alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Dental Office Amalgam Recovery Program Annual Statement

The label here shows the information we have on record for your office. Due Ju ly 9

, 20 1 0

If incorrect

, cross out and provide updated information to the right of the label. PLEASE SIGN BELOW

LABEL N ame

, ID No.

Address

Address

C ity

, Z ip

Responsibl e Dentist

____________________ ___________________________________________ _

Contact Person (if different )

_ _________ ______ ___ _

_ _ ___ __ ____ _ P hone

___________________

AMALGAM SEPARATOR INFORMATION

Is the amalgam separator model in use in your office the same model as indicated on the most current

installation form on file with the Minnesota Dental Assoc iation? Please check: Yes _____ No _____

If “No”, please provide the following information only if a new model has been installed:

Separator Manufacturer/Distributor ____________

____________ _____ Model Name/Number _____________

Serial Number ________

________________________________ _______ Date Installed _________________

_

CERTIFICATION

I certify that our amalgam separator for treating vacuum system wastewater is being

properly operated and maintained and that amalgam and other wastes are being

man aged in accordance with “Best Management Practices” (BMPs) and local, state,

and federal requirements. For BMP’s, see page 11 of the MDA/MCES re: amalgam

recovery booklet along with additional information on the MDA website at:

http://www.mndental.org/dentist_home/member_services/member_programs/amalgam_recovery_program/

Responsible dentist signature: ___________________________

______________ Date _______________

___

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

C ompany(s) shipping waste amalgam and separator solids ______________________

____________________

C ompany(s) receiving waste amalgam and separator solids _________________________________

_________

A ny concerns or comments on the operation of your separator _____________________________________

__

_______________________________________________________________________________________ ___

This stateme nt is due July 9 , 20 1 0. Please sign and mail comp leted statement to:

Metropolitan Council Environmental Services

I ndustrial Waste & Pollution Prevention Section

390 Robert Street North

St. Paul, MN 55101

- 1805
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-2132

KEVIN RONDEAU,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

 Boudin, Chief Judge,

Selya and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

Kevin R. Rondeau on brief pro se.

Charles P. Bauer and Ransmeier & Spellman Professional

Corporation on brief for appellees.

August 2, 2001
-2-

Per Curiam. Appellant, Kevin Rondeau, appeals the district

court's dismissal of his complaint on the ground of res

judicata. We give plenary review to a ruling based on res

judicata. Porn v. National Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 93 F.3d 31, 33

(1st Cir. 1996). We have carefully reviewed the parties' briefs

and the record on appeal. Upon our independent review, we

affirm, essentially for the reasons stated in the district

court's orders, dated July 18, 2000, and September 13, 2000.

In addition, there was neither error of law nor abuse of

discretion in the district court's refusal to recuse itself or

to retransfer this case to the United States District Court for

the Southern District of Ohio. Rondeau also complains that the

district court refused to permit him to represent his minor

child or, in the alternative, to appoint counsel for her. But,

there was no prejudice as a result of the court's decision.

Rondeau had previously filed an identical complaint in 1998 and

he was permitted to litigate in that case on behalf of himself

and on behalf of his minor child. We affirmed the dismissal of

that complaint in Rondeau v. State of New Hampshire, No. 98-

1802, (1st Cir. Feb. 26, 1999) (unpublished per curiam).

Because the instant case was properly dismissed on the basis of

res judicata -- a basis that would have remained a proper ground
-3-

for dismissal even if the district court had permitted Rondeau

to represent the interests of that minor child in this case as

well -- there was no prejudice as a result of the district

court's refusal to permit Rondeau to represent that child or to

appoint counsel for her in this case.

The motion to review the entire district court record is

granted.

Appellant's motions to strike the appellees' brief are

denied.

The judgment of the district court, dated September 14, 2000

is affirmed.
#### Den, on the demise of Faircloth *v.*Ingraham and Jones.

Ejectment, and not guilty pleaded — and the jury being sworn, the Defendant’s counsel disclosed, that the demise laid in the declaration was expired, and moved for a nonsuit; insisting that though the demise might be amended, if prayed before the jury are sworn, it could not be done afterwards.

*Per curiam*

Williams and Haywood, Justices.—

The demise is a mere fiction — the jury are not sworn upon that, but to try the title only. It may be amended at any-time, or the exception may be overlooked, as it was in 2 *Bur>\*1159, where the demise after the trial was found to be laid upon a time not yef come. The nonsuit was refused.

*Note.*— Vide *Young*v. *Erwin, ante*323. *Adams on Eject.*203, 204,
•• *";

fi

1

. : • r

SAFSS

196311AR 26 16 43

•

1111101.111100

.•1141111V-63

, P963

bale vb.

