGE OF 
              QUALIFIED PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE INDEBTEDNESS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 108(a)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``January 1, 
2014'' and inserting ``January 1, 2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to indebtedness discharged after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
2404 Superior Drive, Arlington, TX 76013 www.txps.com

Telephone 817 794 0068 Toll Free 800 211 9690 Fax 817 795 3474

FAA Repair Station T4XR853J FAA Repair Station TF0R552Y

May 16, 2011

Docket Operations M–30

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.

Room W12–140

West Building Ground Floor

Washington, DC 20590–0001

Submitted Electronically via: www.regulations.gov

RE: Comments to Docket No. FAA–2010–1167

Public comment period extension request

To Whom It May Concern:

Texas Pneumatic Systems, Inc. (TPS) and Turbine Fuel Systems, Inc. (TFS), respectfully 

submit this request for additional time to submit comments on the proposed Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) interpretation published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2011.

1

TPS is an FAA repair station specializing in the repair/overhaul of pneumatic components for 

the military and commercial airline industry worldwide. Its sister company, TFS, specializes in 

the repair and overhaul of fuel components for all turbine-powered commercial and military 

aircraft. As such, both TPS and TFS are directly impacted by the matters addressed in the 

proposed interpretation.

The scope and extent of the proposed interpretation warrants an extended comment period. 

The interpretation requires strict compliance with any document incorporated by reference in an 

AD and thus has far-reaching negative implications that must be carefully considered in order to 

advance a practical and legal alternative.

 1 76 FR 20898
2404 Superior Drive, Arlington, TX 76013 www.txps.com

Telephone 817 794 0068 Toll Free 800 211 9690 Fax 817 795 3474

FAA Repair Station T4XR853J FAA Repair Station TF0R552Y

Extending the comment period would ensure full participation by companies, such as TPS and 

TFS, most directly impacted by the proposed interpretation. Consequently, we ask that the date 

be extended to August 16, 2011.

We look forward to your favorable response and the opportunity to provide meaningful comment 

to the proposed interpretation.

Respectfully submitted,

Bernard E. Rookey

President/CEO
Document

Exhibit 10.1

September 22, 2021






Allan W. Smith, Jr.
901 44th St., SE
Grand Rapids, MI  49508


Dear Allan,


I am pleased to offer you the position of Senior Vice President, Chief Revenue Officer effective October 4, 2021, reporting to me.  This letter is to confirm, in writing, the principal elements of your compensation package in this role.


Annual Base Salary
–Your annual base salary will increase to $500,000 ($19,230.77 bi-weekly).


Performance Review
–A review of your performance will be completed annually at or around the close of each fiscal year.


Bonus Program
–As a participant in the Steelcase Inc. Management Incentive Plan (MIP), your annual target will increase to 80%.
–Bonus payments are made annually, after the close of the fiscal year. 


Long-Term Compensation (LTI)
–You will continue to participate in the long-term incentive program, currently consisting of performance stock units (PSUs) and restricted stock units (RSUs).
–Your LTI target will increase to 150% of your annual base salary. 
–Awards are made annually at the discretion of the Compensation Committee and the next award is expected to be in April 2022.


Stock Ownership Guidelines
–You will have an ownership guideline of three times your base salary.
–You will need to satisfy this guideline by fiscal yearend 2027 which is five fiscal years from your first anticipated annual award.


Executive Severance Plan
–You will continue to participate in the plan as a “Level 2 Employee.” 










Special One-time Award of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs)
–The Compensation Committee has approved an award to you of 18,500 RSUs with a grant date of September 22, 2021, the standard award terms and three-year cliff vesting.


Please note that your compensation is subject to review and approval by the Compensation Committee and is subject to the terms of the applicable plans, programs and award agreements.


Nothing in this letter is intended to alter the at-will nature of our employment relationship.


Allan, I look forward to working with you in your new role.  Please let me know if you have any questions.


Sincerely,


/s/ Sara E. Armbruster


Sara E. Armbruster
Executive Vice President
Steelcase Inc.




I accept and agree to the terms offered in this letter.


/s/ Allan W. Smith, Jr.                                                               September 22, 2021
Allan W. Smith, Jr.                                                                   Date
#### BARRON v. STATE.

No. 25503.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant,

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*514GRAVES, Presiding Judge. -

The offense is rape. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for five years.

The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts- or bills of exception. Therefore no question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### GREGG v. STATE.

No. 23354.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 22, 1946.

William C. McDonald, of San Angelo, and Ennis Favors, of Stephenville, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Tom Green County of an aggravated assault, and fined the sum of $75, and she appeals.

The complaint and information herein charge that “Clara Gregg did then and there unlawfully go into the house of a private family, to-wit, the house of J. P. Carroll and wife, Mrs. Hazel Carroll, and did then and there in and upon the said Mrs. Hazel Carroll commit an aggravated assault, against the peace and dignity of the State.”

