alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

75) IV-A-8 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:21 AM Sheet 75 of 142 
P.2 . 

919 541 5509 OPG IIG EPA 

@003 

PAGE 02 

ft- to -3 7 

:1V -« - ? 

United Slates Office of Air Qus.lity 

Environmental Protection Planning and Standards 

Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 277) 1 

November 200?. 

hhp:// Wff.epa. gov/11 li/nsr/ruk dov .htcal 

Technical Support Document for title 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Nonattainment Area New Source Review 

Regulations 

NOV 2 2 2002 

V
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Portec, Inc.
1997 10-K and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                           46799
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6070
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       3488
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 57382
<PP&E>                                            7777
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   64458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            13680
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     64458
<SALES>                                          25521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 25755
<CGS>                                            14631
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    23269
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1851
<INCOME-TAX>                                       679
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1172
<DISCONTINUED>                                   14129
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     15301
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.37


</TABLE>
#### WIER v. STATE.

No. 20578.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 11, 1939.

H. H. Shelton, of Austin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is the sale of heroin; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court. .
1 ^ < ' •I J •I ^ ' SERVE D SEPTEMBE R 29 , 201 1 ^

U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
INTH EMATTE RO F M & RHELICOPTERS , LL C FA ADOCKE T No
. CPIOSOOOJ 1 (Civi l Penalty Action ) FDMS No
. FAA-2010-121 1
ORDE R SANCTIONIN G RESPONDEN T Th e Orde rt o Responden t t o Sho wCaus e ("OSC" ) directe d Responden t M & R Helicopters , LLC ("Respondent" ) t o answe rb yAugus t 29 , 201 1 th e Reques t fo rDiscover yo fComplainan t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant" ) an d t o sho wcaus e wh yth e relie frequeste d i n Complainant' s Motio n t o Compe l Discover y- whic h prompte d th e OS C - shoul d no t b e granted

. Complainant' s discover yreques t date d t o Januar y 26 , 2011
. Th e OSC , orderin g paragrap h 3 , als o warne d Responden t tha t sanction s coul d issu e shoul d i t fil e anythin g les s tha n "ful l an d complete " response s t o thes e Issues

. Respondent' s response , whic h was timely , faile d utterl yt o d o so . I t di d no t suppl yth e document s an d item s sough t b y Complainant' s discover yrequest
. A s such

. Responden t M& R Helicopter s wil l b e foreclose d a t th e hearin g fro m offerin g o rrelyin g upo n an ydocuments , o ran yinformatio n containe d i n them , o ran ywitnesses , regardin g whic h i t ha s faile d t o notic e i n respons e t o Complainant' s discover yrequest
. S O ORDERED
.Attachmen t - Servic e Lis t ichar dC
. GoodNvn i Administrativ e Law Judg eFAADocke t No
. CPlOSOOOl l (Civi l Penalty Action ) REVISE D SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC~43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ^

ON ECOP Y Michae l Selig , MD , FACC , CFI-H , Respondent' s Representativ e 281 6 Orefiel dRoa d Allentown , P A18104 TEL : 610-360-395 3 FAX : Charle s Raley , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Enforcemen t

Division/AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l Federal Aviatio nAdministratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 TEL : 202-267-335 7 FAX : 202-267-510 6 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 - U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenu e Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Lega l Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Forserviceinpersonorbycxpeditedcourier , use th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio nAdministration, 60

0 Independenc

e Avenue, S
. W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-^30
.
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0159 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-010-AD

Helicopter Model: Robinson Helicopter Company Model R22, R22 Alpha, R22 Beta, and 

R22 Mariner Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 2,643 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect debonding of the main rotor blades skin, 

which could result in blade failure and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, and to correct 

the unsafe condition by replacing the main rotor blades with new blades that do not require the 

AD inspection. 

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $29,808 for replacement of both blades on a 

Model R22.

$43,783 for replacement of both blades on 

Model R44 with hydraulically boosted flight 

controls installed.

$103,747 for replacement of both blades and 

hydraulic flight controls modification on Model 

R44 without hydraulically boosted flight 

controls installed.

