alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Fw: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS Michael Stewart to: Tricia Crabtree 05/03/2010 01:42 PM Michael J. Stewart, Ph.D. Environmental Protection Specialist Health and Environmental Impacts Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (919) 541-7524 stewart.michael@epa.gov ----- Forwarded by Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/03/2010 01:42 PM -----

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi

_ R.

_ King@omb.eop.gov> To: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: James Hemby/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 05/03/2010 12:14 PM Subject: RE: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

2pm sounds pretty good! heidi -----Original Message----- From: Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 12:09 PM To: King, Heidi R. Cc: Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov ; Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov; Mathias.Scott@epamail.epa.gov Subject: RE: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS Heidi, Looks like most of the monitoring/implementation folks can be available after 2pm Thursday 5/6. Do you have a preferred time between say 2pm and 6pm? Chet

________________________________________ Richard A. "Chet" Wayland Director, Air Quality Assessment Division U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards (919) 541-4603

From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPACc: Lydia Wegman/RTP / U SEPA / U S @ E PA , M ichael Stewart/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, James Hemby/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Scott Mathias/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/30/2010 10:38 AM

Subject: RE: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

Chet, that sounds like a good idea. Thank you for suggesting it. Let me know if there is a time Thu 5/6 that works for your folks -- that looks like a good day on our calendars. Best regards, heidi -----Original Message----- From: Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:36 AM To: King, Heidi R. Cc: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov ; Stewart.Michael@epamail.epa.gov; Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov; Mathias.Scott@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Follow-up calls on SO2 NAAQS

Heidi, Thanks for the call today. With regards to next weeks follow-up call, it might be beneficial to have a first call on the science and standard aspects and then a second call on any monitoring/implementation questions. As you can imagine, the monitoring and implementation parts are complex. If that approach works for you, let me know and we can coordinate with you on the second call while Lydia's folks handle the first call. We'll obviously have everyone on both calls, but since my folks are more critical on the second call, we'd like to make sure we schedule around their schedules as much as we can. Let me know if you think this approach works for you. Thanks, Chet

________________________________________ Richard A. "Chet" Wayland Director, Air Quality Assessment Division U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards (919) 541-4603
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6933

LEONARD CARTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

T. FOWLKES, Director Law Library Sussex I

State Prison; PAUL CUMMINGS, Treatment Programs Supervisor; RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-00-701)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 15, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonard Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Leonard Carter appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. Carter’s case

was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised Carter that failure to file timely

objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of

a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this

warning, Carter failed to object to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Carter has waived appellate review by

failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense

with oral argument and deny Carter’s motion for appointment of

counsel because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2015316EN.01000102.xml

| 24.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 316/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7572 — OG Capital/Kem One Innovative Vinyls)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 316/02)

On 6 July 2015, 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 32015M7572. 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 32015M7572. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed September 8, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-990

Lower Tribunal No. K3000010

________________

Mario Cordoba,

Appellant,

vs.

Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services Division of Licensing,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the State of Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, Division of Licensing.

Mario Cordoba, in proper person.

Michael T. McGuckin, Senior Attorney (Tallahassee), for appellee.

Before SCALES, HENDON and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Eric Ramirez and LA Public Insurance Adjusters, Inc. v. Dick Law 

Firm, PLLC and Eric Dick

Appellate case numbers: 01-21-00392-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-30183

Trial court: 113th District Court of Harris County

Appellees, Dick Law Firm, PLLC and Eric Dick, have filed a motion for extension of 

time to file their motion for rehearing and motion for en banc reconsideration. The motion is 

granted, and the time to file appellees’ motion for rehearing and motion for en banc 

reconsideration is extended to November 15, 2022.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___________/s/ Julie Countiss___________________

Acting individually

Date: September 15, 2022
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No . FAA

- 20 16

- 3257 Directorate ID : 2015

- SW

- 072

- AD

Helicopter Model:

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 5 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason : The se actions are intended to detect delaminated engine mount bushings, which can lead

to excessive vibration, cracking, failure of the engine mount front support pins, and loss of
helicopter control.

