alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### •:!^^Ri\RTMEN TO F 

### SERVED : Septembe r

14 , 201 0 -^^^'^iifSSli M ::.:Kc i OPERATION S 

### ? m-I P I S A "^ ^ 3 1

j l U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
I N TH E MATTE RO F 

### TM WCORPORATIO N d/b/ a CASTL E PRECISIO N INDUSTRIE S FA A DOCKE T NO
. CP10WP000 8

(Civi l Penalt y Action ) DM S FAA-2010-054 3 

### ORDE RO FDISMISSA L O n Jun e 23 , 2010 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant" ) file da Complain t

i n thi s matter . Responden t TM WCorporatio n d/b/ aCastl e Precisio n Industrie s ("Respondent" ) ha drequeste dahearin g o n Jun e 15 , 2010
. O n Septembe r 9 , 2010 , Responden t

move dt o withdra w it s reques t fo r ahearing , citin g settlement
. 1 4 C.F.R
. § 13.21 5 states : "A t an y tim e befor e o r

durin g ahearing , a

n agenc y attorne y ma y withdra w acomplain t o r part y ma y withdra w a reques t for ahearin g withou t

th e consen t

o f th e administrativ e law judge
. I f a n agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complain t o r apart y withdraw s th e reques t for ahearin g an dth e answer , th e administrativ e law judg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s unde r thi s subpart

withprejudice. " WHEREFORE , th e withi n file dWithdrawa l o f Reques t fo r Hearin g havin g bee n rea dan dconsidered , i t

i s ORDERE D a s follows : 1
. Respondent' s Withdrawa l o f Reques t for Hearin g b e an di s hereb y granted ; an d2
. Thi s proceedin g b e an di s hereb y dismisse dwithprejudice
. S O ORDERED
. 

# Y^-^JIM ^

# ^^Qf^<^^^
. Richar dC
. Goodwi n U.S
. Administrativ e Law Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP10WP000 8 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio 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 E COP Y Gar y Berger , Presiden t TM WCorporation , d/

b /aCastl e Precisio n Industries , Responden t 1514 8 Bledso e Stree t Sylmar,C A 9134 2 TEL : 818-362-566 5 FAX : 818-367-893 6 AdamRunkel , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Western-Pacifi c Region , AWP-7.1 2 Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Federal Aviatio n Administratio n P.O
. Bo x 92000 7 Lo s Angeles , C A 90009-200 7 TEL : 310-725-714 2 FAX : 310-725-681 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 Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D

C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430
.
#### City of Edgerton, Respondent, vs. Slatter, Appellant.

*October 8*

November *5, 1935.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *McGowan, Geffs, Fox & Persons*of Janesville, and oral argument by *G. S. Geffs*and *H. S. Fox.*

*Charles V. Sweeney,*attorney, and *Stanley W. Slagg*of counsel, both of Edgerton, for the respondent.

Rosenberry, C. J.

The defendant contends that the ordinance in question, which is printed in the margin,1 is void *382for the reason that it is in conflict with the provisions of the constitution of the state of Wisconsin and of the constitution of the United States because it is discriminatory, in that it applies only to persons, firms, or corporations taking orders for merchandise, which persons reside in other cities or towns than the city of Edgerton, and therefore does not apply to local mercantile houses in the city of Edgerton, Wisconsin. The brief is devoted to a discussion of the question whether or not the ordinance in question is void under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution of the United States. It is not necessary for the court to consider that question. While the ordinance is not identical in language with the ordinance considered by this court in *Whipple v. South Milwaukee,*218 Wis. 395, 261 N. W. 235, it is with respect to discrimination the same in legal effect. We must therefore hold that the ordinance in question is invalid for the reasons stated in *Whipple v. South Milwaukee, supra.*No useful purpose will be served by a discussion of the considerations which led to the conclusion in that case, as they were there fully set forth.

*By the Court.*— The judgment appealed from is reversed, and cause remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.