Labor per Helicopter

(3 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection)

(20 work-hour x $85/workhour for the replacement on 

Model R22 or R44 with 

hydraulically boosted flight 

controls installed)

(100 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour for the 

replacement on Model R44 

without hydraulically

boosted flight controls 

installed)

Time to perform the before flight check each 

day is negligible.

$255

$1,700

$8,500
2

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $31,508 replacement cost for Model R22.

$45,483 replacement cost for Model R44 with 

hydraulically boosted flight controls installed.

$112,247 replacement cost for Model R44 

without hydraulically boosted flight controls 

installed.

Total US Fleet Cost $40,645,320 replacement cost for Model R22 

over a 5-year period.

$47,893,599 replacement cost for Model R44 

with hydraulically boosted flight controls 

installed over a 5-year period.

$33,674,100 replacement cost for Model R44 

without hydraulically boosted flight controls 

installed over a 5-year period.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Fred Guerin
EXHIBIT 5.1[WINSTEAD LETTERHEAD]January 31, 2007Repros Therapeutics Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the December
31, 1996 audited financial statements and is qualified as its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-01-1996
<CASH>                                       1,263,000
<SECURITIES>                                   473,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     85,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,109,000
<PP&E>                                       3,742,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 802,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,060,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          896,000
<BONDS>                                      1,483,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,735,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,060,000
<SALES>                                        752,145
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,078,000
<CGS>                                          623,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,680,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               490,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             272,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                327,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   157,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            170,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   170,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        




</TABLE>
##### 








---



##### 



1




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANYBy:
    
    /s/ JEFFREY I. BEASON

Name: Jeffrey I. BeasonTitle: Senior Vice Presidentand ControllerTHE CHASE MANHATTAN BANKBy:
    
    /s/ Patti ManerAuthorized Representative
 3




---



##### 



HEREIN.]*
 
     
 *
    
    Insert in Global Securities only. A-1




---



##### 



*
    
    Insert in Global Securities only.**
    
    Insert in Definitive Securities only. A-2




---



##### 



Dated:
    
    SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANYBy:Name:Title:
  THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK,
                    AS TRUSTEEBy:Authorized Representative
 A-3




---



##### 



A-4




---



##### 



A-5




---



##### 



*
    
    Insert in Global Securities only.**
    
    Insert in Definitive Securities only. A-6




---



##### 



A-7




---



##### 



**
    
    Insert in Definitive Securities only. A-8
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6810
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANK ARNOLD NESBITT, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Alexandria, T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-89-371-A, CA-95-656-A) Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997 Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Frank Arnold Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. Justin W. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), ame nded by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214 and denying his "Motion to Consider." We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nesbitt , Nos. CR-89-371-A, CA-95- 656-A (Oct. 30, 1995; Mar. 12, 1996). We deny Appellant's "Motions to Consider" as moot and dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT        32.2**

|  | (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. |
|--|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  May 12, 2008 |                                                                           |                             |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                                |                                                                           |                             |
|                                | By:                                                                            | /s/                  Brian Penny |
|                                |                                                                           |                             |
|                                | Brian                Penny                                                     |
|                                | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |

----
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED M AICKEL SAMIR BEDIR , A ppellant ,
v. Case No. 5D 22

- 2465 LT Case No. 20 22

- CF

- 0 01314

- AX STAT E OF FLORIDA ,

Appellee

. ___________________________/ Decisio n filed May 2, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court f or Lake County, James R. Baxley , J udge. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender , and Nancy Ryan , Ass istant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General , Tallahassee, a nd Robin A. C ompton , Assistant Attorney General, Daytona B eac h, for

A ppellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. WALLIS , SOUD an d PRATT, J J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME OF
J. C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF JANUARY 30, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              96
<SECURITIES>                                       415
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                       149
<INVENTORY>                                      6,060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,007
<PP&E>                                           8,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,875
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,907
<BONDS>                                          7,143
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        475
<COMMON>                                         2,850
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,508
<SALES>                                         29,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,461
<CGS>                                           21,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,265
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   397
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   229
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    955
<INCOME-TAX>                                       361
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                594
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       594
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.19


</TABLE>
# . ' rr, ,..,


### :MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between the 

### THE ARKANSAS FORESTRY COMMISSION and the 

### THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONl'viENTAL QUALI1Y REGARDINGLOGGING COMPLAINT INVESTIGATIONS.

