alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17736]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

June 24, 1998.
TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Thursday, July 9, 1998.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

STATUS: Open.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Commission shall consider and act upon 
the following:
    1. Secretary of Labor v. Lafarge Construction Materials, Docket 
Nos. LAKE 95-114-RM, etc. (Issues include whether the judge correctly 
determined that (a) Lafarge committed a violation of 30 C.F.R. 
Sec. 56.16002(a)(1), (b) the violation was the result of Lafarge's 
unwarrantable failure, and (c) a foreman is personally liable under 
section 110(c) of the Mine Act.
    Any person attending the meeting who requires special accessibility 
features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, 
must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 
C.F.R. Sec. 2706.150(a)(3) and Sec. 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFOR: Jean Ellen, (202) 653-5629/(202) 708-
9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
Jean H., Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 98-17736 Filed 6-29-98; 4:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
# Non Surge Items

# Non Covered Surge Items

# Covered Surge Items

# Sheet1
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18045]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)


Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
following meeting of the SAMHSA Special Emphasis Panel II in July 1998.
    A summary of the meeting may be obtained from: Ms. Dee Herman, 
Committee Management Liaison, SAMHSA, Office of Program Planning and 
Coordination (OPPC), Division of Extramural Activities, Policy, and 
Review, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17-89, Rockville, Maryland 20857. 
Telephone: (301) 443-7390.
    Substantive program information may be obtained from the individual 
named as Contact for the meeting listed below.
    The meeting will include the review, discussion and evaluation of 
individual contract proposals. These discussions could reveal personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals and 
confidential and financial information about an individual's proposal. 
The discussion may also reveal information about procurement activities 
exempt from disclosure by statute and trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information obtained from a person and privileged and 
confidential. Accordingly, the meeting is concerned with matters exempt 
from mandatory disclosure in Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), and (6) 
and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Sec. 10(d).

    Committee Name: SAMHSA Special Emphasis Panel II.
    Meeting Date: July 20-22, 1998.
    Place: Holiday Inn--Chevy Chase, Terrace Room, 5520 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.
    Closed: July 20-21, 1998, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; July 22, 1998, 
9:00 a.m.-adjournment.
    Contact: Michael Koscinski, Review Administrator, Room 17-89, 
Parklawn Building, Telephone: (301) 443-3042 and FAX: (301) 443-
3437.

    Dated: July 1, 1998.
Jeri Lipov,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18045 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
No. 10-596.

#### Faye Coffield, et al., Petitioners v. Brian Kemp.

562 U.S. 1179, 131 S. Ct. 1002,

178 L. Ed. 2d 827,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 748.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 599 F.3d 1276.
No. 10-5653.

#### Robert Richards, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1181, 131 S. Ct. 994,

178 L. Ed. 2d 831,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 859.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 363 Fed. Appx. 729.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              49
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      426
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         27
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   570
<PP&E>                                           1,576
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              397
<BONDS>                                          1,054
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           365
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,870
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   385
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  78
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    121
<INCOME-TAX>                                        47
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 73
<DISCONTINUED>                                      61
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the Consolidated Financial Statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
BEFORE THE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

DOCKET ID NO. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1042 

In Re:

EPA’S SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSAL: NESHAP RISK AND TECHNOLOGY REVIEW FOR 

THE MINERAL WOOL AND WOOL FIBERGLASS INDUSTRIES; NESHAP FOR WOOL 

FIBERGLASS AREA SOURCES

COMMENTS OF THE

NORTH AMERICAN INSULATION

MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

ON BEHALF OF

THE WOOL FIBER GLASS MANUFACTURERS

Angus E. Crane (Contact Person) 

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

Christopher C. Martin Granta Y. Nakayama

Assistant Legal Counsel Joseph A. Eisert 

NAIMA Kirkland & Ellis LLP

11 Canal Center Plaza, #103 655 15th Street, N.W.

Alexandria, VA 22314 Washington, D.C. 20005 

(703) 684-0084 

acrane@naima.org 

January 14, 2015
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2969 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1401 1st Street North in Winter Haven, Florida, as the ‘‘Althea Margaret Daily Mills Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2969 EH

1 SECTION 1. ALTHEA MARGARET DAILY MILLS POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 1401 1st Street North in Winter 

5 Haven, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Al6 thea Margaret Daily Mills Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Althea Margaret Daily 