1

 “10.07 *Registration of all persons selling merchandise and not maintaining stores or business headquarters:*Every person, firm or *382corporation selling or offering for sale any goods, wares or merchandise at retail in the city of Edgerton, or soliciting orders for mercantile houses, from other cities or towns for future delivery, of any such goods, wares or merchandise at retail in said city, and not maintaining a store or other headquarters in said city which is open to the public during the usual business hours, shall file with the city clerk his or its name and address and a full statement of the nature of his or its business; and in case such person, firm or corporation is not a peddler or transient merchant as defined in this chapter and the laws of the state of Wisconsin relating thereto, he or it shall pay to the city treasurer a registration fee of ten dollars. It shall be unlawful for any such person, firm or corporation to engage in any business in the city of Edgerton, until he or it shall have complied with the terms of this section.”
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# U.S. Provides 220,314 Bednets to Lao PDR for Malaria Prevention Amid COVID-19

U.S. Embassy in Laos

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
#### In the Matter of Mark Beckwith, Petitioner, v New York State Racing and Wagering Board, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 658]

Determination of respondent New York State Racing and Wagering Board dated December 7, 1994, which suspended petitioner’s harness race horse trainer’s license for 180 days, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Stanley Parness, J.], entered February 15, 1995), dismissed, without costs.

Substantial evidence, including, in particular, petitioner’s admission that in order to save money, he would regularly bring his horses to races without a groom and thus leave them unattended at times, and at other times would pay hangers-on at the track to take his horses to the urine stall or the paddock to bathe them, supports respondent’s determination that by reason of the presumption found in 9 NYCRR 4043.4, also known as the "trainer’s responsibility rule”, petitioner was responsible for the administration of dezocine, a potentially dangerous and unapproved drug, the use of which respondent strictly prohibits, to three of his horses within a week prior to the start of their respective races, in violation of 9 NYCRR 4120.2 (e) *(see, Matter of Mosher v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd.,*74 NY2d 688). The penalty of three consecutive 60-day suspensions does not shock the conscience, and, contrary to petitioner’s contention, is not inconsistent with other penalties imposed by respondent for different drug violations. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
#### In re Leonard WORTHEN and Ethel Worthen, Debtors.

Bankruptcy No. 1-82-01128.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio, W.D.

Nov. 17, 1982.

Paul J. Vesper, Covington, Ky., for First Nat. Bank of Cincinnati.

Courtland E. Marshall, Cincinnati, Ohio, for debtors.

William R. Schumacher, Cincinnati, Ohio, trustee.

DECISION AND ORDER ON OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION.

BURTON PERLMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.

Debtors in this Chapter 13 case filed a plan which came on for confirmation at an appropriate hearing. An objection to confirmation was timely filed by an unsecured creditor, First National Bank of Cincinnati. A hearing was held on the objection and subsequent thereto memoranda were filed by the First National Bank and by the Debtors.

The essence of the position of the Bank is that the plan ought not to be confirmed because there is not compliance with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4), a statutory statement embodying the “best interests of creditors” test. That is, it is there provided that:

> “The court shall confirm a plan if—

> ***:}:**

> (4) the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property to be distributed under the plan on account of each allowed unsecured claim is not less than the amount that would be paid on such claim if the estate of the debtor were liquidated under Chapter 7 of this title on such date;”

At the hearing, counsel for the Bank represented that Debtors own equity in two parcels of real estate in an amount which, upon liquidation, would fully satisfy all unsecured creditors. This position was not contested by debtors.

The plan proposes that unsecured creditors be paid 100% of their claims over a five year period. Manifestly, notwithstanding this provision of plan, the best interest test is not met. Payment of an amount over a five year period is of less value than payment in full today.

*533In a recent case, *In re Hardy,*Case No. 1-82-02246 (B.J.S.D., Oh. Oct. 22, 1982) unreported, we had occasion to consider the same question and denied confirmation of the plan. The Bank in this case, however, requests not denial of confirmation, but rather that it be granted such interest as would, over the period of the plan, pay it not less than the amount which it would receive upon a present liquidation. We do not conceive it properly to be the role of the court to mandate amendment of a plan submitted by a debtor. Our role is to confirm or deny confirmation.

Confirmation is denied. Debtors shall have twenty days to.file an amended plan in the absence of which the case will be dismissed.

SO ORDERED.
#### Teresa A. Murphy-Artale, Respondent, v Gerard M. Artale, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 19]

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Imperato, J.H.O.), dated May 11, 1994, as awarded the plaintiff child support in the amount of $275 per week.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for a de novo determination of the issue of child support in accordance herewith.

