alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-71-2021]

On November 1, 2021, the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Swafford Warehousing, Inc., within FTZ 38, in Greer, South Carolina.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (86 FR 61756, November 8, 2021). On March 1, 2022, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including Section 400.14.                

Dated: March 1, 2022.

Andrew McGilvray,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-04609 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Home Inns & Hotels Management Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Jian Sun, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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



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

Date: April 18, 2008



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ David Jian Sun     
|Name:  |  | David Jian Sun         
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
# Официален вестник C 19A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0855
  doi:10.3000/19770855.CA2014.019.bul |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | C 19A |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Информация и известия | Година 5722 януари 2014 г. |

ISSN 1977-0855

doi:10.3000/19770855.CA2014.019.bul

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

C 19A

Издание на български език

Информация и известия

Година 5722 януари 2014 г.

---

| Известие No | Съдържание | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Становища |
| | АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ |
| | Европейска агенция по лекарствата |
| 2014/C 019A/01 | Съобщение за отмяна | 1 |

Известие No

Съдържание

Страница

V   Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Европейска агенция по лекарствата

2014/C 019A/01

Съобщение за отмяна

1

ПРЕГЛЕД НА БРОЕВЕТЕ НА ОВ СЕРИЯ С А КОНКУРСИ

По-долу е даден списък на броевете от серия С А, публикувани през настоящата година.

Освен ако не е посочено друго, броевете на ОВ са публикувани във всички езикови версии.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |

5

6

11

19

| BG | |
| --- | --- |

BG

---

V Становища

АДМИНИСТРАТИВНИ ПРОЦЕДУРИ

Европейска агенция по лекарствата

| 22.1.2014 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | CA 19/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2014

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

CA 19/1

---

Съобщение за отмяна

(2014/C 19 A/01)

Европейската агенция по лекарствата взе решение да отмени следните процедури по подбор:

| — | EMA/CA/S/039: Договорно нает персонал (краткосрочно), научни асистенти към Европейска мрежа за надзор на потреблението на антимикробни средства във ветеринарната медицина (ESVAC) (функционална група IV) (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/039: Договорно нает персонал (краткосрочно), научни асистенти към Европейска мрежа за надзор на потреблението на антимикробни средства във ветеринарната медицина (ESVAC) (функционална група IV) (1),

| — | EMA/CA/S/040: Договорно нает персонал (краткосрочно), Научен секретариат към Становища на Европейската комисия относно антимикробната резистентност, сектор „Ветеринарномедицински продукти“ (функционална група IV) (2). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/CA/S/040: Договорно нает персонал (краткосрочно), Научен секретариат към Становища на Европейската комисия относно антимикробната резистентност, сектор „Ветеринарномедицински продукти“ (функционална група IV) (2).

---

(1)  ОВ C 320 А, 6.11.2013 г., стр. 2.

(2)  Вж. бележка под линия 1.

---
Exhibit 10.3



Revocation of Authority of Attorney-In-Fact





WHEREAS, American Physicians Insurance Exchange ("APIE") and APS Facilities Management, Inc. ("APS FMI"), as successor to American Physicians Service Corporation, n/k/a American Physicians Service Group, Inc. ("APSG"), are parties to that certain Management Agreement of Attorney-in-Fact for American Physicians Insurance Exchange, as amended from time to time (the "Attorney-in-Fact Agreement"); and



WHEREAS, the Board of Directors, the Subscribers of APIE and the Texas Department of Insurance have approved a Plan of Conversion dated June 1, 2006, as amended, pursuant to which APIE will convert to a Texas stock insurance company to be known as American Physicans Insurance Company ("APIC"); and



WHEREAS, upon conversion of APIE to a Texas stock insurance company pursuant to the Plan of Conversion, APIE will no longer be managed by an attorney-in-fact; and



WHEREAS, APIE, APSG and APSG ACQCO, Inc. are parties to that certain Merger Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated June 1, 2006, as amended, pursuant to which, upon the effective time of the conversion, APSG ACQCO, Inc. shall merge with and into APIC, with APIC as the surviving entity, and thereafter APIC shall be a wholly-owned subsidiary of APSG; and



WHEREAS, APIE and APS FMI wish to revoke the attorney-in-fact powers delegated to APS FMI upon the effective time of the conversion of APIE;



NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties:



1.

Upon the effective time of the conversion of APIE from a Texas reciprocal insurance exchange into APIC, a Texas stock insurance company, all authority of APS FMI under and pursuant to such Attorney-in-Fact Agreement shall be revoked without further action by APIE or APS FMI.



[signature page to follow]



---

Signature Page for Revocation of Authority of Attorney-In-Fact







Executed this 22nd day of March, 2007.



APS Facilities Management, Inc.By:/s/ W.H. HayesName:W.H. HayesTitle:SecretaryAmerican Physicians Insurance ExchangeBy:/s/ Norris C. Knight, Jr.Name:Norris C. Knight, Jr.Title:Chairman








2
#### Hiram Campbell, Respondent, *v.*Alanson S. Page, President, etc., Appellant.

