alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
VIA E-MAIL Subject: UNITED STATES ENV I RO N MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D
. C. 20460

Thiabendazole Data Call-In (DCI) Package for Registration Review Dear Sir or Madam: OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated the registration review for thiabendazole and salts (thiabendazole) in March 2014 with the opening of a docket and publication of a preliminary work plan. The final work plan was issued in Septemb er 2014. Both of these documents, and supporting materials, may be found in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0175. The Agency is now issuing a DCI to require submission of data for use in the registration review of thiabendazole. You must respond to this DCI within 90 days of receipt. Further instructions are provided in the attached DCI package. When initially scoping the registration review for thiabendazole, EPA did not identify the need for any additional studies to evaluate potential effects on pollinators. However, since the issuance of the June 2014 Guidancefor Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees 1
, EPA has begun to require these data where applicable. Therefore, the DCI contains pollinator studies not listed in the initial or final work plans, and the DCI now contains the entire suite of pollinator studies listed in the Guidance for Assess ing Pesticide Risk to Bees. For thiabendazole, the additional pollinator study requirements for this DCI are included in Table 1 below. 

### Table 1. Pollinator Data Requirements for Thiabendazole Guideline# Study 850.3040 ** Field testing for pollinators Non-Guideline * (OEC D 213) Honey bee adult acute oral toxicity Non-Guideline *(OECD 237) Honey bee larvae acute oral toxicity Non-Guideline* Honey bee adult chronic oral toxicity Non-Guideline* Honey bee larvae chronic oral toxicity Non-Guideline** Residues in pollen and nectar/ field residue analysis Non-Guideline ** (OECD 75) Semi-field testing for pollinators (tunnel or colony feeding studies) * Tier 1 Laboratory-based studies. **Tier 2 and 3 (Semi -field and full field colony-level studies) The need for a higher tier test for pollinators will be determined based upon lower-tiere d tests and/or other lines of data and the need for a refined pollinator risk assessment.

1 http: //www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files /2014- 6/documents/pollinator risk assessment guidance 06 19 14.pdfFurther instructions for responding to the DCis are enclosed. Ifyou have any questions about this letter, the thiabendazole registration review, or the generic DCI, please contact Ricardo Jones of my staff at (703) 347

-0493 or jones.ricardo@epa.gov-=- Sincerely,

# ~ Neil Anderson, Chief Risk Mitigation and Implementation Branch 1 Pesticide Re

-evaluation Division

cc: Stephen Savage, Chemical Review Manager, Antimicrobial Division Tony Kish, Product Manager, Registration Division
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2004255EN.01002201.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/22 |

---

RESERVE LIST

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/B/8/03

(2004/C 255/09)

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS (B5/B4)

(Lithuanian language)

in the field of production coordination

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | BUBNYS ZILVINAS |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | DE KORT PAPLAUSKAITE DAIVUTE |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | KADZIULYTE GIEDRE |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | KHAN ZIVILE |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | KOCANAITE VILMA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | KUCINGYTE IEVA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | PAULAVICIUS MINDAUGAS |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ZABOTKAITE VIRGINIJA |

in the field of proofreading

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | DRINGELIENE REGINA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | GERDZEVICIUTE-BABKOVSKIE EDITA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | GERVYTE RIMALDA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | JASINSKIENE DAIVA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | KRIVICKAITE VILIJA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | MORKUTE EVELINA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | SAMUOLYTE-NAVARDAUSKIENE RUTA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | SEGZDAITE VITALIJA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | SIAULYTIENE-SIMONYTE LAIMA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | SIUGZDINYTE RUTA |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ULOZAS RICARDAS |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | VAITULEVICIENE BIRUTE |

---
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  registration  statements
of Colonial  Realty Limited  Partnership on Forms S-3 dated July 5, 1996 (File
No.  333-04301) and October 25, 1996 (File No.  333-14401) of our report dated
January 24, 1997 on our audits of the  consolidated  financial  statements and
financial  statement  schedules of Colonial  Realty Limited  Partnership as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for the years ended  December 31, 1996,  1995,
and 1994, which report is included in this Form 10-K.


