alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Information Collection**

**Activity Engineer**  **$79.76/hr Manager** 

**$116.03/hr Clerical** 

**$35.78/hr Respond** 

**ents hr/yr** **Labor**

**Cost/yr Capital** 

**Startup Cost**  **O&M Cost (3) Frequency** **Number of Engine**  **Families Total** 

**Hours/yr Total** 

**Cost/yr**

Review of regulations and guidance documents 2 3 0 5 $508 $0.00 $0 1 1 5 $508 Training 7 0 0 7 $585 $0.00 $0 1 1 7 $585 PCA Arrangements 10 8 0 18 $1,726 $0.00 $0 1 4 72 $6,903 Service Accumulation 10 1 0 11 $914 $0.00 $17,300 1 2 22$36,427 Conduct PCA (2) 16 7 10 32 $2,356 $0.00 $576 4 2 254$23,457 Engine Reallocation 4 0 0 4 $319 $0.00 $4 4 2 32 $2,584 PCA Report 10 10 5 25 $2,137 $0.00 $2 1 2 50 $4,278 Quarterly Reports 2 2 2 6 $428 $0.00 $2 4 2 44 $3,438 Prepare Carry-Over NCPs 1 0 0 1 $80 $0.00 $2 1 2 2 $164 Maintain Records 5 0 8 13 $685 $0.00 $20 4 1 52 $2,820 **Sub Total 66**  **31 25**  **122 $9,736**  **$0.00 $17,906**  **N/A N/A**  **N/A N/A**  **Total for Industry: N/A**  **N/A N/A**  **541 $41,819**  **$0.00 $39,344** **varies 4**  **541 $81,163**  **Per response (4) N/A**  **N/A N/A** **22.54 $1,742**  **$0.00 $1,639**  **N/A N/A**  **N/A N/A** 
(1)Respondents (hr/yr) includes total hours for one respondents with 4 engine families. (2) Annualized since testing and information is carried over in following years. (3) Annualized and adjusted for inflation (4) Total of responses (24)= 1 PCA notification+1 PCA report + 4 quarterly reports per engine family for 4 engine families 

### NCP Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost (1) **Table E**

### Information

**Collection Ac** **tivity Engineer** 

**$71.44/hr Ma** **nager**

**$84.42 Hours/yr** **Labor Cost/yr**  **Capital**

**Startup Cost** **O&M Cost Engine**  **Families Total** 

**Hr/yr Total** 

**Cost/yr** Review Regulations 4 1 5 $370 $0.00 $0 1 5 $370 Application Review 5 2 7 $526 $0.00 $10 4 28 $2,144 PCA Review & Compliance Level Determination 10 6 16 $1,221 $0.00 $2 4 64 $4,892 Quarterly

Report & Fee Payment Review 4 1 5 $370 $0.00 $2 4 20 $1,489 **Total per Engine Family**  23 10 33 $2,487 $0.00 $14 **N/A N/A**  **N/A Total for A** **gency** N/A N/A N/A $8,839 $0.00 $56 **4** 117 $8,895 

## Total Estimated A**gency Burden and Cost Summary**  **Table F**
#### FELLOWS *vs.*THE PRESIDENT & TRUSTEES OF MENASHA.

APPEAL FROM CIKCUrT COURT, WINNEBAGO COUNTY.

Heard February 6.]

[Decided June 4, 1860.

*Complaint■*— Evidence.—Pleadings.

The courts of this state cannot take notice of the fact that there are county judges in the state of New York, or that they have authority to administer oaths, without some evidence of such a fact, either by the seal of office or a certificate of a proper officer attested by a seal.

A complaint sworn to before a county judge in New York, without any attestation of office, may be treated as though it were not sworn to at all.

The facts in this case may be gathered from the opinion of the court.

*E. P. Eaton*for the appellant.

*Smith, Keyes fy Gay*for the respondent.

*By the*Court,

Paine, J.