While we agree with the Supreme Court that the amount shown on the husband’s 1992 tax return was suspect in light of his ability to control the amount of his reported income and the dramatic decline in reported income which he experienced immediately following the commencement of the action, the court erred in determining the amount of the child support award on the basis of the needs of the wife and the children. There is no basis for the court’s departure from the formula set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b). Under these circumstances, where the husband’s 1992 reported income was found not to be credible, the court was not bound by the actual reported income in applying the formula and instead should have used the husband’s actual earning capacity *(see, Matter of Fleischman v Fleischman,*195 AD2d 604; *Powers v Powers,*171 AD2d 737), as determined, for example, by averaging his reported income for the five years immediately preceding 1992. Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
p.1 

OAR Box 1672 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

6) ll-A-5 

Docket Number: 

A-98-13 

Printed 9/30/2008 11:01:00 AM Sheet 6 of 132 
J 

A-13-/3 

JT-/I-5" 

United Statee Office of Air Quality 

Environmental Protection Plannino and Standards 

EPA-453/R-93-026 

JUNE 1993 

Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711 

AIR 

A EPA Protoco l fo r 

Equipmen t Lea k 

Emissio n Estimate s 
EPA-453/R-93-026 

Protocol for Equipment Leak 

Emission Estimates 

Emission Standards Division 

- -U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Office of Air and Radiation 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park,. North, Carolina 27711 

June 1993 

-2 

P.3 
P.4 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

FOREWORD i 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 

2.0 DEVELOPMENT OF EQUIPMENT LEAK EMISSION ESTIMATES ... . 2-1 

2.1 Introduction 2-1 

2.2 General Information on the Approaches for 

Estimating Equipment Leak Emissions . 2-2 

2.2.1 Equipment Leak Emission Estimation 

Approaches 2-2 

2.2.2 Overview of Equipment Leak Data 

Collection 2-5 

2.3 Approaches for Estimating Equipment Leak 

Emissions 2-8 

2.3.1 Average Emission Factor Approach .2-9 

2.3.2 Screening Ranges Approach 2-15 

2.3.3 EPA Correlation Approach 2-20 

2.3.4 Unit-Specific Correlation Approach ... . 2-30 

2.4 Special Topics 2-37 

2.4.1 Speciating Emissions 2-37 

2.4.2 Using Response Factors . . . . 2-39 

2.4.3 Monitoring Instrument Type and Calibration 

Gas 2-43 

2.4.4 Estimating Emissions for Equipment Not 

Screened 2-44 

2.4.5 Using Screening Data Collected at Several 

Different Times 2-44 

2.4.6 Estimating VOC Emission Rates from Equipment 

Containing Non-VOC's 2-45 

2.4.7 Estimating Equipment Leak Emissions of 

Inorganic Compounds 2-46 

2.5 References . 2-48 

•3.0 SOURCE SCREENING 3-1 

3.1 Introduction ..3- 1 

3.2 Monitoring Instruments 3-1 

3.2.1 Operating Principles and Limitations of 

Portable VOC Detection Devices .3-2 

3.2.2 Specifications and Performance Criteria of 

Portable VOC Detection Devices . . . . . . .3-4 

3.2.3 Use of Monitoring Devices That Do Not Meet 

Method 21 Requirements 3-10 

3.3 The Screening Program 3-12 

3.3.1 Identification of Equipment to be Screened 3-12 

3.3.2 Procedure for Screening 3-14 

ii 

3 
P.5 

1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 

Section Page 

APPENDICES 

A Example Calculations A-l 

B Leak Rate Screening Value Correlation Development and 

Revision of SOCMI Correlations and Emission Factors . .B-l 

C Response Factors . C-l 

D Selection of Sample Size for Screening Connectors . . .D-1 

E Reference Method 21 E-l 

F Development of Leak Rate Versus Fraction Leaking 

Equations and Determination of LDAR Control 

Effectiveness F-l 

iv 

4
149JO-13-P'

DEPARTMENT OF TR~'1SPORTA nON Fedel"al Aviation Administration 14CFR ParI 39 [Docket No. FAA-2009-0003; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-251-AD; Amendme 39J~~~l2010)*~~ 

## 02. RIN2J20-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, and AOU'!lIOG snollO. 

### IItYitultf/(f ,~m..\.5.'$IG"AT\lFtE 

# o ~i/ OAr£ 

# sip/tO
FlOuTl"'" S""!l<Jl 

### 111,(/,41-//616

A340-200, -300, -500 and -600 Series Airplanes I AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation

Investigations have revealed thaI corrosion and wear due to absence of grease inthe spline interfaces could cause [DOS] disconnection which could result ina freemovable flap surface, potentially leading to aircraft asymmetry oreven flap detachment.. SUMMARY: We arc adopting anew airworthiness directive (AD) forthe products lis 

### "'~:~~XATU~ 

## C'-4--- above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness infonnation (MeAl) ;)o,T~ hi/'? originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify and correct an unsafe FlOIfT'NGS'''ao.. d· . .. d Th MeAld

# I ·b I'd·· 

# '":~'o
.. '""' con Itlon on an aVIationpro uct. e . escn esl1e unsale can ItlOnas: Several cases ofcorrosion and damage in the Down Drive Shafts (DDS), DAn:

. 

# , between the Down Dnve Gear Box (DOGB) and the Input Gear Box ROuT'''''SY''OOl (IPGB), on all 10Flap Tracks (5per wing), have been reported by 

## -I D AIRBUS LDngRange Operators. ACTION: Final rule. (DOT).



### * 

# , , * 

## * * * :J,t~ bre",k.

- I The unsafe condition could reduce the ability ofthe flightcrew to maintain the safe flight 

## I and landing ofthe airplane. We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-89) OFFICIAL FILE COPY ~ u.s. GOV8'INMENT PRJNTlNG OFFICE: 1995·769-211
DANIEL KELLOND

,
Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Respondent.

___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 700

Opinion filed December 8, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

– Original Jurisdiction

. Crystal McBee Frusciante, Sunrise, Florida , for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi

, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order continuing his

involuntary commitment after being found not guilty of attempted murder by reason

of insanity. He argues that the order of commitment was facially deficient and a

departure from t he essential requirements of law because it failed to make specific

findings that Petitioner had “ a mental illness and, because of the illness, is manifestly2 dangerous to himself or herself or others.” § 916.15(2), Fla. Stat. (2015). 1 We agree.

“ [F]or commitment to be continued pursuant to section 916.15 , the court must

find that the defendant is mentally ill and is manifestly dangerous to himself or to

others. ” Woods v. State , 969 So. 2d 408, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Fa ilure to make

written findings relevant to this determination renders the order facially deficient,

constituting a departure from the essential requirements of

law. Id

. ; s ee also Wisniew ski v. State , 805 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Here, the

trial court entered a facially deficient order because it “ merely made the concluso ry
finding that the petitioner ‘ continues to meet the criteria for his continued

commitment under the supervision of the Department of Children and

Families. ’” Woods , 969 So. 2d at 410.

Accordingly, w e GRANT the petition, QUASH the order continuing

commitment, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

.
B.L. THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.

1 Petitioner also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the hearing. Because we conclude that the order is facially deficient, we express no opinion as to whether the evidence supported the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that Petitioner continued to meet the requirements for involuntary commitment. See Furqan v. State , 56 So. 3d 96, 96 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
CHAPTER 11

. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 METHODOLOGY

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11

- 1

11

- iCHAPTER 11. CONSUMER SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 METHODOLOGY

The consumer subgroup analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable groups or

consumer s who may be disproportionately affected by any national energy conservation standard. DOE will conduct this analysis in preparation for the notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the LCC and payback periods (PBPs) for those

consumer s that fall into any identifiable groups. DOE plans to evaluate variations in regional energy prices and variations in energy use that might affect the net present value of a standard to

consumer subpopulations. To the extent possible, DOE will obtain estimates of each input parameter’s variability and will consider this variability in its calculation of consumer impacts.

DOE will determine the impact on co nsumer subgroups using the LCC Spreadsheet Model, which allows for different data inputs. The standard LCC analysis (described in c hapter 8) focuses on the households that use miscellaneous refrigeration products

. DOE can use the LCC Spreadsheet Model to a nalyze the LCC for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup. (Chapter 8 explains in detail the inputs to the model used in determining LCC and PBPs.) In the case of miscellaneous refrigeration products

, possible subgroups DOE may choose to consider

are: (1) low

- income households, and (2) senior citizens.

DOE will be especially sensitive to increases in the purchase price of the product due to amended standards, to avoid negative impact s on identifiable population groups that may not be able to afford si gnificant increases in product price.

11

- 1
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 92204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27179]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

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

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

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: November 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. 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 
November 13, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 706 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-384, K2025-382.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27179 Filed 11-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```