                                                      /s/ Coopers & Lybrand
L.L.P.
                                                      COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
Birmingham, Alabama
March 28, 1997
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 11, 2010

d0303 

# Order

March 11, 2010

139322

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139322 COA: 290369 Wayne CC: 95-004183 HORACE CRUMP, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 29, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is a su ccessive motion that is prohi bited by MCR 6.502(G). We note, however, that the Court of Appeals erre d in dismissing the defendant’s application for leave to appeal for failure to file a transcript of jury in structions because the defendant waived his right to a jury trial a nd was tried before a circuit judge.
Prepared by MerrillDirect





Director’s
Agreement


This Director’s Agreement between Vysis,
Inc. ("Vysis"), a Delaware corporation, and Thomas E. Dewey, Jr., and
is effective May 1, 2001.


WHEREAS, Vysis and Mr. Dewey wish to set
out the terms of compensation for Mr. Dewey’s service upon his election to
Vysis’ Board of Directors (“Board”), and for certain consulting services
provided by Mr. Dewey before his election as a member of Vysis’ Board.


Therefore, Vysis and Mr. Dewey agree to
the following Director’s Agreement.


(1) Vysis agrees to pay Mr. Dewey a
monthly retainer fee of $2,000 per month, for each month or part thereof in
which he provides consulting services or serves as a member of Vysis’ Board.


(2) Vysis agrees to pay Mr. Dewey for
each Vysis Board meeting or Vysis Board Committee that he attends in person or
by teleconference as follows:


(i)       $2,000 for each Board meeting attended in
person,

(ii)      $1,000 for each Committee
meeting held in conjunction with a Board meeting attended in person,

(iii)     $2,000 for each separate
Committee meeting attended in person, and

(iv)     for each Board or Committee
meeting attended by teleconference $400 for up to one hour and $750 for
teleconferences over 1 hour.



Vysis further agrees to reimburse all
reasonable travel and other expenses Mr. Dewey incurs for attendance at a Board
or Committee meeting.  Vysis shall pay
the meeting fee promptly after each meeting and shall reimburse the expenses
promptly after receipt from Mr. Dewey of an invoice therefor.


(3) Mr. Dewey will also participate in
Vysis’ 1999 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan ("Plan") according to
the terms of the Plan.  Vysis agrees
that Mr. Dewey will be granted an initial option for 10,000 shares as specified
in the Plan, with the grant to be made as of the date of his election to the Board.  Mr. Dewey’s participation in the Plan is
subject to the Plan and to his acceptance and execution of Vysis' standard
stock option agreement for the Plan.


(4) Vysis shall indemnify Mr. Dewey for
his service as a member of Vysis' Board to the fullest extent permitted under
Delaware law.  Proof of his inclusion
under Vysis’ D&O policy will be provided.


(5) Mr. Dewey agrees that Vysis shall
have the right to make disclosures of information concerning Mr. Dewey as a
member of Vysis' Board that are required by applicable law.


(6) Mr. Dewey agrees to maintain the
confidentiality of Vysis business and technical information (“Information”)
provided to him, except for Information which (i) is in or becomes part of the
public domain without any act of Mr. Dewey or (ii) is provided to Mr. Dewey by
another entity or person, not under an obligation of confidence to Vysis with
respect to such information.


(7) This Director’s Agreement may be
terminated by Vysis upon two weeks notice to Mr. Dewey, after his resignation as
a member of Vysis’ Board or his non-re-election to or removal from Vysis’
Board.


(8) This Director’s Agreement shall be
governed by Delaware law.





 


Accepted and agreed to:




	VYSIS,
  INC.	THOMAS
  E. DEWEY, JR.






 




	

	 	

	 
	John
  L. Bishop	 
	President
  & CEO
SUPERVISOR ROBERT T. BEVILACQUA

FRANKLIN COUNTY, NEW YORK

39 MAIN STREET SARANAC LAKE, NEW YORK 12963 COUNCIL BARRY S
. DEFURIA RONALD 8. KEOUGH NICHOLE MEYETIE JAMES l. MURNANE I I I 