It is claimed that this allegation is insufficient in law in that the same does not go further and also allege a battery to have been committed by the appellant. This prosecution is based upon Art. 1147, Sec. 3, of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:

“An assault or battery becomes aggravated when committed under any of the following circumstances: * * *

“3. When the person committing the offense goes into the house of a private fam*777ily and is there quilty of an assault and battery.”

It will be noted that the pleadings of the State in this case omit to charge a battery to have been committed by appellant in such house.

We held in a case with similar facts, Hamilton v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 360, 136 S.W.2d 858, as follows:

“This court has held that in an indictment or complaint for aggravated assault committed in the house of a private family it should be averred that a battery was committed, as well as an assault, in accordance with the express requirements of the statutory’enactment specifying this ground of aggravation. In Pederson v. State, 21 Tex.App. 485, 1 S.W. 521, the court said: ‘He must go into the house, or be in the house; and he must not only commit an assault, but a battery also.’ ” See also 4 Tex.Jur. 896.

We think the complaint and information herein fail to charge an offense. Our State’s Attorney confesses error herein.

Under the present pleading the defendant cannot be again tried for aggravated assault.

The judgment is reversed and remanded.
#### LAWSON et al. v. MITTS et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 21, 1952.

C. C. Adams, Williamstown, for appellants.

Lee B. Lanter and L. M. Ackman,'Wil-liamstown, for appellees.

CLAY, Commissioner.

This controversy arises on appellant’s application to modify a former judgment so as to permit her to have the full custody of her young daughter. The original judgment, affirmed by this Court in Mitts v. Mitts, 312 Ky. 854, 229 S.W.2d 958, gave the principal custody to the child’s aunt and uncle, but provided she should visit her mother on week-ends and at other times.

In our former opinion we pointed out that some question had been raised concerning the mother’s fitness, and it was also noted that she did not have a home of her own. Appellant in the present proceeding has attempted to show a change of conditions which she contends now justifies the court in giving her complete custody. On this score it appears she has remarried, is able to take care of the child in her own home, and is a fit and proper person.

The child is now ten years old. Since the entry of the original judgment, she has lived with her aunt and uncle and has visited her mother frequently. She has also spent some time with her father. She was examined by the court outside the presence of the parties to this suit, and the trend of her testimony was that she is happy under the existing arrangement. She has a real affection for her mother, her father, and her aunt and uncle.

Of course the controlling consideration is the welfare of this child. She now has a good home, and she has lived with her aunt and uncle for many years. She is no longer an infant of tender years. It is regrettable that her affections and her home life must be so divided. However, it is impossible to reach a perfect solution of the problem.

 It is not necessary to recite the facts appearing in the record, both on the former and present appeal, which we have carefully considered. The Chancellor had the opportunity to hear all of the testimony, including that of the child herself. He is in a better position than we are to determine *383what would be for her best interests. His conclusion that the present arrangement should continue was fully justified, and we see no reason to disturb the judgment.

A number of incidental questions are raised by appellant, but our discussion of them in this opinion would serve no purpose. The Chancellor decreased the allowance to her from $40 to $10 a month. We find no error in this ruling.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32



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 Swank, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report"), the undersigned each hereby certifies that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.



|Dated:  November 14, 2003 | /s/ John A. Tulin             
|------------------------- | ------------------------------
|                          |                               
|                          | John A. Tulin, President      
|                          | (Chief Executive Officer)     
|                          |                               
|                          |                               
|Dated:  November 14, 2003 | /s/ Jerold R. Kassner         
|                          |                               
|                          | Jerold R. Kassner, Senior Vice
|                          | President and Treasurer       
|                          | (Chief Financial Officer)     





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Swank, Inc. and will be retained by Swank, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
FAA UAS Petition.

This is a request to the FAA by my company Digital Wave Videos, LLC, to operate an unmanned aerial 

aircraft ( DJI Phantom Vision 2+) for commercial use on a contract basis with video production clients.

I have no need to fly above the 400 feet ceiling for any of my work.

Sincerely,

Ronald J Strah

President / Owner Digital Wave Videos.

rstrah@gmail.com
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/23

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 23 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.86 N 77.06 W Meters AGL
#### Chenoweth, Appellee, *v.*Cary, Admr., et al., Appellants, et al.

(No. 27756

Decided November 15, 1939.)

Messrs, *Grabbe & Tootle,*for appellee.

*Mr. Ralph Q. Martin*and *Mr. Robert E. Gibbs,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is,' dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
JESSE JAMES PHILLIPS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-5367

_____________________________/

Opinion filed March 8, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County.

James B. Fensom, Judge.

Jesse James Phillips, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jillian H. Reding, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., SWANSON, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.