• MY' WIWI

fil. D.C.

. • • •

.1

MORANDIIM TOR Dr. Eugene G. Pubini

Deputy Director of Defense Research •

and Engineering (Research and

Information Systems)

ECT: Management of the National Reconnaissance

, • .4 Program

As contemplated in paragraph L C. of the NRO Agreeant of March 13, 1963, you are designated as the official

the Office of the Secretary of Defense to examine and

r on his behalf the activities of the National Roccaissance Office. In that capacity you will keep yourself

informed of all aspects of the Program. You are

quested to establish with the DNRO and DDNRO the

rangements necessary to implement these instructions.

es Mr. McNamara

Mr. McCaw . .

Dr. McMillan

Dr. Scoville 'Ilkrn%ititor

,.*

Rant l

ql 

ilt 1014W P-rr con Ho.

n
# C_2004262EN.01003202.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/32

---

Action brought on 7 July 2004 by Aries Meca against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-275/04)

(2004/C 262/62)

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 7 July 2004 by Aries Meca, established in Poissy (France), represented by Jean-Paul Poulain and Jean-Emmanuel Kuntz, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 16 December 2003, in that Article 1 thereof declared illegal the scheme providing for automatic tax exemption for companies acquiring an undertaking in financial difficulties; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 16 December 2003, in that Article 1 thereof declared illegal the scheme providing for automatic tax exemption for companies acquiring an undertaking in financial difficulties;

| — | annul the Commission's decision of 16 December 2003, in that Article 5 thereof ordered that the whole of the aid granted under the scheme of Article 44 septies of the Code Général des Impôts be recovered from companies incorporated for the purpose of acquiring an undertaking in financial difficulties; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision of 16 December 2003, in that Article 5 thereof ordered that the whole of the aid granted under the scheme of Article 44 septies of the Code Général des Impôts be recovered from companies incorporated for the purpose of acquiring an undertaking in financial difficulties;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The decision which is the subject-matter of this case is the same as that which is challenged in Case T-273/04 Brandt Industries v Commission.

The applicant in this case, Aries Meca, is a company which, by virtue of its acquisition of Aries SAS, benefited from the provisions of the Code Général des Impôts referred to in the contested decision. Its application for annulment is based on a twofold plea that there has been an infringement of both Article 253 of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2005057EN.01001001.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 January 2005

in Case 306/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 de Orense): Cristalina Salgado Alonso v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (1)

o

1

(Social security of migrant workers - Articles 12 EC, 39 EC and 42 EC - Articles 45 and 48(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old age and death - Unemployment - Minimum periods of insurance - Periods of insurance taken into account for calculating the amount of benefits but not for acquiring the right to those benefits - Periods of unemployment - Aggregation)

(2005/C 57/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case 306/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social no 3 de Orense (Spain), made by decision of 24 June 2003, received at the Court on 16 July 2003, in the proceedings between Cristalina Salgado Alonso and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it has ruled:

o

Articles 39 EC and 42 EC and Article 45 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as that set out in the 28th Additional Provision of the General Social Security Law, which does not allow the competent authorities of a Member State to take into consideration, for the purposes of acquiring the right to a retirement pension under the national scheme, certain periods of insurance completed on the territory of that State by an unemployed worker during which contributions to old-age insurance were paid by the unemployment benefit agency, such periods being taken into consideration solely for the calculation of the amount of that pension.

---

(1)  OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.

1

---
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



The Board of Directors:
Profile Technologies, Inc.


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 333-53575) on Form S-3 of Profile Technologies, Inc. of our report dated
October 11, 2004 relating to the statements of operations, stockholders'
deficit, and cash flows of Profile Technologies, Inc. for the year ended June
30, 2004, which report appears in the June 30, 2005 annual report on Form 10-KSB
of Profile Technologies, Inc.

     Our report dated October 11, 2004 contains an explanatory paragraph that
states that the Company has incurred net losses since inception and has a
working capital deficit at June 30, 2004 that raise substantial doubt about its
ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include
any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty.


                                              /s/ KPMG LLP


Seattle, Washington
September 26, 2005
.. Approved for Release: 2019/05/21 C051 06805 

Tap SECRET 

. ,/.'. 1/11111111111111111111 /o:::J) NATIONAL.. RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

~~-tO ~'1 ""NOLE VIA ' 

BYEMAN 

CONUOl sunil 

/I'>-..IliI_A 

111111/11/11111111 

. -g 

THE NRO STAFF 

2 OCT 1968 

HANDLE VI), 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE NRO STAFF. 