In this case the complaint was served, and purported to have been sworn to before the county judge of Steuben county, New York. An answer was serv*559ed without verification, which was immediately returned by the plaintiff’s attorney, who then, the time for answering having expired, moved for judgment, for want of an answer, and moved also to strike out the answer. These two motions seem somewhat inconsistent. But they were both overruled, among others, for the reason that the complaint itself was not verified, and the plaintiff appealed from both orders. We think this decision was correct. There was no authentication of the signature of the county judge, or that he had power to administer oaths. The courts of this state cannot take notice of the fact that there are county judges in New York, or that they have lawful authority to administer oaths. There should in such case be some evidence of these facts, •either by the seal of office, as that of a notary public which is recognized everywhere, or by a certificate of a public officer attested by a seal.

The same principles that govern in relation to the execution and acknowledgement of deeds in other states, seem applicable here. If made before officers of those states, their right to act must be authenticated. If made before a commissioner for this state appointed abroad by the governor, the courts here take notice of his authority. And there would seem to be no certainty, or safety in any other practice. Suppose a complaint verified in another state before a register of deeds, clerk of the board of supervisors, town clerk, &c., how can the courts here know whether they were authorized to administer oaths ? We cannot, yet if bound to know the powers of one, we must of all.

In the authorities cited by the appellant’s counsel it does not appear but that, with the affidavits offered the right of the officers administering the oaths, was properly authenticated.

The orders appealed from are affirmed with costs.
# C_2016131EN.01000102.xml

| 14.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7918 — Indorama Netherlands/Guadarranque Polyester)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 131/02)

On 18 March 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7918. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7918. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2016097EN.01002001.xml

| 12.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 97/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 97/20

---

New national side of euro coins intended for circulation

(2016/C 97/08)

Image

Euro coins intended for circulation have legal tender status throughout the euro area. For the purpose of informing the public and all parties who handle the coins, the Commission publishes a description of the designs of all new coins (1). In accordance with the Council conclusions of 10 February 2009 (2), euro-area Member States and countries that have concluded a monetary agreement with the European Union providing for the issuing of euro coins are allowed to issue commemorative euro coins intended for circulation, provided that certain conditions are met, particularly that only the 2-euro denomination is used. These coins have the same technical characteristics as other 2-euro coins, but their national face features a commemorative design that is highly symbolic in national or European terms.

1

2

Issuing country
  : Slovenia

Issuing country

Subject of commemoration
  : The 25th anniversary of independence of the Republic of Slovenia

Subject of commemoration

Description of the design
  : Over the left part of the inner circle is obliquely positioned a line. At its right, in the upper part of the coin is the inscription ‘25 LET’ and below it the inscription ‘REPUBLIKA SLOVENIJA’. Underneath these inscriptions is the original Prešeren’s written record of the part of the Slovenian hymn Zdravljica ‘dočákat’ dan’. At the bottom of the inner circle is the year ‘2016’.

Description of the design

The coin’s outer ring depicts the 12 stars of the European flag.

Number of coins to be issued
  :

Number of coins to be issued

Date of issue
  : June 2016

Date of issue

---

(1)  See OJ C 373, 28.12.2001, p. 1 for the national faces of all the coins issued in 2002.

1

(2)  See the conclusions of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of 10 February 2009 and the Commission Recommendation of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation (OJ L 9, 14.1.2009, p. 52).

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 30, 2016

Order 

Clerk

November 30, 2016

151800(58)

CLAM LAKE TOWNSHIP and HARING

CHARTER TOWNSHIP,

Appellants,

SC: 151800

v COA: 325350

Wexford CC: 2014-025391-AA

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND

REGULATORY AFFAIRS / STATE

BOUNDARY COMMISSION, TERIDEE, LLC,

and CITY OF CADILLAC,

Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the joint motion of appellees for an additional 15 

minutes of oral argument time is DENIED.
# C_2016242EN.01000301.xml

| 2.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/3

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.8019 — Advent International/Nuplex Industries)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 242/02)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 25 May 2016, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between Advent International Corporation and Nuplex Industries Ltd. On 22 June 2016, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.

