alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
USCIB: 13.7/22 

REF ID:A65808 

CONFiDEHTi1'L 

17 June 1954 

MEMQRAN])UM FOR THE :MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: 

Reference: 

Clearance for Access to CCMINT (Messrs. ·Hart Perry and 

Lyman Hamil ton) • ,. 

USCIB 13.7/19 dated 2 June 1954. 

1. Vote sheet replies to the reference indicate approval by all 

members on the question of "need to know'' of the individuals named. 

2. '!he CIA Member has been inform.ally notified of this decision 

of the Board. 

USCIB: 13.7/22 

COHFl~H'flAL 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-16-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

SMALL DUCT, HIGH VELOCITY (SDHV) STANDARDS (EE-RM/STD-02-330)

and

CENTRAL AIR-CONDITIONER TEST PROCEDURE (EE-RM/TP-02-002)

PUBLIC WORKSHOP

Forrestal Building, Room 1 E-245

Friday, December 13, 2002

9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Agenda

Purpose of Workshop: To discuss and receive comments on: 1) the Engineering and

Life-Cycle-Cost analyses proposed for use in a supplemental notice of proposed

rulemaking to set efficiency standards for small duct high velocity central air conditioners

and heat pumps, and 2) several central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure

issues

9:00 a.m. Introduction and Welcome

9:15 a.m. SDHV Standards (EE-RM/STD-02-330)

o Engineering Analysis

o Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

10:30 a.m. BREAK

10:45 a.m. Discussion of Comments/Issues

11:45 a.m. Wrap-up and Workshop Conclusion for SDHV Standards

12:00 a.m. Break for Lunch

1:00 P.M. Introduction and Welcome

1:15 p.m. Central Air-Conditioner Test Procedure (EE-RM/TP-02-002)

2:45 p.m. Discussion of Comments/Issues

3:45 p.m. Wrap-up and Workshop Conclusion

4:00 p.m. Adjourn

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 02BB
Barnett - Fort Worth Basin

Reservoir Profile

Age: Mississippian, 340 MYA

Lithology: Siliceous Mudstone

Total Area Size (sq mi): 50,000

Total Gas (tcf): 327

GIP (bcf/sq mi): 150

Producable Gas (tcf): 50

Depth (feet): 7,500

Thickness (feet): 300

Horizontal Well Cost ($M): 2.8

Average EUR: 2.65
Pressure (psi): 4,000

Temperature (F): 200

Ro: 2.0

TOC (%): 4.5

Porosity (%): 6.0

Matrix Permeability (nD): 250

Pressure Gradient (psi/ft): .526

Clay Content (%): 45

Silica/Calcite/Carbonate (%): 55

Adsorbed Gas (%): 35

Reservoir Summary

Any understanding of shale gas reservoirs must start with the pioneering work of 

Mitchell/Devon in the Barnett Shale of the Fort Worth Basin in North/Central Texas. 

Beginning with vertical wells and a visionary concept in 1981, the Barnett has become 

the proving ground for efficient horizontal well drilling and multi-stage completions. 

With USGS estimates of 327 tcf of gas in place and 50 tcf recoverable, the Barnett has 

emerged as the benchmark for all shale gas plays. While reservoir properties range 

considerably, the Mississippian Barnett Shale averages 300 feet in thickness, at an 

average depth of about 7500 feet, with average porosities of 6% and low 

permeabilities of 250 nanodarcies. Average well production reaches 2.65 bcf, with 

initial production rates of up to 13 mmcf per day. Seismic data is generally of 

moderate quality, but is essential for tracking the key bounding horizons and 

identifying karst "collapse chimneys" which degrade individual well production. Also 

worth noting is that vitrinite reflectance averages 2% in the Barnett, but drops to the 

"oil window" in the northern basin.
# CE2004084EN.01062701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/627 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/627

---

(2004/C 84 E/0701)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0553/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject:   Revision of pregnant workers directive

Subject:

What action has the Commission taken in response to paragraph 7(g) of the European Parliament's resolution (P5_TA(2003)0369) of 3 September 2003 on implementing the social policy agenda which urged the Commission come forward with proposals to amend Directive 92/85/EEC (1) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, in the spirit of the proposals contained in the European Parliament's resolution (A5-0155/2000 (2)) of 6 July 2000, particularly concerning the duration of maternity leave?