11 Mills Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2969 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostDaily Mills Post Office Building’’. Winter Haven, Florida, as the ‘‘Althea Margaret al Service located at 1401 1st Street North in
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WALLACE CLAYTON STEWART, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-191

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed May 17, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardee

County; Marcus J. Ezelle, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Ama N. Appiah, Special Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and David Campbell, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa,

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7198

WILLIAM A. MACGUIRE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STERLING PROFFITT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-735-R)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William A. MacGuire, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Eckert Phillips,

TUCKER & ASSOCIATES, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. MacGuire v. Proffitt, No. CA-95-735-R (W.D. Va. July 25,

1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37136-37137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18253]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR Sec. 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. Robert 
Odabashian, et al. was lodged with the United States District Court for 
the Western District of Tennessee on June 19, 1998 (95-2361 G/Bre). The 
United States filed a First Amended Complaint pursuant to Section 107 
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA''), as amended, against five 
defendants. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants are 
liable under Section 107 of CERCLA for costs incurred by the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency during a cleanup of the Pulvair 
Corporation Superfund Site in Millington, Tennessee. Chevron Chemical 
Company, Kincaid Enterprises, and Universal Cooperatives, Inc. 
subsequently filed a third party complaint against E.I. DuPont De 
Nemours & Co. (``DuPont''), among others. The proposed Consent Decree 
settles the liability of DuPont. Under the Consent Decree, DuPont 
agrees to reimburse the United States in the amount of $75,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044; and 
refer to United States v. Robert Odabashian, et al., DOJ Ref. #90-11-3-
1474.
    The proposed settlement agreement may be examined at the Office of 
the United States Attorney, Suite 410, 200 Jefferson Avenue, Memphis, 
TN 38103, and at the office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA 30303; and at the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 
(202) 624-0892. A copy of the

[[Page 37137]]

proposed Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 
20005. In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and 
enclose a check in the amount of $4.25 (25 cents per page reproduction 
costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 98-18253 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Exhibit
31.2





CERTIFICATIONS





I, Daniel
L Johnston:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Able Energy Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:





a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the 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
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





November
13, 2008





/s/
      Daniel L. Johnston
              Daniel L. Johnston
              Chief Financial
Officer
Approved DLMS Change 53 

Revision to DLMS Supplement (DS)

869F, Requisition Follow-up

1. ORIGINATOR:

Sponsor: Supply Process Review Committee, Ellen Hilert, Co-Chair, DLA J673, 

Defense Logistics Management Standards Office (DLMSO), 703-767-0676 (DSN 427), 

ellen_hilert@hq.dla.mil

2. FUNCTIONAL AREA: Supply

3. REQUESTED CHANGE:

a. Title: Revision to DS 869F, Requisition Follow-up

b. Description of Change: This change modifies the DS to remove an incorrect 

data requirement that may cause valid requisition follow-up transactions to fail. 

c. Procedures: Revise DLMS Supplements as indicated. 

# Location Revision Reason Federal IC 

1 2/QTY/80 Remove “must use” designation at segment 

level. 

The IC/DS incorrectly indicates that 

the QTY is a “must use” segment. 

This is not the intent and is not 

consistent with the notes. By intent, 

the QTY is not required for the HL 

address loop, which is the first 

iteration of the HL.

Remove 

“must use” 

designation. 

Requires a 

Federal IC 

change prior 

to DS 

update.

d. Alternatives: None identified.

4. REASON FOR CHANGE: The QTY segment is not required when the 

hierarchical loop relates address information. However, the guidance inadvertently 

assigns a “must use” designation for the segment level indicating it is always required. 

5. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES:

a. Advantages: Supports DLMS implementation.

b. Disadvantages: None identified.
6. IMPACT: 

a. Publications. Corresponding Federal IC.

b. DAAS DLMS/DLSS conversion maps will be updated as required.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Strange, Petitioner,*

No. 91940-2.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45607-9-II, June 23, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 679. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2887 

To include nonprofit and volunteer ground and air ambulance crew members 

and first responders for certain benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2019 

Mr. ZELDIN (for himself and Mr. SUOZZI) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To include nonprofit and volunteer ground and air ambulance 

crew members and first responders for certain benefits. 

