alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2826]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6534-4]


Request for Qualifications and Preliminary Proposals for 
Communications, Outreach and Education

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a request 
for qualifications and preliminary proposals for organizations 
interested in assisting the Chesapeake Bay Program in its effort to 
provide the communications, outreach and education components of the 
Bay Program partnership. Applicants must be a non-profit organization, 
interstate agency, college or university institution. The organization 
must have conducted work within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Note, 
this is a request for proposals for the benefit of the Chesapeake Bay 
Program partnership and not for direct benefit to EPA. Funding will be 
provided to an organization under the authority of the Clean Water Act, 
Section 117(a) and (b).
    An original and 5 copies of proposals must be received by the US 
EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program by close of business March 3, 2000. The RFP 
is available at the following web-site: http://www.epa.gov/r3chespk/ 
You may also request a copy by calling Robert Shewack at 410-267-9856 
or by E-mail at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d6a5beb3a1b7b5bdf8a4b9b4b3a4a296b3a6b7f8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2a59424f5d4b4941045845484f585e6a4f5a4b044d455c">[email protected]</span></a>. All proposals must be received 
by EPA by close of business March 3, 2000. Any late, incomplete or fax 
proposals will not be considered.

William Matuszeski,
Director, Chesapeake Bay Program.
[FR Doc. 00-2826 Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30603 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KEAHA M. ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:02-CR-60041-2

- - - - - - - - - - Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Keaha M. Alexander has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Alexander was sent a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 14

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas it is in the public interest to reduce the frequency

of workplace accidents and the human and economic

costs associated with such injuries;

Whereas workplace accidents involving powered industrial

trucks are often the result of operation by poorly trained,

untrained, or unauthorized operators;

Whereas Federal regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and codified at

29 C.F.R. 1910.178 require that operators of powered industrial trucks be trained and authorized;
2

•HCON 14 EH

Whereas existing regulations lack any guidelines to measure

whether operators of powered industrial trucks are in

fact trained and authorized;

Whereas operator training programs have been demonstrated

to reduce the frequency and severity of workplace accidents involving powered industrial trucks; and

Whereas a petition to amend existing regulations to specify

the proper components of a training program for operation of powered industrial trucks has been pending before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

since March 1988: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Occupational Safety and Health Ad3 ministration is requested to publish, within one year of

4 passage of this resolution, proposed regulations amending

5 the regulation published as 29 C.F.R. 1910.178 to specify

6 the components of an adequate operator training program

7 and to provide that only trained employees be authorized

8 to operate powered industrial trucks.

Passed the House of Representatives October 7,

1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 14

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to

and Health Administration.certain regulations of the Occupational Safety
**
Exhibit 35.1 

Servicer Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation 

**NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

The undersigned, Kevin J. Cullum, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the“Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows: 

(1) The undersigned has caused a reviewof the activities of the Company, in its capacity as Servicer, during the 12-month period ended March 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to the Sale and ServicingAgreement, dated as of April 14, 2015 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, individually and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables2015-A Owner Trust, to be conducted under his supervision; and 

(2) To the best of theundersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period. 

This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forpublicly-issued asset-backed securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 27th day of June, 2019. 

 

/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer**
GOVERNMENT OFTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DistrictDepartmentofthe Environment

Office ofthe Director July 17, 2014 ShawnM. Garvin Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region III (Mail Code: 3RAOO) 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

# ***

Subje /cf

t: District ofColumbia's Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide StandardsRequest for a SIP Revision



## ~W/\ Dear r. Garvin: Pursuant to the authority set forth in the District ofColumbia Air Pollution Control Act of 1984 as amended, effective March 15, 1985 (D.C. Law 5-165; D.C. Official Code§§ 8-101.01 etseq. (2013 Repl.), Mayor's Order 98-44, dated AprillO, 1998, and Mayor's Order 2006-61, dated June 14, 2006, the District ofColumbia (District) is hereby requesting approval ofa revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted in accordance with the requirements of40 C.F.R. Part 51. The District is requesting approval ofthis SIP revision to meet certain federal Clean Air Act requirements under Sections 11O(a)(2). The SIP revision is a compilation ofelements that describe how the District is implementing the "infrastructure" elements ofthe 2010 sulfur dioxide (S02) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). A Notice ofPublic Hearing and Public Comment Period was posted in the D.C. Register on April18, 2014 (61 DCR 17:003978,Notice ID 4852248). The following are included with this SIP submittal package:

DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

### • • 

### • • 

### • • 

## • • One paper copy ofthe Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 S02 NAAQS; One paper copy ofthe D.C. Official Code§ 8-101.05 (2013 Repl.) as a reference; One paper copy ofthe D.C. Official Code§ 8-151.07 (2013 Repl.) as a reference; Public hearing notice; Hearing officer's certification; One paper copy ofcomments submitted during the public commentperiod; One paper copy ofDDOE'sresponse to comments; One disk containing an electronic version ofthe SIP revision. The electronic version includes an exact duplicate ofthe papercopy ofthe SIP revision submittal.



# ~ greenforward .. x
1200 First St. NE, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 200021 tel: 202.535.2600 

### Iweb:ddoe.dc.govShould you have any questions orrequire additional information, please contact me at (202) 535- 2615, or Ms. Cecily Beall, Associate Director for the Air Quality Division, at (202) 535-2626.

Director Enclosure

cc: DianaEsher, Director, Air Protection Division, EPA Region 3 Cecily Beall, Associate Director, Air Quality Division, DDOE
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0010

Post-Focus Draft Revision 2 2/7/2013

ENGINEER: Macek \ AG / EV / REC

PV (kg/yr)

SUBMITTER: Eastman Chemical Company, Inc.

 

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: safety glasses with side shields (or goggles) /

chemical-resistant gloves, footwear, and protective

clothing / Good general ventilation (typically 10 air

changer per hour) should be used. Ventilation rates

should be matched to conditions. If applicable, use

process enclosures, local exhaust ventilation, or other

engineering controls to maintain airborne levels below

recommended exposure limits.

Respirator: If engineering controls do not maintain

airborne concentrations below recommended exposure limits

(where applicable) or to an acceptable level (in
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM]

countries where exposure limits have not been

established), an approved respirator must be worn. In the

United States of America, if respirators are used, a

program should be instituted to assure compliance with

OSHA Standard 63 FR 1152, January 8, 1998. Respirator

type: Air-purifying respirator with an appropriate,

government approved (where applicable), air-purifying

filter, cartridge or canister. Contact health and safety

professional or manufacturer for specific information.

Health Effects: causes eye irritation / toxicological

properties of this material have not been investigated

TLV/PEL:

None Established

SAT (concerns) (10/12/2012):

to Rapid

PBT rating: P1B1T1 .

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation

Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 20 ppb),

XB Testing (Testing desired)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1B
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM]

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: Yes (0 criteria met)

1) # of workers exposed: 39 >1000? No

2) >100 workers with >10 mg/day inhalation exposure: No

3) (a) >100 workers w/1-10 mg/day inh. exp. & >100

days/yr: No

 (b) Routine Dermal Cont: >250 workers & >100 days/yr:

No

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0010
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM]
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM]
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0010

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/jquennev/Desktop/p130010.en2.txt[3/8/2013 9:39:15 AM]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41150

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RUBEN LOPEZ-LARA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-903-1

Before ELROD, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Ruben Lopez-Lara has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Lopez-Lara has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to 

allow us to make a fair evaluation of Lopez-Lara’s claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-41150 Document: 00513147427 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2015
No. 14-41150

2

prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Lopez-Lara’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-41150 Document: 00513147427 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2015
Exhibit 32


                                  CERTIFICATION


By signing below, each of the undersigned  officers hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge,  (i) this report fully complies with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
1934 and (ii) the information  contained in this report fairly presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of
Logansport Financial Corp.

Signed this 13th day of August, 2003.



