alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BLANTON v. LESLIE, Chief Justice, et al.

No. 7552.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 21, 1939.

Blanton & Blanton, of Albany, for relator.

Turner, Seaberry & Springer, of East-land, .for respondents.

SHARP, Justice.

Relator seeks by original mandamus proceedings to compel the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial District to certify to this Court for decision the question of law whether that court was correct in its opinion delivered on November 11, 1938, and in its opinion on rehearing delivered on February 3, 1939, in Thomas L. Blanton, Appellant, v. Clyde L. Garrett et al., Appellees, 124 S.W.2d 451, in which it affirmed the judgment of the district court, and sustained appellees’ plea of privilege to be sued in the county of their residence. This Court granted relator leave to file his application for mandamus.

The Honorable Court of Civil Appeals voluntarily certified to this Court for decision the questions involved in the case of Thomas L. Blanton v. Clyde L. Garrett et al., 124 S.W.2d 451, as well as the questions involved in A. H. Belo Corporation v. Thomas L. Blanton, 126 S.W.2d 1015 — both of said causes pending on the docket of the Court of Civil Appeals at Eastland. Opinions have been written by this Court in said two causes, and same have been announced this day. See A. H. Belo Corporation v. Thomas L. Blanton, 129 S.W.2d 619, and Thomas L. Blanton v. Clyde L. Garrett et al., 129 S.W.2d 623.

The issues involved in this case having been certified and answered in the two cases above mentioned, the writ of mandamus is refused.
### docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.
Bob Arrington to: Nick Parsons 07/31/2010 02:21 AM

**The oil and gas industry pleads over-regulation and excess costs as the reasons more environmental protections should not be imposed. Their profit margins are not in the least affected!**  **All costs are passed on to the consuming public that is being protected by requiring them to process their product in a responsible manner. The EPA can not protect the world, but it can do its’ part in this nation.** 

**The technology is there to minimize emissions that surpass flaring (at best 95% efficient – 5 tons escape for 100 tons burned). The capture and condensing of volatiles actually results in increased salable**  **product. The recent BP incident underscores the results of saving thousands of dollars in equipment misuse and quality and spending billions to mitigate the resulting damage. The use of open pits with**  **resulting toxic liners is archaic when mobile storage tanks are available. The storage tanks means they must recycle and recover, and final disposal will need high efficiency incinerators or evaporators with**  **collecting condensers, but it is the cost of doing responsible business.**

**The EPA also needs to address the emissions of diesel engines used in the processes and use of catalytic systems on the exhaust of those engines. It needs to address the cold weather use and the use**  **of engine heaters. The storage of open chemical containers must be addressed. Pipeline, compressor, and transport leakage must be curtailed and handling systems made more efficient, resistant to corrosion**  **and damage.**

**Overall, extractors are satisfied to get 93% of their product to market, and basically they must be required to address the 7% going into the environment (besides the massive catastrophic spills and accidents they**  **have).**

**Bob Arrington, P.E.**

**60 Willow Creek Ct. Parachute, CO 81635**  No virus found in this outgoing message . Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3039 - Release Date: 07/30/10

07:13:00
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001058627
<NAME> UCO PROPERTIES INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                       538
<INVENTORY>                                     42,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,205
<PP&E>                                          44,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,699
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               271,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  290,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 906 OF
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of TIB Financial Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, David P. Johnson,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that, to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operation of the Company.

Date: November 7, 2003
                            /s/ David P. Johnson
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                            David P. Johnson
                            Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

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 TIB Financial Corp. and will be
retained by TIB Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2676 

To permit certain disclosures of health information during emergencies, 

including overdoses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 16, 2018 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself and Mr. MURPHY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To permit certain disclosures of health information during 

emergencies, including overdoses. 

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 ‘‘Saving Lives Through 

5 Proper Notification of Overdoses Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILIES DURING EMER7 GENCIES. 

8 (a) PROMOTING AWARENESS OF AUTHORIZED DIS9 CLOSURES DURING EMERGENCIES.—The Secretary of 

10 Health and Human Services shall annually notify health 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2676 IS

1 care providers regarding permitted disclosures during 

2 emergencies, including overdoses, of certain health infor3 mation to families and caregivers under Federal health 

4 care privacy laws and regulations. 

5 (b) USE OF MATERIAL.—For the purposes of car6 rying out subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and 

7 Human Services may use material produced under section 

8 11004 of the 21st Century Cures Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d– 

9 2 note). 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
S. 2679 

One Hundred Fifteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen 

An Act 

To provide access to and manage the distribution of excess or surplus property 

to veteran-owned small businesses. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Small Business 

Enhancement Act of 2018’’. 