SUBJECT: Security of Classified-·r~;-~tion 

We should all be r~minded that there can be no 

business more pressing than that of safeguarding our 

"covert" security posture. Therefore, security is not 

an additional duty, but an ihtegr~l part.of all duties. 

Ignorance of security directives and inadvertent violation of such directives is inexcusable and tantamount 

to dereliction of duty. 

Expert guidance in security matters pertaining to 

the BYEMAN. COMINT, and TALENT systems may be obtained 

fromSS-3,1 lor Lt Col Haskins. These are 

the folks who are responsible for establishing and 

maintaining a positive and agressive security program; 

however, in final analysis, security is undeniably an 

individual responsibility. Consequently, I expect each 

officer, airman, and civilian assigned to the NRO.Staff 

to be fully conversant with the basic direct~ves listed 

below, to strictly adhere to such directives in a timely 

and effective manner, and in every instance to consider 

security a fundamental matter of primary importance to 

his job. '. ..... 

A. DOD Instruction S-5001. 2, "The TALENT 

Control System," 1 May 1967. 

B. DOD Instruction S-5210. 51, . "BYEMAN 

Control System Manual," 25 August 1966. 

G. . DOD Directive No. 5200.17, "Special 

Security : Manual, .. 15 July 1968. 4. /. " 

Brigadier, 

RU~~ General, USAF 

Director 

.II. 

HlP SEeRET CONiROL .o.--:::Ic!:.:N:...::T:..:!:E~RN!!.!.!A.:.!L~_ 

. UCLUOEO FROM AUTOMAT/C .EGRADIN~ 

DOD DIRECT/VE !lZOO.l0 DOES NOT APPLV 

CO,V, ___ OF COPIES 

,AGE 1 ,0' 1 PAOU 

Approved for Release: 2019/05/21 C051 06805
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
          Buffs-N-Puffs September 30, 1996 financial statements and is qualified
          in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000350133
<NAME>                        Buffs N Puffs Ltd

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996

<CASH>                                         269,575
<SECURITIES>                                   286,195
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,552
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    18,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               664,069
<PP&E>                                         3,450,427
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (677,314)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,664,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          423,099
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,646
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,510,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,664,583
<SALES>                                        1,181,341
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,173,255
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,097,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             133,291
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                161,425
<INCOME-TAX>                                   100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            161,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   161,325
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        


</TABLE>
steam

_ record - Re: Request for Extension of Effluent Guideline Questionnaire

Gre etings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your exte nsion request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that submittal of an ex tension request to EPA does not alter the due date of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agre es to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely, From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. gov> To: "Washburn, Anne" <Anne .Washburn@PacifiCorp.com> Date: 7/13/2010 6:13 AM Sub j ect: Re: Request for Extension of Effluent Guideline Questionnaire Attachments: 2010-07-09 Si g ned DJ Request for Extension.PDF Pa g e 1 of 2

8/26/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C3C0419DO

...
July 1, 2015

Mr. Jeremy Hintz

Sensorflight, LLC

3141 FM 3512

Aransas Pass, TX 78336

Dear Mr. Hintz:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 61.113(a), 61.113(b), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1),

91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b); of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your April 24, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Sensorflight, LLC into the 

public docket (No. FAA−2015−1332), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
**Exhibit 23.3****CONSENT OF MILLER AND LENTS, LTD.**We consent to the references to us and to estimates of reserves contained in “Part I, Item 1and 2. Business and Properties — Natural Gas and Oil Reserves” in this Annual Report on Form10-K of The Houston Exploration Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 and in HoustonExploration’s previously filed Registration Statements (and any prospectus supplement thereto)with file numbers as follows: (i) 333-78843 dated May 20, 1999, 333-113659 dated March 16,2004 and 333-120000 dated December 3, 2004, on Form S-3; (ii) 333-106836 dated December 4,2003, on Form S-4; and (iii) 333-36977 dated October 1, 1997, 333-47370 dated October 5,2000, 333-59698 dated April 27, 2001, 333-75264 dated December 17, 2001, 333-99799 datedSeptember 19, 2002 and 333-117789 dated July 30, 2004, on Form S-8.       MILLER AND LENTS, LTD.         /s/ Carl D. Richard          Senior Vice PresidentHouston, Texas
# C_2004217EN.01001801.xml

| 28.8.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/18

---

Action brought on 14 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-299/04)

(2004/C 217/34)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Theofanis Christoforou, Legal Adviser, and Karolina Mojzesowicz, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to notify to the Commission within the time-limit laid down, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2002/77/EC (1) of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to notify to the Commission within the time-limit laid down, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2002/77/EC (1) of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 14 July 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 249, 17.9.2002, p. 21.

1

---