(Argued June 14, 1872;

decided June 20, 1872.)

This appeal presented for review an order denying a motion for a new trial, which motion was made upon the ground that the evidence did not support the verdict, and that the damages were excessive. Dismissed upon the ground that an appeal to this court from such an order does not lie.

*B. B. & G. AT. Burt*for the appellant.

*Samuel Hand*for the respondent.

Allen, J.,

reads for dismissal of appeal.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
NO. 07-10-0158-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D SEPTEMBER 2, 2010

__________________ ____________ MONICA SASHA JONES, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________ _____________ FROM THE 66 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HILL COUNTY; NO. 32,549; HON. F.B. (B OB) MCGREGOR, JR., PRESIDING

__________________ _____________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant Monica Sasha Jones appeals the judgment adj udicating her guilty of endangering a child. Through a single issue, she contends that she was denied due process when the trial court “re-reviewed the original presentence investigation report.” We affirm.Issue – Due Process Appellant contends that the trial court abused its di scretion and denied her due process when it reviewed a presentence inve stigation report (at the adjudication hearing) that was prepared five years earlier instead of orderi ng a new one. The record does not disclose where that objection or concern was contemporaneously brought to the attention of the tria l court, however, and this is problematic. To preserve a complaint for appellate revi ew, the complainant mu st object to the purported error. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (hol ding that failure to make an objection may waive constitutional error); Nunez v. State, 117 S.W.3d 309, 319 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (holding that the failure to time ly and specifically obj ect at trial may waive even constitutional rights). Furthermore, the objection must be made as soon as the ground for same becomes apparent. House v. State , 909 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex. App.– Houston [14th Dist.] 1995), aff’d , 947 S.W.2d 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Appellant did not comply with these directives here. The trial court expre ssly informed the litigants of its intent to “re-review the presentence invest igation” report. No objection was made by appellant. So, she failed to pr eserve the purported error. See Summers v. State , 942 S.W.2d 695, 696-97 (Tex. App.

– Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, no pet.) (holding that the appellant waived objection to the failure to order a PSI because the objection was not raised below). 1

1 To the extent that appellant’s issue could al so encompass the notion that she was denied opportunity to present evidence on punishment, we a gain note that no one raised that particular ground below. Thus, it too was waived. See Harris v. State , 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.

– Waco 2005, pet. dism’d). 23 Accordingly, we overrule her issue and a ffirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish.
From: Withey, Charlotte 

Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:57 AM

To: George Tsiolis

Cc: Nudd, Gregory; Webb, Thomas; McKaughan, Colleen; 'Giff, Jennifer'; 'Martz, Verle'; 'Lindsay, Brett'; 

Chen, Eugene

Subject: RE: Followup to November 14 Call Between SRPMIC, Phoenix Cement and EPA

George,

I’m!afraid!my!notes!on!our!Nov.!14!meeting!did!not!reflect!our!commitment!to!send!a!revised!cost!

analysis!– my!apologies!for!the!oversight.!

The!requested!analysis!is!attached.!Please!note!that!the!revisions!made!to!the!October!2012!analysis!

were!based!upon!PCC’s!previous!comments!to!EPA,!so!there!should!not!be!any!big!surprises!here.!

Please!contact!Eugene!Chen,!copied!on!this!email,!with!any!questions!on!this!analysis.!Eugene’s!phone!

number!is!415J947J4304.

Thanks,

Charlotte!

Charlotte!Withey

Office!of!Regional!Counsel

U.S.!EPA!Region!9

75!Hawthorne!Street

San!Francisco,!CA!94105

Tel:!(415)!972J3915

Fax:!(415)!947J3570

withey.charlotte@epa.gov

________________________________________

The!information!contained!in!this!message,!including!any!attachments!hereto,!may!be!privileged,!confidential!

and/or!exempt!from!disclosure!under!applicable!laws.!It!is!intended!for!the!recipient!only.!If!you!are!an!agency!

employee!or!consultant,!please!consult!with!the!sender!prior!to!disclosing!the!contents!of!this!message!to!third!

parties.!If!you!have!received!this!transmission!in!error,!please!notify!the!sender!by!reply!email!and!delete!the!

message!and!any!attachments.
#### JOHN R. HEARNE v. SOLOMON GILLETT.

SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS,

AUSTIN TERM, 1884.

Appeal from Robertson county.

On motion for rehearing —

Willie, C. J.

In overruling the motion for rehearing in this ease, it is proper to state that the opinion of the commissioners of appeals, in Smyth v. Veal (2 Texas Law Reporter 261), so much relied on to sustain the motion, was never adopted by this court.

The conclusions of the commissioners in affirming the cause were adopted, but tbis does not make the ease authority, at least so far as the grounds upon which the conclusion is reached are concerned-That part of the opinion relied upon by appellant does not seem to have received the sanction of the commissioners, and their decision is rested upon another point which is of no importance in the present case. '

*288We do not wish to be understood as dissenting from that portion of the opinion in Smyth v. Veal, referred to in the motion, or as passing upon it in any way whatever. It will be time enough to do that when a case requiring our decision upon the very question discussed in the opinion is presented.