SEC. 2. ACCESS TO SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR VETERAN-OWNED SMALL 

BUSINESSES. 

Section 32 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657b) is 

amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(g) ACCESS TO SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR VETERAN-OWNED SMALL

BUSINESSES.— 

‘‘(1) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection— 

‘‘(A) the term ‘foreign excess property’ has the meaning 

given the term in section 102 of title 40, United States 

Code; and 

‘‘(B) the term ‘state agency’ has the meaning given 

the term, including the roles and responsibilities assigned, 

in section 549 of title 40, United States Code. 

‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—The Administrator, in coordination 

with the Administrator of General Services, shall provide access 

to and manage the distribution of surplus property, and foreign 

excess property returned to a State for handling as surplus 

property, owned by the United States under chapter 7 of title 

40, United States Code, to small business concerns owned and 

controlled by veterans (as verified by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs under section 8127 of title 38, United States Code) 

pursuant to a memorandum of agreement between the Administrator, the Administrator of General Services, and the head 
S. 2679—2 

of the applicable state agency for surplus properties and in 

accordance with section 549 of title 40, United States Code.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
PROCEDURE 2–Quality Assurance Requirements for

Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stat ionary Sources (40 CFR 60, Ap pend ix F) Summary of Routine System Check Requirements Drift Check

[§§10.2(1), 10.2(2), 10.2(4), 10.4(1)] • Applicab ility : all PM CEMS • Freque ncy : daily • Procedu

re: - Check zero and upscale drift - Adjust instrument if daily zero or upscale dr ift exceeds 4 percent - If instrument automatically adjusts for drift, it must be programmed to record either the unadjusted concentration or the amount of the adjustment • Use Equa

tion 2-3 to

calcula te zero dr ift • Use Equa

tion 2-2 to

calcula te upsca le drift • Instr ument is ou

t of contr ol if zero or upscale drift exceeds: - 4 p er ce nt fo r 5 co ns ec ut iv e d ays - 8 percent for any

one day System Optics Check

[§10.2(3)] • Applicab ility : light-s catteri ng, extinc tion ty pe, or other optic al PM CEMS • Freque ncy : daily • Procedu

re: - check syste

m optics to ensure proper operation Sample Volume Check

[§§10.2(5), 10.4(2)] • Ap pl ic ab il it y: extractive PM CEMS that incorporate measured sample volume in output • Freque ncy : daily • Procedu

re: - check sa

mple volume

at norma l sampling

rate - adjust system if daily

sample volume check error exceeds 10 perc ent • Instr ument is ou

t of contr ol if sample volume c

heck er ror exce eds: - 10 pe rc en t f

or5 c on se cu ti ve da ys - 20 percent for any

one day
Order entered September 1 7 , 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00280

- CR

LEWIS TERRELLE SLEDGE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 405th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19

- CR

- 3793

O RDER

Before the Court is the State ’ s appellant’s September 14, 2021 second

motion for an extension of time to file its brief. We GRANT the motion and

ORDER the State ’ s brief file on or before November 15 , 2021

. We DIRECT the

Clerk to set this case at issue on November 15, 2021.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 6 -00 599 -CV SWEP I LP , A ppe lla nt

v. Railroad Com m ission of T exas and Betty Eyhorn , Appellees F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-06- 0033 22 , HO NORAB LE LORA J. LIVI NGSTON , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UMO P I N I O N The re porter’ s rec ord wa s fi l ed i n t his acc eler ated a ppeal on F ebrua

ry 12, 2007. Ap p el l ant’s brief was due to be filed by Marc h 5, 2007. SeeT e x. R. Ap p . P. 3 8 . 6 ( a ) . B y notice dated Apr il 2, 2007, this Court’s cler k notified appellant that its brief wa s overdue and that this Court would dismiss this appeal unless appellant filed a brief or a motion for extension by April 12, 2007. Appellant has f

iled neither and there has been no other activity in this case . This a ppeal is dismissed for wa nt of prosec ution. SeeTex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: June 18, 2007
# C_2022363EN.01000201.xml

| 22.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10868 – DIGITALBRIDGE / BROOKFIELD / DTAG / JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 363/02)

On 15 September 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10868. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10868. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
**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 of Zones, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
        for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Firoz H. Lalji, Chairman and
        Chief 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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 13, 2007
   /S/   FIROZ
                  H LALJIFiroz
                  H. LaljiChairman
                  and Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Brie fs F eb ru ary 16, 200 5 STATE OF TENNESS EE v . RONALD LYNN CHATMAN Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Robertson County