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 ‘‘Emergency Medical 

5 Service Providers Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY. 

7 Section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 

8 and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284) is amend9 ed— 

10 (1) in paragraph (7) to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2887 IH

1 ‘‘(7) ‘member of a rescue squad or ambulance 

2 crew’ means an officially recognized or designated 

3 employee or volunteer member of a rescue squad or 

4 ambulance crew (including a ground or air ambu5 lance service) that— 

6 ‘‘(A) is a public agency; or 

7 ‘‘(B) is (or is a part of) a nonprofit or pri8 vate, for-profit entity serving the public that is 

9 officially authorized or licensed to engage in 

10 rescue activity or to provide emergency medical 

11 services; and 

12 ‘‘(i) engages in rescue activities or 

13 provides emergency medical services as 

14 part of an official emergency response sys15 tem; or 

16 ‘‘(ii) is officially designated as a pre17 hospital emergency medical response agen18 cy;’’; and 

19 (2) in paragraph (9), by inserting after ‘‘and by 

20 the applicable agency or entity’’ the following: ‘‘(and 

21 as designated by such agency or entity)’’. 

22 SEC. 3. OFFSET. 

23 Of the unobligated balances available under the De24 partment of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund, $12,000,000 

25 are permanently cancelled. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2887 IH

1 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 The amendments made by section 2 shall apply only 

3 to injuries sustained on or after March 1, 2007, and shall 

4 take effect beginning on the date that is 90 days after 

5 the date of enactment of this Act. Any person who had 

6 made an application under part L of title I of the Omnibus 

7 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and whose 

8 application was denied by reason of the date an injury was 

9 sustained may reapply. 

10 SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. 

11 Section 1086(d)(2)(A) of the National Defense Au12 thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112– 

13 239) is amended by striking ‘‘June 1, 2009’’ and inserting 

14 ‘‘March 25, 2007’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
**Technologies Formulation and Cure Data** **CBI CBI**  y Wood formulation n y Aliphatic Wood Coatingsn y N Y N 2 Component Polyurethane Elastomeric Coatings - 100% solids (End use applications may include Truckbed linings, Elastomeric Concrete coatings, etc.) Aliphatic Spray Elastomer System N Y
High Build MCU Y y y Iron Oxide Intermediate Coating Y

y Waterborne PU Topcoat

n 2-Component Polyurethane Solventborne Coating (End use applications may include Automotive Refinish, Wood Coating, Industrial Finishing, etc.)

n

1 Component Polyurethane Solventborne Coatings (End use applications may include Corrosion protection, Concrete, Metal, etc.) 2 Component Polyurethane Waterborne Coating (End use applications may include Floor coatings, Wood coatings, Plastic coatings, Concrete coatings, etc.) Wood and Furniture Coatings ChemistryOfPolyurethaneCoatings Green Chemistry Challenge 2K Waterborne Brochure **Structure/Chemistry and/or Literature**

Thick Film Coatings

ChemistryOfPolyurethaneCoatings n

n ChemistryOfPolyurethaneCoatingsy
n
n 1 Component Moisture Cure Urethane Sealants and 2 Component Polyurea Sealants (End use applications may include Construction sealants, etc.) y n Silane Terminated Polyether Sealants (End use applications may include Construction sealants, Wood adhesives, etc.) N/A (no isocyanate reaction during cure) y

y

n

y y n n Ultraviolet Light Cure (End use applications may include Plastic Coatings, Metal Finishing, WoodN/A (no isocyanate reaction during cure) n y

Ultraviolet Light Dual Cure (End Use applications may include Plastic Coatings, Metal Finishing, Wood Coatings,

etc.) Dual Cure Y

N/A (no chemical reaction during cure because no isocyanates) 1 Component Polyurethane Dispersions for Waterborne Coatings (End use applications may include Glass Fiber Sizing, Concrete, Wood, Plastic and Textile Coatings)

Isocyanate Terminated Prepolymer (End Use applications may include Adhesives, Wood Adhesives, etc.) ChemistryOfPolyurethaneCoatings

ChemistryOfPolyurethaneCoatings ChemistryOfPolyurethaneCoatings

ChemistryOfPolyureth aneCoatings
ChemistryOfPolyurethaneCoatings

Waterborne Ultraviolet Light Cure (End use applications may include Plastic Coatings, Metal Finishing, Wood Coatings,

etc.) N/A (no isocyanate reaction during cure)NOT CBI - External Article on IsocyanatekineticsCBI Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
No. 10-7092.

#### Billy Ray Irick, Petitioner v. Tennessee.

562 U.S. 1145, 131 S. Ct. 916,

178 L. Ed. 2d 765,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 101.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Middle Division, denied.

Same case below, 320 S.W.3d 284.