---
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2628 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to safe 

disposal packaging and safe disposal system requirements for certain drugs. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 5, 2021 

Ms. HASSAN (for herself and Mr. BRAUN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 

respect to safe disposal packaging and safe disposal system requirements for certain drugs. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Options for 

5 Drug Disposal Systems To Reduce Diversion Act of 2021’’ 

6 or the ‘‘Better ODDS To Reduce Diversion Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2628 IS

1 SEC. 2. SAFETY-ENHANCING PACKAGING AND DISPOSAL 

2 FEATURES. 

3 Section 505–1(e)(4)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

4 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355–1(e)(4)(B)) is amended 

5 by striking ‘‘for purposes of rendering drugs nonretriev6 able (as defined in section 1300.05 of title 21, Code of 

7 Federal Regulations (or any successor regulation))’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
### CMP-8

Revised: May 3, 2004 

## San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Supplemental Application Form



# Conservation Management Practices: ONIONS AND GARLIC

Farm Name: CMP Plan Years: to

Maximum Crop Acreage:

Fallow Acreage Last Planted in Onions or Garlic:

Land Preparation/

Cultivation Select at least one of the following CMPs. Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs.
Bed/Row Size or Spacing, ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category Chemigation/Fertigation, ac Night Farming, ac Combined Operations, ac Precision Farming (GPS), ac Conservation Irrigation, ac Transgenic Crops, ac Conservation Tillage, ac Transplanting, ac Equipment Change/Tech. Improvements, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Mulching, ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:



### Harvest Select at least one of the following CMPs. Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs.
Combined Operations, ac Pre-harvest Soil Preparation, ac Equipment Change/Tech. Improvements, ac Shed Packing, ac Hand Harvesting, ac Shuttle System, ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Night Harvesting, ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above:



### Other Select at least one of the following CMPs. Note: 100% of the maximum crop acreage must be covered by the selected CMPs.
Application Efficiencies, ac Multiple CMPs in Another Category

Bulk Materials Control No Burning, ac Integrated Pest Management (IPM), ac Surface Roughening, ac Irrigation Power Units Wind Barrier, ac Mulching, ac Other (approved on a case-by-case basis), ac Please describe the specifics of the practice(s) chosen above: CMP

8
#### Vroman vs. Dewey.

*Writ of restitution*— Must *be sued out at tJie circuit.*

Where, after judgment at the circuit for plaintiff in ejectment, he was put in possession hy the officer before an appeal was perfected, and afterward the judgment was reversed and a new trial awarded, defendant cannot have a writ of restitution from this court, hut must have the cause remitted, and proceed at the circuit.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Dodge*County.

Cole, J.

This is an application for a writ of restitution to be issued by this court in tbe above cause, directed to tbe sheriff *627of Waukesha county, directing him to place the appellant in the possession of certain real estate described in the motion papers. It appears that an action of ejectment was brought by the respondent to recover possession of said premises, in which he recovered judgment. Before the appeal was perfected, the respondent issued execution upon the judgment, and was placed in possession of the property. The judgment was reversed on appeal, and a new trial ordered. Neither party, however, has paid the clerk’s fees in this court, and had the cause remitted to the court below. And as the record still remains here, the appellant has applied for a writ of restitution to be issued from this court.

We think the proper practice for the appellant to pursue is to pay the costs in this court, have the cause remitted, and apply to the court below for his writ of restitution. It would be very inconvenient for this court to attempt to execute its judgments, and it does not do so. It uniformly sends the case back to the court from which the appeal is taken, to proceed in the cause according to its order. In this case a new trial was ordered ; and it is said, that, as the respondent is in possession of the premises, he has no interest nor any motive to have another trial. Grant that this may be so, but surely the appellant is not remediless. He can pay the clerk’s fees in this court, have the cause remitted, and apply to the circuit court to have possession restored to him. There is certainly no hardship in this rule, since the appellant is liable- for those costs in any event. The law affords him a remedy to reimburse himself by collecting them out of the opposite party on execution, if he is able to do so. It is, therefore, no hardship for him to pay the clerk’s fees, if he wants the cause remitted for any purpose.