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 121, 24.4.2001, p. 473.

2

---
TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY

Brick and Structural Clay P roducts

FROM : Richard Marinshaw
RTI International

DATE OF CONTACT: February 2, 200 9

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED: Acme Brick Company
3024 Acme Brick Plaza Fort Worth, TX 76109

PERSON CONTACTED:
Ga rth Tayler, Technical Director

817

- 870

- 8354

PURPOSE OF CONTACT:
To obtain additional in formation on the operation and testing of periodic kilns

.

SUMMARY OF CONTACT:

As part of the ir response to the Information Collection Request (ICR) f or the
Brick and Structural Clay Products Source Category, Acme Brick Company (Acme) included reports for stack test s conducted on three periodic kilns : one kiln at each of the

Acme plants in Bridgeport, Texas; Milsap, Texas; and Fort Smith, Arkansas

. Each test
was condu cted throughout the entire kiln cycle using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR)
spectroscopy to measure emissions of hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrochloric acid (HCl)

. Mr. Tayler was contacted to request a time

- temperature profile for the kilns tested
and to find out the reason for the test and test ing costs.

Mr. Tayler explained that Acme decided to conduct the tests to better understand how emissions vary over the course of a periodic kiln cycle. For the same reason, Acme
decided to test the kiln s for H F and HCl using FTIR , which provides continuous

measurements . The tests were not for compliance purposes

, and Acme was not required or requested by any regulatory agency to conduct the tests. Mr. Tayler agreed to provide
a time

- temperature profile showin g how kiln temperature and flue gas temperature var y over the firing cycle. He said he could also provide information on how air flow rates through the kilns vary over time

. He noted that the temperature and air flow rate through
the kiln s var y significa ntly during the cycle

, and this makes it very difficult to control emissions from a periodic kiln. Mr. Tayler pointed out that HF and HCl emissions also vary considerably during the kiln cycle. With respect to testing costs, he said that he had
that info rmation and would provide it to us

.
# CE2004084EN.01008201.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/82

---

(2004/C 84 E/0087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3678/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Terni

Subject:

In its answer to question E-1116/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Terni had submitted projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city had applied but had not been been selected for funding.

1

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so, can it supply any information on the outcome?

---

(1)  OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

1

---
REF ID:A57746 T""~ ,..,...,.,,,.. ............ ,...... U1 I a:'Jt;Cl\E l 

y 24 

USCIB: 5.4/24 fWwLE VIA CatiIN'I' CJ.'D\'.NNl!lrn CNt! 

25 March 1955 

'f OP BECRE'f 

lAEM:ORANDUll FOR THE MEMBl~.S OF uscm: 

Subject: Tentative Minutes of ll3th Meeting of USCIB. 

Reference: USCIB 5.2/86 

1. It is requested that the enclosed pages as corrected 

be inserted in the reference and the superseded pages be 

destroyed. 

2. This document may be downgraded to UNCLASSIFIED when 

the enclosure is detached. 

Enclosure: 