### TOWN OF HARR I ETSTOWN

TOWN CLERK AN D RECE IVER OF TAXES PATRICIA A. GILLMETI SU PERI NTENDENT OF HIGHWAYS CRAIG DONALDSON (518) 891-1470 (518) 891-4500 FAX (516) 891 -6265 WWW.HARRI ETSTOWN
.ORG CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER EDWI N K. RANDIG SOLE ASSESSOR DOUG TICHENOR AIRPORT MANAGER COREY HURWITCH October 29, 2013 A.J . Muldoon Transportation I ndustry Analyst Office of Aviation Analysis U.S. Department of Transportation Mr. Muldoon, As you know the EAScontract is due for renewal in 2014. The Harrietstown Town Board has been asked to request an increase in the allotment given to our ai rport so that we may add one additional round trip flight to White Plains New York. We have received unsolicited letters from several local institutions and individuals which could benefit from this flight
. Their letters explain and detai l the needs and benefits the addition of this connection to the NYC area would make to their operations. We are requesting additional allocations, not simply a change of destination . The Adirondack Regional to Boston flights work very well and we do not wish to take away from that success. This additional flight will have a positive economic impact enabling local institutions to recruit professionals who need convenient/regular access to the metropolitan area of NYC. Individuals would be able to travel between NYC and Tri-Iakes region for both business and pleasure more easily. In addition the Adirondacks would be more accessible to tourists. I am confident when you read the letters in support of this increase you will realize the positive impact this has for the entire region. Thank you i n advance for your consideration of this request.

Robert T Bevilacqua Supervisor Town of Harrietstown
#### Yudes, imp., Appellant, vs. Modern Woodmen of America, Respondent.

For the appellant: *V. J. O’Kelliher*of Oconto.

For the respondent: *Geo. G. Perin*of Rock Island, Ill., and *John B. Clwse*of Oconto.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6810

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GRENETTA L. BARTEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-01-301; CA-05-322-1) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Grenetta L. Bartee, Appellant Pro Se. Robert William Wiechering, 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: Grenetta L. Bartee seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that her constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bartee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bartee’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss her appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Dem

'.1%a

r "

oft; ttstfter!

•

COI:aro:1.

..e? • . _r. .

9-4 7

la DLR. !FCG.10 DOES f-3.7

••••n~0.•••••nn~••••n•••••••n •Nawne ••••••••••••.•

• .•••.% 16- •

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON

t •

OM= op Tim UNoss ScatirrAAr

28 JAN 1964

Dearltr.McCome,

In a memorandum to you on 12 Decsiber 1963,1111111111

5678-63), three positions within the 110 were i

which might usefully be staffed by qualified CIA personnel.

To date, no nominations from the CIA have been received.

Of the three positions identified, the positionpeof

aircraft operations staff officer should be filled within

the very near future because of the present lack on the

MO Staff of the necessary coverage and capability in this

area.

It is still considered to be in our mutual interest

to consider individuals from your organization for this post.

In the absence of CIA recommendations, only two possible

candidates . with proper background and experience. have been

brought to ay attention. If at all possible, it would be,

appreciated if any CIA nominations could be received by

11/February 1964.

Sincerely,

signora

Brockway McMillan

Honorable John A. HeCone

Director

Central intelligence Agency
# C_2004179EN.01001201.xml

| 10.7.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/12

---

Action brought on 27 April 2004 by Electricité de France (EDF) against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-156/04)

(2004/C 179/24)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 April 2004 by Electricité de France (EDF), established in Paris, represented by Michel Debroux, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2003)4637 Final of 16 December 2003 on State aid granted by France to the applicant and to the gas and electricity industry sectors in the form of accounting and fiscal measures adopted in 1997 when EDF's balance sheet was restructured; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2003)4637 Final of 16 December 2003 on State aid granted by France to the applicant and to the gas and electricity industry sectors in the form of accounting and fiscal measures adopted in 1997 when EDF's balance sheet was restructured;

| — | alternatively, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the contested decision inasmuch as the repayment required of EDF was very considerably overestimated; |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the contested decision inasmuch as the repayment required of EDF was very considerably overestimated;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision, the Commission took the view that the non-payment by the applicant of corporation tax when tax-free provisions created by it for the renewal of its general supply network were reclassified as the provision of capital constituted State aid incompatible with the common market.

In support of its application, the applicant relies first on a plea in law based on the alleged infringement of essential procedural requirements. It argues that in altering its assessment between the decision to initiate the procedure and the adoption of the contested decision without allowing the applicant to submit its observations, the Commission failed to have regard to the rights of the defence.

The applicant next alleges that the measures at issue must be analysed as a lawful recapitalisation on the applicant's part. In failing to respond to that argument, the Commission failed in its duty to state reasons and committed an error of law in its assessment of the concept of State aid. The applicant also alleges under the same plea that the measures at issue did not affect trade between Member States and accordingly could not be considered to be State aid.

Lastly, in support of the form of order sought in the alternative, the applicant alleges that the contested decision required repayment of a greater sum than that which could possibly be considered to be due.

---
July 2021

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Recreation Land Grading and Shaping (Code

566) 

Recreation land grading and shaping is the modification of

sites to permit the installation or operation of recreational

facilities. 

