alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; Heart, Lung, and Blood Program Project Study Section.                    

*Date:*                         December 6, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications and/or proposals.                    

*Address:*                         North Bethesda Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, Montgomery County Conference Center Facility, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, MD 20852.                    

*Meeting Format:*                         In Person and Virtual Meeting.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Melissa H. Nagelin, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 208-R, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-7951, email:                         *nagelinmh2@nhlbi.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 30, 2024.

Bruce A. George, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-25585 Filed 11-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

6DII-C-3 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:54 AM Sheet 61 of 276 
P.2 

M 

* JA \ 

II-C-3 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

MAR 0 1 1990 

Honorable Robert C. Byrd 

Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Interior and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States.Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

(?< r! 

••!l j 

LL 

MAY 

-T>«n * : 

OFFICE OF 

AIR ANO RADIATION 

'' 1 "1 

.., ., ii 

I am writing in reply to your November 20, IJOJ .stter to 

President Bush, regarding your concern that new source air 

quality requirements may create regulatory disincentives to 

sources wanting to conduct Clean Coal Technology (CCT) 

demonstration projects. Let me assure you that EPA remains 

committed to the CCT Program because of its potential to increase 

the efficiency and lower the emissions and costs of burning coal, 

an abundant U.S. energy source. I regret the delay in responding 

to your letter. Many issues needed to be addressed, and some are 

still being addressed as quickly as possible. 

On February 15, 1990, I met with Deputy Under Secretary of 

Policy, Planning and Analysis Linda Stuntz of the Department of 

Energy (DOE) to try to resolve treatment of CCT projects under 

the current Clean Air Act and EPA regulations. Several complex 

issues still need to be addressed. EPA and DOE are working 

closely together to expeditiously resolve these issues. 

EPA is drafting an interpretative ruling to address EPA's 

air quality review of CCT projects. I have asked my staff to 

draft this ruling and publish it in the Federal Register as soon 

as possible. Although issuing an interpretative ruling is not as 

time consuming as promulgating a legislative regulation, it still 

requires several stages of review within EPA and by other federal 

agencies. To ensure issuance as soon as possible, we are 

expediting the review process and expect to issue the ruling this 

spring. 
w 

P.3 

As you point out, the proposed Clean Air Act amendments 

provide additional provisions to encourage the use of clean coal 

technologies on a permanent basis. I support those provisions 

and should also add that our new source regulations do provide 

special treatment for innovative control technologies in certain 

instances. These regulations may be helpful to participants in 

CCT repowering projects. 

EPA is committed to the CCT Program and will do everything 

possible to encourage sources to participate in the program. I 

hope that this letter clarifies EPA's intentions. I look forward 

to continuing to work with you on the CCT Program and on the 

Clean Air Act amendments. 

Sincerely, 

William ^3. Rosenberg 

Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation 
P.4 

..i-*—-1 " • 

SAME LETTER SENT TO: 

SENATOR JAMES A. MCCLURE 

CONGRESSMAN RALPH REGULA 

CONGRESSMAN SIDNEY R. YATES
##### 



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 Mitcham Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Billy F. Mitcham, Jr., 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; 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/ Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.
Billy F. Mitcham, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
June 13, 2005
#### Joseph M. Saleh, Appellant, v Ralph R. Hochberg et al., Respondents.

[772 NYS2d 819]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered January 10, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendants’ motion for sanctions insofar as to direct plaintiff to pay the reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in the defense of the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Since the record discloses that plaintiff, in prolonged litigation, pursued causes of action that were clearly time-barred and otherwise without arguable merit, the motion court’s determination that plaintiff should bear the reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in the action’s defense constituted a proper exercise of discretion *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]). The motion court adequately set forth the grounds for exacting costs and attorneys’ fees from plaintiff pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and in so doing was not required to follow the procedural dictates of 22 NYCRR 130-1.2 “in any rigid fashion” *(Benefield v New York City Hous. Auth.,*260 AD2d 167, 168 [1999]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Sullivan, JJ.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 39389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16956]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 10 a.m.-12 Noon.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered

Briefing Matters

    (a) ASTM F963 Notice of Requirements; and
    (b) Phthalates Enforcement Policy
    A live Web Cast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: July 1, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-16956 Filed 7-1-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 948

To amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States Code, to provide

for the equitable waiver of certain limitations on the election of survivor

reductions of Federal annuities, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 4, 1999

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

the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To amend chapters 83 and 84 of title 5, United States

Code, to provide for the equitable waiver of certain limitations on the election of survivor reductions of Federal

annuities, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EQUITABLE WAIVER OF LIMITATIONS ON ELEC4 TION OF SURVIVOR REDUCTION OF FEDERAL

5 ANNUITIES.

6 (a) CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—

7 (1) RETIRED EMPLOYEE MARRIED AT TIME OF

8 RETIREMENT.—Section 8339(j)(5)(C)(i) of title 5,
2

•S 948 IS

1 United States Code, is amended by adding at the

2 end the following: ‘‘The Office may waive the appli3 cation of either of the 2-year limitations under this

4 clause, if an individual seeking to make an election

5 after the applicable 2-year period is without fault

6 and such application would be against equity and

7 good conscience.’’.