Costs : We estimate that labor costs average $85 per work hour. Based on this estimate, we e xpect the following costs:

• Inspecting the bushings require s 1 work hour. No parts are needed, for a total cost of $85 per helicopter and $425 for the U.S. fleet.

• Replacing a bushing require s 1 work hour and $373 for parts, for a total cost of $458
per bush ing

.

Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  )

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  )

Regulatory Flexibility Act :
Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?
Yes ( ) No (  )

Project Engineer : Matt Fuller
A. G., A CHILD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1975

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 1, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Henry E. Davis, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Archie F. Gardner, Jr., Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
"^ocY^ 1^V('©1^^^ 

Robert T. Tad Perry 

State Representative 

2312 Whispering Shores Dr. Phone: 605-222-7437 

Ft. Pierre, SD 57532 

October 13, 2011 

- ^ ^—f—>— ^ 

r. i::;::jfjrn 

Mr. Dennis Devaney Q 3?^ ^ 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division c^ ^O O 

Department of Transportation £0"^" 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE ^ 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Devaney, 

I write to ask your assistance in retaining east bound air transportation for Pierre, SD. 

As the head of the university system for fifteen years, I can attest to the need for this 

service. We regularly had consultants and colleagues who would come to Pierre to meet 

vvith system staff, as well as the travel the staff did to Minneapolis and Washington, D.C. 

Haivng to travel by car to another airport with east bound service will result in a lost day 

of work for every trip or will cost an additional day of consultant pay. This can become 

very expansive when you consider consultant fees that start at $ 1,500 and go as high as 

$5,000 per day. Staff time and travel costs can run between $500 to 1,500 per day. 

In my current role as a state legislator, it is unthinkable of what the cost will be to have 

individuals who come to work with the legislature travel 6 hours by car in the dead of 

winter because they cannot get a flight to Pierre. Most of these persons come from east 

of the state. 

I hope you will give serious thought to the east bound air traffic needs of state 

administrative agencies and the state legislature. 

or your consideration. 

irry 

State Representative, District 24
[KNOLLL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LETTERHEAD]

November 14, 1996


Phillip F. Whalen, Jr.
Post Office Box 7507
Menlo Park, California 94026-7507

Dear Phillip:

     I would like to extend an offer to you to join Thinking Tools Inc. as
President, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Director reporting to the Board of
Directors.

     Your compensation will include:

[bullet] a salary of $175,000 per year plus a bonus (a minimum of $75,000 if
         you meet your target) to be determined by the compensation committee
         of the Board once your formal business plan for 1997 has been approved

[bullet] the benefits available to all other employees of Thinking Tools

[bullet] an option under the company's ISO plan to purchase 230,000 shares (in
         the ISO plan) at $7.65 per share, vesting over three years (1/3 on the
         first anniversary of employment and monthly thereafter)

[bullet] an option to purchase 150,000 shares (outside of the ISO plan) at $9 a
         share, such option available only if and when the stock reaches $20
         per share for 20-consecutive trading days or after three years from
         the date of employment. In addition, an option to purchase 50,000
         shares at $9 when the stock reaches $30 per share for 20-consecutive
         trading days or after three years from the date of employment.

     Both options are subject to a two-year lockup from the day of employment by
Barington Capital and will vest immediately upon the sale of the company. Pari
passu registration rights to Thinking Technologies, L.P. and John Hiles combined
will be offered subject to underwriter cutbacks in the event of a secondary
offer.

<PAGE>

         All options not exercised expire upon termination of employment.

[bullet] a severance package of 6-month's salary and insurance coverage in the
         event that you get dismissed from your position for any reason other
         then cause. You will have 30 days to exercise any vested options at
         the time of termination.

     If this offer is acceptable to you, please sign below. Formal documentation
will follow.

     I am extremely positive about your involvement with Thinking Tools. I look
forward to working with you and John as partners in building a long-term
successful enterprise.