Practice Information 

Recreation land grading and shaping is reshaping the land

to support effective and safe use of a recreational resource

and/or to minimize onsite and offsite impacts to natural resources from recreational land use. This

practice is used where surface irregularities, slopes, obstructions, or surface drainage interfere with

planned recreational use or where such use requires designed land surfaces. 

The grading and shaping is configured to minimize adverse onsite and offsite impacts. Considerations

during the planning process include measures to reduce soil erosion, riparian zone degradation,

stream channel and streambank damage, hydrology modification, other water resource damage,

aesthetics, or unacceptable damage to wildlife habitat, fragmentation, or restrictions to wildlife

movement. Plans include measures for erosion control and for removing or otherwise providing for

control of excess surface water. 

Recreation land grading and shaping requires maintenance over the expected life of the practice. 

Common Associated Practices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Recreation Land Grading and Shaping (Code 566) is

commonly associated with other conservation practices, such as NRCS CPSs Recreation Area

Improvement (Code 562), Trails and Walkways (Code 575), Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management

(Code 644), Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (Code 645), Access Control (Code 472), and Critical

Area Planting (Code 342). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]



# United States Court of Appeals

**For the First Circuit**

No. 01-1491 IN RE: PAUL RAVIDA, Debtor,

_____________________ FRIEDRICH LU, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v. PAUL RAVIDA, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge ] Before Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge , Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges . Friedrich Lu on brief pro se. Mark N. Berman , Christopher R. Mirick , and Hutchins, Wheeler & Dittmar on brief for appellee.January 7, 2002

Per Curiam . After a thorough review of the record and of the parties’ submissions, we affirm. There was no error in the dismissal pursuant to D. Mass. Loc. R. 203(A), as that Rule clearly authorizes dismissal of an appeal in an adversaryproceeding where appellant has failed to comply with the mandates of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006 and 8001(a). We see no constitutional infirmity in the local rule, as any dismissal under the rule is reviewable by an Article III judge in the district court, and in this instance was first directed by, and then affirmed by, a district judge. The bankruptcycourt was not without jurisdiction to enter the order of dismissal, despite the fact that the case was on appeal to this court at the time, since the appeal here was an improper interlocutory one. See United States v. Brooks , 145 F.3d 446, 456 (1 st Cir. 1998) (lower court “may proceed, notwithstanding the filing of an appeal, if the notice of appeal is defective in some substantial and easily discernible way (if, for example, it is based on an unappealable order) . . . .).

Affirmed . 1 st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).
%RAF15 December 1975" -) • -

•

With the presentation of the President's FY 1977 Budget to the Congress, the WO will be required to develop budget justification for the first time

which relates substantive intelligence to the requirements established by the USIB for the NRP. The camdttees recognize that the t neither develops -

collection requirements nor in the past has defended then. It: ever, the

defense of the KT mist ultimately rest on the validity of those requirements.

I solicit your assistance in preparing the MP budget justification by

providing to us two levels of analysis which address the SIGINT collection

requirements against which MP systems are tasked. The first of these should

relate substantive intelligence production to SIGINT categories and the

priority structure of SIG= Committee objective satisfaction goals. This

would be used as a general introduction to our budget justification.

The second analysis should treat each systen in the NRP and relate that

systen, based on the ExCan-approved schedule, to the specific satisfaction of

SIGINT requirements in defense of the FY 1977 President's Budget.

Our FY 1977t justification mist be complete by 8 January for

.review .by the

budge

e IC Staff and ASD(I) , and submission to the Congress by 1 February.

I recognize that this request for your support to meet a 5 January milestone

creates a significant workload at this time of the year. &Never, in the

presence of greatly increased Congressional scrutiny, I am =winced that it

is in our mutual best interest to be as responsive and prompt as possible in

satisfying their expressed desires.

It might be appropriate for you to transmit your analysis of SIGINT

objective goals to the MIRO over the signature of the Chairman of USIB. We

plan to incorporate system collection performance into the individual systen

descriptions.

The Director of the MO Staff will discuss this with you within the next

several days. Nina

Charles W. Cook.

111111111111r * teasy sueuvnit altaLem2 4111111161741 bscimp oNote InralurawMPTION SIT. -110P-SECIff--

CONTjfirS:-

COPY...._.._CW °PIE

PACIE_LOF PAGES

IS) NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE OFF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

MEINCRANDUM FOR CHAIRMAN, SIGNS anerrEz

SURJECT: Budget Justification