8 (2) RETIRED EMPLOYEE UNMARRIED AT TIME

9 OF RETIREMENT.—Section 8339(k)(2)(A) of title 5,

10 United States Code, is amended—

11 (A) by inserting ‘‘(i)’’ after ‘‘(A)’’; and

12 (B) by adding at the end the following:

13 ‘‘(ii) The Office may waive the application

14 of either of the 2-year limitations under clause

15 (i), if—

16 ‘‘(I) the individual seeking to make an

17 election after the applicable 2-year period

18 is without fault; and

19 ‘‘(II) such application would be

20 against equity and good conscience.’’.

21 (b) FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM.—

22 (1) RETIRED EMPLOYEE MARRIED AT TIME OF

23 RETIREMENT.—Section 8416(b)(1) of title 5, United

24 States Code, is amended—

25 (A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(1)’’; and
3

•S 948 IS

1 (B) by adding at the end the following:

2 ‘‘(B) The Office may waive the application of

3 either of the 2-year limitations under subparagraph

4 (A), if—

5 ‘‘(i) the individual seeking to make the

6 election after the applicable 2-year period is

7 without fault; and

8 ‘‘(ii) such application would be against eq9 uity and good conscience.’’.

10 (2) RETIRED EMPLOYEE UNMARRIED AT TIME

11 OF RETIREMENT.—Section 8416(c)(1) of title 5,

12 United States Code, is amended—

13 (A) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(1)’’; and

14 (B) by adding at the end the following:

15 ‘‘(B) The Office may waive the application of

16 either of the 2-year limitations under subparagraph

17 (A), if—

18 ‘‘(i) the individual seeking to make the

19 election after the applicable 2-year period is

20 without fault; and

21 ‘‘(ii) such application would be against eq22 uity and good conscience.’’.

Æ
EXIBIT 32.2





Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sector 10, Inc.; on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2011po, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Laurence A. Madison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





By:  /s/ Laurence A. Madison





Name: Laurence A. Madison


Chief Financial Officer





February 14, 2012
#### Lee v. Frame.

Saturday, October 11, 1806.

Appellate Practice — Appeal Taken Up at First Term— Notice. — Notice ought to be given of an,intention to take up an appeal at the first term of this Court in a Chancery case.

Same — What Appeals Taken Up at First Term. — It is the practice of the Court to take up at the first term, appeals in cases where th ere is no dispute; but this rule does not apply to Chancery cases.

This was an appeal from a decree of the Chancery District Court, held at Staun-ton, by which a bill of injunction was dismissed with costs.

Chapman Johnson, for the appellee, moved the Court to admit the appeal to be docketed, and to affirm the decree immediately, alleging it to be a case for delay.

JUDGES LYONS and CARRINGTON

were of opinion, that notice ought to be given of an intention to take up an appeal at the first term in a Chancery case; that it was, indeed, the practice of the Court, in cases of appeals from judgments obtained on forthcoming bonds, and in other cases where there is no dispute, to examine the records at the term to which they were brought up, but not in Chancery Cases.

JUDGE TUCKER.

The practice of the Court being founded on the principle, that, where the appellant had' already, for the sake of delay, taken every advantage allowed by the law, no farther procrastination should be permitted here; the rule ought, therefore, to be extended to cases of injunction, in which the complainant has generally obtained delay by more unjustifiable means than in other cases — of course, I am of opinion, that the appeal ought to be taken up immediately.

But, the majority of the Court being of a different opinion, the appeal was docketed, and the motion to take it up overruled.
#### DICKSON AND MABRY *vs.*THOMAS H. ALEXANDER & AL.

If ons partner purchase goods, ostensibly for the firm, but in truth for himself, the firm is bound in the same manner as it would be, if the partner had borrowed money for the firm and misapplied it.

The case of *Wharton*v. *Wooclburn,*4 Dev. and Bat. 507, cited and approved.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Tyrrell County, at the Fall Term, 1846, his Honor Judge Peakson presiding.

The action is assumpsit for goods sold and delivered, and was tried on the general issue. The facts were, that the defendants, Thomas II. Alexander, Joseph Alexander, and Abner Alexander, entered into partnership in a fishery in Tyrrell County; and, by the agreement, each of them was to furnish certain things, needful to the prosecution of the business, as parts of his stock therein. The plaintiffs were merchants in Virginia,.with whom the defendants had not before dealt, and who had no knowledge of the particular stipulation between the defendants just mentioned. In order to procure some of the articles, which Thomas H. Alexander was to supply, he ordered them from the plaintiffs 'in the name of the firm, and the plaintiffs filled the order to the value of $274 65 ; and they charged the goods to the firm, and forwarded them, and they came to the use of the firm.

The question upon the trial was, whether the defendants, Joseph and Abner, were liable to the plaintiffs. The Court held that they were ; and from a judgment against them, they appealed.

*A, Moore,*for the plaintiffs.

Heath, for the defendants.

- Ruffin, C. J.