WHEREAS the Arkansas Department ofEnvironmentil! Quality (ADEQ) and the Arkansas Forestry Commission (AFC) have complimentary responsibilities arid expertise inthe control of nonpoint source pollution from silviculturil! activities; and WHEREAS the AFC, under agreement with the United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, is the lead agency in Arkansas for the prevention and management ofnonpoint source pollution from silviculturil! activities; and WHEREAS the ADEQ, under the authority ofthe federil! Clean Water Act and theArkansas Water and AirPollution Control Act, has the charge ofenforcing the waterpollution control laws and regulations inArkansas; and WHEREAS the objective ofthis MemorandUn1 is to betterprotect forest water quality by promptly and efficiently responding to complaints regarding silviculturil! operations; NOWLET IT THEREFORE BE RESOLVED: That ADEQ and AFC enter into thisMemorandum ofUnderstanding concerning the handling of complaints aboutpossible impacts to water quality from silviculturil! activities, particularly logging. In fulfillrnent ofthis goil!: ADEQWILL: Promptly notify AFC ofill! complaints about water quality impacts from silviculturil! activities unless it can be determined that the complaint involves atimberharvest which is part ofthe land clearing phase ofaconstruction project which would require aNPDES Stormwater Permit. ADEQ may, at its discretion, investigate any complaint in order tofulfill its enforcement commitments to the Environmental Protection Agency and/or to carry out its responsibilities underthe Arkansas Water and Air pollution Control Act. All other complaints will be referred to AFC for initial investigation. Jointly work complaints with AFC at the request ofAFC. Use its compliance and enforcement authority to bring silvicultural activities into compliance with federal and state waterpollution laws and to initiate formal enforcement actions when appropriate 

### if, afterinvestigation, ADEQ determines that silvicultural activities have violated federal or state waterpollution laws. AFC WILL: Promptly investigate complaints by having the AFC Best Management Practice Forester visitthe site and assess the silvicultural activity. , .

**~&**

**fo~vth<l** 

### I 

### t,., .,.:li'>-\.1..,

**~"-A.\,\,."\** 

## '"'if Ifthe BMP Foresterbelieves a sel'iews JlBilatiea problem exists orifthe responsible party refuses to cooperate withthe AFC to correct lesserproblems, the BMP Foresterwill contact ADEQ to arrange ajoint inspection. Jointly work complaints with ADEQ at the request ofADEQ. It is understood by both parties that this agreement will in no way prevent AFC orADEQ from fulfilling the duties assigned by the legislation governing the respective agencies. AFC or ADEQ may rescind this Memorandum by letter from one directorto the other.

InterimD Arkansas • 

## /-19-

**Z.O~l** Date



# --z.5-DI bate
AFS-12-539-E 

October 10, 2012 

Mr. Randy L. Bailey 

4616 Chippendale Drive 

Fort Collins, CO 80526 

Dear Mr. Bailey: 

This letter is in response to your correspondence sent to the public docket dated September 2, 

2012 (public docket No. FAA-2002-11499) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration 

for an extension to Exemption No. 7734, as amended. That exemption from 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) § 91.109(a) and (b)(3) allowed you to conduct flight instruction 

in certain Beechcraft aircraft equipped with a functioning throwover wheel instead of 

functioning dual controls. 

On August 31, 2011, the FAA amended 14 CFR Part 91 related to throwover control wheels 

(76 FR 54095). A copy of this rule change is enclosed for your information. 

Because the relief you seek is now covered under the new rule, we will take no further action 

on your petition. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Ida Klepper 

Manager, Airman and 

Airspace Rules Division