a/s 

USCIB: 5.4/24 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 07-23-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
tU.S.Oeporl,.,lofTransportationOH·c.eOfme)eC!elaryOfDESIGNATIONOFAGENTFORSERVICEOFNOTICE.PROCESS.ORDERSDECISIONSANDREQUIREMENTSChief.DocumentaryServicesDiv.DepartmentofTransportationWashington.D.C.20590ATTENTlON:DOCKETSECTION.C-55AtbinatiAviationLtd•havingitsprincipal(NameofCompany.pleaseprint)officeatAragonHouseBusinessCentre,DragonaraRoad,St.Julian'sSTJ3140,Malta(Address)herebydesignates.pursuanttosection46103ofTitle49oftheU.S.Code1formerlysection1005tbloftheFeder;tlA'iationActof1958.asamended!thepersonnamedbelowasitsAgentuponwhomservkeofallnotices;.md..;mdalld!!cision....andrequirememsoftheDepm1menrof'Transponntionmaybemadeforandonbehalfofsaidcanier.herebypre,·iousofagentsmadebyittotheDOT.NameofAgentJohnR.CopleyUcopley@ggh-airlaw.com)&ErinTallardyKatz(ekatz@ggh-airlaw.com)(PleasePrint)AddressGarofaloGoerlichHainbach,1200NewHampshireAveNW,WashingtonDC20036TheAgentsodesignatedhaswriuenhisnameandalsohisinitialsinthefollowingspace;NameEnnb.t:y(Initials)_..._____INWITNESSWHEREOF.AlbinatiAviationLtd------------------·-----hascausedthese(NameofCompany)presentstobesignedinitsnameby______s_t_ef_a_n_o_A_Ib_i_na_t_i,_A_c_c_o_u_nt_a_b_le_M_a_na_g""e_r_____.(PleasePrint)ofsaidcompany.andtobeattestedunderitscorporatesealbyLaurenceGattLaurenceGatt(Secretary.orotherTitle)25thFebruaryv"onthis-----dayof________.;___,""2015AlbinatiAviationLtd(NameofCompany)By:STEFANOATI.(President)0I
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-29-1999
<CASH>                                           1,951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,173
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,827
<PP&E>                                          14,843
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,192
<BONDS>                                          3,135
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,103
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,091
<SALES>                                         18,220
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,220
<CGS>                                           14,802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,404
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (36)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (70)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (70)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-31067 Summary Calendar

In The Matter Of: MAC-JGC MARKETING INC

Debtor MAC-JGC MARKETING INC Appellant v. JOHN R POOLE COMPANIES LLC Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07-CV-2885
Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * MAC-JGC Marketing, Inc. appeals the district court’sjudgment affirming the bankruptcy court’sjudgment in its favor against John R. Poole Companies, LLC. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 30, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-31067

2 MAC-JGC first argues that the bankruptcy court erroneously applied Louisiana’s doctrine of judicial compensation. Judicial compensation is a creature of Louisiana law that allows courts to set-off unliquidated claims. See Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Cloy Construction Co. , 463 So. 2d 1365, 1368–69 (La. Ct. App. 1984) (“Judicial compensation takes place when a court decides twopartiesare mutually indebted toeach other and adjusts theamounts owed in fixing the judgment.”). The gist of MAC-JGC’s complaint is that the judicial-compensation doctrine can be invoked only via a counterclaim, whereas Poole invoked the doctrine via affi rmative defense. But even assuming Louisiana procedural rules require Poole to plead judicial compensation (a form ofsetoff) as a counterclaim, this court has recognized that setoff in federal court is an affirmative defense. G iles v. Gen. Ele c. Co. , 245 F.3d 474, 494 n.36 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[A]n offset

. . . is an affirmative defense.”). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not err in applying the doctrine ofjudicial compensation. MAC-JGC next complains that the bankruptcy court committed reversible
error when it believed at least some of John Poole’s trial testimony. After the trial—and before the bankruptcy court issued its f indings of fact—counsel for MAC-JGC provided a letter to the court that purportedly undercut some of Poole’s testimony. Even after viewing this alleged piece of impeachment evidence, the bankruptcy court issued findings of fact that relied, in part, on Poole’s testimony. MAC-JGC asserts that this was error. But the bankruptcy court, having heard Poole testify and having had the opportunity toconsider the alleged impeachment evidence, did not commit clear error in determining that Poole was credible. Finally, MAC-JGC contends that the bankruptcy court erred when it determined that thecontract unambiguously did not require Poole to assume the approximately $117,000 owed to BellSouth Advertising. The bankruptcy court properly determined that the contract at issue unambiguously required MAC-No. 07-31067