The opinion of his Honor is sustained by the direct authority of *Wharton*v.. *Woodburn,*4 Dev. and Bat. 507. It is there laid down, in conformity with settled principles, that if one of the partners purchase goods ostensibly for the firm, but in truth for himself, the *5firm is bound in the same manner as it would be, if the partner had borrowed money for the firm, and misapplied it. If it were not so, there would be no security in dealing with partnerships. How could these plaintiffs know, that Thomas H. Alexander, was breaking his contract with the other parties, and was not buying for the firm, when he said that he was, and purchased in their name *'!*It is a question of loss, between innocent persons; and it is plain, which of them should bear it. His co-partners trusted Thomas H. Alexander; but the plaintiffs did not. They trusted the firm, upon an application in the name of the firm ; and they have a right to look to every member of it for their debt.

Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit
10.6


 


	
   

  	
  July 27, 2010

  



 


Mr. Kenneth Martindale


Senior Executive Vice President and


Chief
Operating Officer


Rite Aid Corporation


30 Hunter Lane


Camp Hill, PA  17011


 


RE:                              Agreement dated as of December 3, 2008 (the “Agreement”)
by and between Rite Aid Corporation (the “Company”) and Kenneth Martindale (the
“Executive”)


 


Dear
Ken:


 


On June 21,
2010, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company
approved changes to the above referenced Agreement that:  (i) delete the term “$200,000” in the
first sentence of Section 4.6 of the Agreement and replace it with the
phrase “$67,000 per year”; and (ii) delete the phrase “for a period of up
to thirty-six (36) months from the Effective Date” in the first sentence of Section 4.6
of the Agreement.  The balance of Section 4.6
remains unchanged.


 


On June 23,
2010, the Board of Directors elected you to the position of Chief Operating
Officer.  Accordingly, Section 2.1
of the Agreement is hereby updated by deleting the phrase “Chief Merchandising,
Marketing and Logistics Officer” and replacing it with the phrase “Chief
Operating Officer” in the first sentence of said Section 2.1.


 


If you are
in agreement with these changes in the above paragraphs, please sign both
copies of this letter below where indicated, returning one copy to me and
retaining one copy for your records.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Rite Aid Corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ MARC A. STRASSLER

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Marc A. Strassler

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Exec. Vice
  President & General Counsel

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Agreed:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ KENNETH MARTINDALE

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Kenneth Martindale

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  August 4, 2010
# Federal Aviation
Administration



# Memorandum

Date: September 18, 2013

To: Docket No. FAA

- 2008

- 0677

Subject: Summary of Airlines for America Meeting with OIRA Regarding the FAA SNPRM on Qualification, Service and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Pursuant to Executive Order 12866

On September 17 , 2013, representatives from Airlines for America (A4A) met with the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in accordance w ith

Executive Order 12866 to discuss the FAA Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on Qualification, Service and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers

. Representatives from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s General Counsel’s Offic e and the Federal Aviation Administration’s Chief Counsel’s Office participated in the meeting in a listening capacity only.

Consistent with comments on th e SNPRM, A4A stated that it would support a final ru le that

addressed stall and upset prevention and recovery training as well as training for adverse weather events. However, A4A continues to object to the SNPRM. A4A discussed a number of

additional issues previously stated in their comments submitted to the docket for this rulemaking

. S pecific conce rns discussed by A4A are summarized as follows:

• The training environment has dramatically changed since the rulemaking project was initiated due to changes in technology, the evolution of Advanced Qualification Programs (AQP)

, and a reduction in accident r ates.

• Neither the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) nor the SNPRM used available data to identify new crewmember training requirements.

• The NPRM and SNPRM would result in costs to carriers who use AQP to train

crewmembers.

• In the cost and benefit analys is, the agency did not identify causal link s betwe en each new rule provision and the accidents used in the benefits analysis

. As a result, the

SNPRM contained provisions that would cause air carriers to incur costs without any corresponding benefit . Also

, the period of the accident history analysis exceeds the period of time for the estimated cost analysis.
#### James Reid *v*. Josiah Powell.

From Halifax.

In detinue for a slave, A. was offered by the Defendant as a witness, and being sworn on his *voir dire,*said, he as constable had sold the negro, under an execution at the instance of B, and at the sale also acted as B’s agent, and bid oft’ the negro, and-by the direction of B. executed a bill of sale, as constable, to C. the Defendant. A. is a competent, witness to prove these facts,to the Jury.

This was an action of detinue for a negro slave. On the trial, one Gregory being called as a witness for the Defendant, was sworn on his *voir*dire, and said that he as constable had sold the negro in question, under an execution at the instance of one Beil; that at the sale he also acted as agent for Bell, and bid oif the negro for Bell’s use, and afterwards, by the direction of Bell, he, as constable, made a bill of sale for the negro to the Defendant, who was not a bidder. The presiding Judge thought Gregory was not a competent witness *;*he was set aside, and a verdict was rendered for the Plaintiff. A rule for a new trial was obtained and sent to this Court. And,

Bv: the Court.

Let tlte rule be made absolute.