The motion for a writ of restitution is denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.27


                           OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                                 2000 STOCK PLAN

                             STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

     Oplink Communications, Inc. (the "Company") hereby grants an option to
purchase Shares of its Common Stock to the optionee named below on the terms and
conditions set forth in this cover sheet and the Company's 2000 Stock Plan
attached hereto (together, the "Stock Option Agreement"):

     Grant Number:                            200001026

     Optionee ID:                             1504

     Date of Grant:                           1l/7/2001

     Vesting Commencement Date:               1l/1/2001

     Exercise Price Per Share:                $1.25

     Total Number of Shares Granted:          500,000

     Type of Option:                          Incentive Stock Option

     Expiration Date:                         11/7/2011

Exercise Schedule:

     The option granted hereunder may be exercised, in whole or in part, based
on the vesting schedule as set forth below.

     Twenty-five percent (25%) of the Option shall vest on the one year
anniversary of the Vesting Commencement Date and an additional 1/48th of the
Option shall vest at the end of each full month thereafter, provided, however,
In the event of a "Change of Control" (based on the definition set forth in that
certain Employment Offer Letter dated October 15, 2001, by and between you and
the Company (the "Employment Offer Letter")) or if you are terminated without a
"Cause" (as defined in the Employment Offer Letter) within the first year of
your employment with the Company, the vesting of one-fourth ( 1/4th) of your
Option shall be accelerated immediately upon the Closing of the Change of
Control or Termination without cause.

     By signing this cover sheet, you agree that this Stock Option Agreement is
subject to the terms and conditions of this cover sheet and the 2000 Stock Plan
which is attached hereto and made a part of this document.

OPTIONEE:                             Oplink Communications, Inc.
                                      A Delaware corporation


/s/ Zee Hakimoglu                 By: /s/ Frederick Fromm
-----------------------------         --------------------------------------
Zee Hakimoglu                         Mr. Frederick Fromm, President and CEO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0248

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DILLON PATRICK PIERCE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 18, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 14 2023

08/14/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0248
<PAGE>

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints George L. Lippe, Robert E. Sulentic, Derek R. McClain and William
P. Leiser the true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to
sign on his behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of
Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999,
and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney or
attorney-in-fact, each of them with or without the others, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming
all that said attorney or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their substitute
or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



                                        /s/ J. McDonald Williams
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       J. McDonald Williams
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to

press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 2 1

- B G

- 0 03

IN RE ANDREW F. OEHMAN

, ESQUIRE Respondent

. Board Docket No. 20

- BD

- 063 Bar Registration No. 51938 D DN: 155

- 20

BEFORE: Glickman and Thompson

, Associate Jud ges , and Ferren , Senior Judge

.

O R D E R (FILED

– January 21

, 2021 )

On consideration of the affidavit of Andrew F. Oehmann , wherein he consents to disbarment from the bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar Rule XI

, § 12 , which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this court, and the report and

recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

, it is

ORDERED that the said Andrew F. Oehmann is hereby d isbarred by con sent.

The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the court or upon written consent of the respondent.

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving him notice of the provisions of Rule XI, §§ 14 and 16, which set forth certain rights and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply therewith.

PER CURIAM
ORCKIT COMMUNICATIONS LTD.
                  SCHEDULE - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                       Three Years Ended December 31, 2002
                              (U.S. $ In thousands)



<TABLE>
                 Column A                     Column B        Column C       Column D          Column E
                                             Balance at      Additions                          Balance
                                            beginning of    charged to                         at end of
                                               period        expenses       Deductions          period
<S>                                              <C>            <C>            <C>               <C>
Allowance for doubtful accounts:
    Year ended December 31, 2002                  $ 549                        $ (466)             $ 83
                                                  =====                        ======              ====
    Year ended December 31, 2001                  $ 150         $ 399                             $ 549
                                                  =====         =====                             =====
    Year ended December 31, 2000                  $ 100          $ 50                             $ 150
                                                  =====          ====                             =====
</TABLE>


                                      F-29