In the present case the contract recited in the opinion bound Mrs. Hearne to convey to the parties under whom Gillett claims, all the right, claim and title which she might have to the land upon which the Kennedy certificate was originally located. She accordingly did make such a deed to the parties holding her obligation in this respect. The decision in this case rests upon that agreement. It being held, that a conveyance of all her claim, right and title to the land included the claim which she set up to it under the Kennedy certificate and location. There was no such feature in the Smyth v. Veal case, and hence it differs entirely from the present, and is in no view of the matter authority for any change in the opinion heretofore rendered. [The opinion will be found in volume 8, number 2, Texas Law Reporter on page 73. — EjdJ. The motiou is overruled.
# ·l!Y.~~J aediG3tedto goun!Kcess •

www.pulaskitech.edu August 8, 2016 U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Washington DC, 20590 SUBJECT: Request for extension ofexemption. Exemption No: 7926E Docket Number FAA-2002-13291 Dear Sir or Ma'am, . ;:\·

I request that an extension ofexemption 7926E be approved for my organization. The ability to test students upon the completion oftraining has greatly benefited their ability to succeed in their pursuit of FAA mechanics certification. In the past a student had to complete 12 months oftraining before being evaluated on the first 3 months ofthat training. Since the approval ofthis exemption the completion rate ofourcurriculum has continued

.to increase. The number ofstudents completing the entire maintenance training program has also increased. · With the implementation ofthis exemption, students are more confident and self reliant as to their ability to succeed in the program. Our exemption has benefited this program immensely. · I hopeto have our exemption extended another 2 years. Please contact me ifyou have any questions. Sincerely,

## ~"1~ Vince Gemmiti, Director ofAerospace Pulaski Technical College vgemmiti@pulaskitech.edu PH: (501) 835-5420 FX: (501) 834-7859

Aviation Maintenance fechnologlJ tenter**160~~west** Man'.jland 

### Me11ve North 

### little Rock AR 72i20 Phone 501-83•y5420 

### Fax 501·8w;a59
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                           12078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   241509
<ALLOWANCES>                                      7207
<INVENTORY>                                     113651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                365493
<PP&E>                                          208118
<DEPRECIATION>                                   67853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  752168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           323404
<BONDS>                                         163449
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                      187487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    752168
<SALES>                                         225127
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                225127
<CGS>                                           165153
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   165153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                5873
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (856)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (437)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (483)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (483)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.1


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


June 5, 2012


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Value Architects Equity Advantage
Trust, Series 1


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Value Architects Equity Advantage Trust, Series 1 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on June 5, 2012, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the
Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-181456) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO
CIPRIANO 


Vice President
#### Axel CRESPO-GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ana Maria Resendiz RAMIREZ; Ana L. Antonio Resendiz; Aurora E. Antonio Resendiz; United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-1428

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed June 23, 2017

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-01028-LTB) (D. Colorado)

Axel Crespo-Gutierrez, Pro Se

Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

*522ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge

Plaintiff Axel Crespo-Gutierrez, a Colorado prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissing his amended complaint. The amended complaint raised several claims against Ana Maria Resendiz Ramirez, her two daughters, and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. On appeal, however, Plaintiff challenges only the dismissal of his fraud and unjust-enrichment claims against Ms. Ramirez and her daughters. The district court ruled that the claims were untimely. Plaintiff complains that the district court failed to grant him equitable tolling to extend his time to file his complaint. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

The essence of the fraud and unjust-enrichment claims is that Ms. Ramirez, a Mexican citizen, misrepresented to Plaintiff that she was unmarried and thereby tricked him into marrying her so that she and her daughters could live legally in the United States. The four lived together as a family from 2000 until 2006. In January 2006, Ms. Ramirez revealed that she was legally married to a man in Mexico. Plaintiff asked her for a divorce, and a few months later he rescinded his sponsorship of the three women for naturalization.

Plaintiff does not dispute the district court’s rulings that his claims accrued in 2006, that the limitations period for both claims is three years, and that he did not file suit on the claims until 2016. He complains, however, that he should have been granted equitable tolling on his claims because he was not able to obtain official documentation of Ms. Ramirez’s marriage in Mexico until 2014 and because Ms. Ramirez and her daughters concealed their whereabouts from him.

The district court’s order denying Plaintiffs motion to reconsider thoroughly explains why he was not entitled to equitable tolling. We affirm its decision on the limitations issues for essentially the reasons stated in its opinion.

The judgment below is AFFIRMED. Mr. Crespo-Gutierrez’s motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*is DENIED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
December 16, 2009 Meeting with DuPont to Di scuss Proposed Sulfometuron Methyl RED

Amendments 9:00 am – 10:00 am

Attendees: Jack Cain (DuPont), Jim Tompkins (RD), Rusty Wasem (PRD)

The purpose of this meeting was for DuPont to discuss proposed label la nguage for sulfometuron methyl products. The Agency requested DuPont submit additional information and comments via email so the Agency may add them to the docket.