3 JGC to be liable for the BellSouth Advertising debt since that debt was not listed as a payable on the relevant agreement. AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1309
JOSEPH T. SERE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Barry R. Poretz, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97-1055-A) Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: May 27, 1998 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph T. Sere, Ap pellant Pro Se. Adam Trevor Ackerman, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order granting the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment on Appellant's complaint seeking review of the Commi ssioner's denial of social security benefits. * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Sere v. Apfel , No. CA-97- 1055-A (E.D.Va. Feb. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
First Amendment To Severance Agreement


 Exhibit 10.3 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
 This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) effective
as of September 19, 2008 to the Severance Agreement, dated as of April 6, 2007 (the “Agreement”), between Nobel Learning Communities, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (“Nobel Learning”), and Patricia B. Miller
(Executive”). 
 Background 
 Executive is a member of Nobel Learning’s senior leadership team and is expected to be actively involved in executing Nobel Learning’s plans for continued growth and success. 
 In an effort to acknowledge Executive’s important role in this process and to provide Executive with a degree of income and benefit protection in
the event [his/her] employment is terminated, Executive and Nobel Learning entered into the Agreement. 
 Executive and Nobel Learning are
amending the Agreement to conform the Agreement to the original intent of the parties. 
 All capitalized terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning set forth in the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and promises
contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, Nobel Learning and Executive hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3(i)
of the Agreement, “Limitation on Benefits Contingent Upon Change in Control,” is hereby deleted in its entirety. 
 2. All of the
other terms and conditions of the Agreement, not inconsistent with the terms of this Amendment, shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment the date and year first written above. 
  

			
	NOBEL LEARNING COMMUNITIES, INC.
		
	By	 	 /s/ George Bernstein

	Name:	 	George Bernstein
	Title:	 	President and CEO



			
	
	EXECUTIVE
	
	 /s/ Patricia B. Miller

	Print Name:	 	Patricia B. Miller
<PAGE>   1







                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.57

                           ALLONGE TO PROMISSORY NOTE

Amount:  $100,000                                       Detroit, Michigan

Dated:  March 27, 1997


     UNDER date of November 15, 1997, the undersigned ("Borrower") made and
delivered to John R. Morris ("Lender") a Secured Promissory Note in the
principal amount of $100,000 (the "Note").

     At this time, Borrower has requested that Lender adjust the rate at which
interest accrues on the unpaid principal balance under the Note.

     Accordingly, Lender and Borrower hereby agree to amend the Note in the
following particular:

     1. Rate at which interest accrues on the unpaid principal balance under
the Note is hereby modified from 14% to 10% per annum.

     2. This Allonge is but an amendment to the Note by way of modification and
does not constitute payment, satisfaction or discharge of the Note or any
obligation thereunder.  The Note, the Loan Commitment Letter and the Security
Agreement and all documents delivered by Borrower to secure its obligations
under the Note and any and all other documents executed by Borrower in
connection with the delivery of the Note are hereby ratified and confirmed as
being in full force and effect, as modified hereby.  In addition, Borrower
represents and warrants that it has no defense to payment or claims of  offset
under the Note.

THIS ALLONGE HAS BEEN EXECUTED AND DELIVERED ON MARCH 27, 1997.


BORROWER:

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.,
a Michigan corporation

By: /s/ William R. Hurd
   --------------------------------
William R. Hurd
Its:  President and Chief Operating Officer



ACCEPTANCE:

     THE UNDERSIGNED hereby accepts the foregoing Allonge Promissory Note in
accordance with its terms.

/s/ John R. Morris
------------------------------
John R. Morris
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Timothy C. Clayton, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of HEI, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  c)  Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.    /s/ Timothy C. Clayton  Timothy C. Clayton Chief Financial Officer
Date: February 3, 2005
24
April 27, 2015 

Ms. D. Gail Bellenger 

Owner 

Aerial Earth PhotoDrones 

3700 Dean Drive #2802 

Ventura, CA 93003 

Dear Ms. Bellenger: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. 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 January 21, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Aerial Earth PhotoDrones 

into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0196), 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 specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 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) 267-4264. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Dan Ngo 

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division 

Enclosure