Your truly,


/s/ Fred Knoll
Fred Knoll

cc: John Hiles
    Carl Kleidman
    Susan Zelezny
    Tom Kelley

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

by: /s/ Phillip F. Whalen, Jr.
    Phillip F. Whalen, Jr.
    November 14, 1996
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 30, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 30, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0162. ROBERT CLARK v. PETER SKANDALAKIS, et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

NONE
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,UNITED STATES CODE)**

         Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Ocean West Holding Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies with respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of theCompany for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “10-Q Report”) that to his knowledge:

|   |             1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Actof 1934; and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |             2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Date: August 14, 2003

|   | /s/ MARSHALL L. STEWART |
|--------|-------------------------|
Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474 The Honorable Robert M. Summers Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Dear Secretary Summers:

On October 15, 2014, the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Maryland Department of the Environment. The SIP revision pe rtains to amendments to the control of gasoline and volatile organic compound storage and handling under CO MAR 26.11.13. EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking.

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Ms. Asrah Khadr, at (215) 814-2071. She is the principa l contact for this rulemaking.

Sincerely,

David Arnold, Acting Director

Air Protection Division

cc: George S. Aburn, MDE Brian Hug, MDE
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 22 - 00036 - CR LUCIO DELOSSANTOS - NARVAEZ , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 137th District Court Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No . DC - 2021 - CR - 0752 (Counts I & II) , Honorable John J. “ Trey

” McClendon III , Presiding 

### July 19 , 2022 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant Lucio Delossantos - Na r va ez appeals his convictions for continuous sexual abuse of a child 1 and indecency with a child. 2 The appellate record has been filed and Appellant’s brief is presently due July 21, 2022. Now pending before th is Court is the motion to withdraw of Appellant’s appointed counsel, Mike Brown . Brown requests that

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 21.02( b ). 2 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 21.11( a ) (1)
.2

we permit him to withdraw due to health is sues and to direct the trial court to appoint new counsel . We abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine (1) whether Appellant still desires to prosecute the appeal; (2) w hether to grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw ; and (3) whether Appellant is indigent and entitled to appointment of new counsel. See T EX . C ODE C RIM P ROC . A NN . art. 1.051(d)(1), 26.04; T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(g). If the trial court grants the mo tion to withdraw and appoint s Appellant new counsel , the name, address, email address, phone number, and state bar number of any newly appointed counsel shall be included in the Court’s findings. The trial court may also enter such orders necessary to add ress the aforementioned questions. The trial court’s findings and any orders issued shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record filed with this C ourt by August 18 , 2022. It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish.
Western Global Airlines, LLC 5566 Broadcast Court Sarasota, FL 34620 MayS, 2014 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 NewJersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590 Subject: Request for Exemption to 14CFR 121.434(3) (c) (1) (ii)
Dear U.S. Department ofTransportation Western Global Airlines, LLC ("WGA") is requesting and exemption to 14 CFR 121.434(3) (c) (1) 

### (ii), the requirement for a Pilot in Command completing initial or upgrade training to be observed by a Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Inspector during at least one flight leg which includes takeoffand landing, during the Operating Experience as specified by 14 CFR 121.434. WGA is requesting the FAA to permitWGA to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place ofa FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command who is completing the initial or upgrade training specified in Section 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes atakeoffand a landing. WGA's business is predominantly engaged in international flying. Requiring a FAA inspectorto conduct the observation would result in a substantial burden on both the FAA and WGA due to the thirty day lead time required for an FAA Inspectorto obtain foreign country clearance. WGA proposes three check airmen be designated this authority. Granting this exemption is in the public interest in that it allows the FAA to utilize Inspectors for more immediate needs and should also provide financial savings in avoiding FAA inspector travel expense. WGA appreciates your consideration ofthis request. Sincerely,

# ~!P Vice President, Operations

### DocketNO.: FAAPetitioner: Western Global Airlines, LLC Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 121.434 (3) (c) (1) 

### (ii). Description ofReliefSought/Disposition: Topermit Western Global Airline, LLC to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman inplace ofa FederalAviationAdministration inspectorto observe a qualifyingpilot in commandwho is completingthe initial orupgradetraining specifiedin section: 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoffand a landing. Grant, (Date), ExemptionNO. (TBD)
# C_2016292EN.01000101.xml

| 12.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 292/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 292/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7947 — Banco Santander Totta/Banif)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 292/01)

On 7 July 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 the 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 32016M7947. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7947. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---