No. 01-0494 M ichael R. Jones, Judge

No. M2003- 00806-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 19, 2005

D AVI D G. H AYES , J

. , s ep ar at e c o n cu rr i n g. The majority

conclude s that application of e nhancing f a c to r ( 2 1 ) , a d ju d ic ati o n of a de linquent a c t by a juv e nil e wh ic h w ou ld c on sti tut e a fe lon y if c omm itt e d b y

a n a du lt, is i na

pp lic ablein this caseunder the holding of Bl ake ly

. I respe ctfully disag ree . The decision in Blakelyv. W ashington , 124 S. Ct . 2531, 2536-37 (2004) , applied Apprendi , which re cog nized the Almendarez- Torres holdin g p e r mi ttin g s e n te n c in g e n h a n c e me n t b a s e du p o n a p r io r g u il ty p le a , a s o p p o s e dto the ne c e ssi ty of a jury c on vic tio n, be c aus e g uil ty ple a s a re“ e ntere d p ur su a nt t o proce edi ng s w ith substantial proce dural saf eg uards of

their own.” Apprendi v

. N ew Je rsey , 120 S. Ct . 2348, 2361 (2 0 0 0 ). S i m i l ar l y , I

fi n dt h atj u v en i l e ad

j u d i ca t i o n s i n t h i s s t at e ar e en t er ed p u rs u an tt o p ro ce ed i n gs wi th s ub stanti a l pr oc e du ral sa fe g ua rd s a ndc on sti tution a l pr ote c tio ns of the ir ow n. A pane l of

thi s court rece ntly conclude d that enhanc ement fa ctor (21) is not im plicated unde r Bl ake ly . The panel rea soned: T h e c o n s t i t u t i o n al p ro t ec t i o n s o f du e pr o ce s s an d a fi n d i n g t h at t h e d el i n q u en tch ar ge h a s b e e n p r o v e n b e yo n da r e a s o n ab l e d o u b t , a s r e q u i r e db y United States v. Almendarez- Torres , 5 12 U. S. 2 24 , 2 43 , 1 18 S. Ct 12 19 , 123 0 ( 19 98 ), areint e g ral to an adjudication of delinquency in this state. State v. Strickland , 532 S.W .2d 912, 921 (Tenn. 1975) ; Tenn. Code Ann. § 37- 1-129(b) (2003); Te nn. R. J uv. P. 28(d)(2). State v. C ornelius Boales , No. W2003-02724-CCA-R3-CD ( Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Ma r. 3, 2005). The que stion, as I perc eive it, is not whether a juvenile ad

judication constitutes a criminal conviction, but whether

the adj udication proc ess was a ffor ded constitutional and proc edura l safe g uards. Subscribing to the view that these safe g uards wer e aff orded, I find enhanc ing fac tor (21) applicable in this case. In all other re spects, I concur .

____________________________________ Da v i dG. Ha y es , J u d ge-2-
# Appendix N

Florida Smoke Management Plan

1. Certification of Smoke Management Plan 2. EPA Acknowledgement of SMP
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21377]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


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

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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: September 19, 2024.

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 
September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 343 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-664, CP2024-673.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21377 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
AFS-16-7911-E 

April 28, 2016 

 Exemption No. 16568 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2016-3591 

Mr. Stephen M. Dickson 

Senior Vice President, Flight Operations 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1010 Delta Boulevard 

Department 027 

Atlanta, GA 30354 

Dear Mr. Dickson: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 14, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) for an exemption from § 121.915(d) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) that provides Delta with relief from the requirement 

that an initial continuing qualification cycle approved for an advanced qualification program 

(AQP) must not exceed 24 calendar months in duration. This allows for an initial continuing 

qualification cycle of 36 calendar months in duration. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Delta. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 10882 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that granting the use of this exemption would have no adverse effect on safety, because 
2 

the petitioner’s current and long established 36 month continuing qualification cycle has 

demonstrated that it is a highly effective methodology to ensure pilot proficiency. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 10882; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 10882 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Delta Air Lines, Inc. an exemption from 

14 CFR § 121.915(d) allowing relief from the requirement that an initial continuing 

qualification cycle approved for an AQP must not exceed 24 calendar months in duration, 

subject to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. The petitioner must continue to comply with all elements of their approved AQP. 

This exemption terminates on May 31, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John Barbagallo 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service 

Enclosure