/s/David G. Wihebrink                           /s/Dottye Robeson
--------------------------                      --------------------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer           Secretary and Treasurer



A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to  Logansport  Financial  Corp.  and
will be retained by Logansport  Financial  Corp. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### JARRETT et al. v. ROSS.

No. 2409-7869.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

July 1, 1942.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1942.

W. S. Moore, of Gainesville, and Phillips, Trammell, Estes, Edwards & Orn, of Fort Worth, for plaintiff in error.

Cecil Murphy, of Gainesville, for defendant in error.

HICKMAN, Commissioner.

In the trial court plaintiffs in error, Georgia Jarrett and others, were awarded judgment for damages against defendant in error, J. W. Ross, in an action which was in form one of slander of title. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded the cause. 146 S.W.2d 219.

When the writ of error was granted it was thought that questions involving the law of slander of title were involved, but upon a more mature consideration of the record it has been determined that no cause of action for damages for slander of title was pleaded. Before trial the plaintiffs abandoned all allegations of their petition, express or implied, that the defendant acted with malice. The effect thereof was to abandon their alleged cause of action for damages for slander of title, for malice is a necessary element of such an action. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. McLean (Com.App.) 280 S.W. 557; Stovall v. Texas Co., 262 S.W. 152 (error refused); 33 Am.Jur., Libel and Slander, sec. 348.

Plaintiffs seek to uphold the judgment of the trial court upon the doctrine of Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Kishi, Tex.Com.App., 276 S.W. 190; Id., Tex.Com.App., 291 S.W. 538; Id., Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W. 687. The petition failed to allege a trespass by defendant and an ouster by him of plaintiffs in denial of their rights. Absent such allegations, the doctrine involved is not applicable. Shell Oil Co. v. Howth, Tex.Sup., 159 S.W.2d 483.

Since the case must be retried, it becomes unnecessary for us to consider any other question discussed by the Court of Civil Appeals.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversing and remanding the case is affirmed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03746

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

03746\03746_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03746\03746_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03746\03746_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03746\03746_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03746\03746_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03746\03746_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03746\03746_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03746\03746_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03746\03746_PlantID_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03746\Certification Statement Plant ID 03746.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03746\Supplemental Documentation\NH Harbor Drawings\Effluent Limitations Guideline ICR - Line Drawing.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03746\Supplemental Documentation\NH Harbor Drawings\New Haven Site Plan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF DATASTREAM SYSTEMS, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Datastream Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Larry G. Blackwell, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 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; and
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

| |                         
| | ------------------------
| | /s/ Larry G. Blackwell  
| | Larry G. Blackwell      
| | Chief Executive Officer 
| | Datastream Systems, Inc.
| | May 10, 2004            

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements of Berthel Growth & Income Trust I
as of June 30, 2000, and the six months ended June 30, 2000, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,244
<SECURITIES>                                20,870,025
<RECEIVABLES>                                  222,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,368,772
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,184,689
<BONDS>                                      7,950,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,234,083<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               548,568
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               278,025
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             299,421
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,569,835
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,569,835
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,569,835
<EPS-BASIC>                                     528.40<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   528.40<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Net Assets
<F2>Net Income per Beneficial Share Based on Weighted Average Shares Outstanding
which was 10,541
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 11.01

                          PREMISYS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE - (UNAUDITED)
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Three Months Ended September 30,
                                                    ---------------------------------
                                                          1995             1996
                                                          ----             ----
 <S>                                                 <C>                <C>
 Weighted average shares outstanding:
  Common Stock                                           23,462           24,432
  Common stock equivalents related to options
   using the treasury stock method                        2,830            2,047
                                                      ---------         --------
  Weighted-average common shares and equivalents         26,292           26,479
                                                      ---------         --------
                                                      ---------         --------
  Net income                                           $  3,306         $  5,723
                                                      ---------         --------
                                                      ---------         --------
  Net income per share                                 $   0.13         $   0.22
                                                      ---------         --------
                                                      ---------         --------

</TABLE>