alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Statement of the Air and Radiat ion Management Administration Maryland Department of the Environment

For the Public Hearing Concerning the Implementation, Maintenance, and Enforcement of the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard State Implementation Plan Held on December 21, 2012

Good morning. My name is Tim Wallace. I am a Regulatory and Compliance Engineer of the Air Quality Planning Program of the Air and Radiation Management Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE).

This public hearing concerns Maryland's implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2008 75 ppb 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard State Implementation Plan.

This public hearing is being held pursuant to federal law found at 42 U. S. C. § 7410(a) and 40 CFR Parts 51.102 and 251. It is also being held in conformance with the State Administrative Procedure Act, under the State Government Article, beginning at Section 10-101.

Notice of this public hearing appeared on the Maryland Department of the Environment's website on November 14, 2012 and remained on the website until the date of today's hearing.

Copies of the notices will be submitted with the formal SIP submission package to the U.S. EPA.

Access to the proposed documents was made available via the website of the Maryland Department of the Environment. Hard copies we re also available at the Maryland Department of

the Environment.

The purpose of this hearing is to provide the public with an opportunity to formally comment on the proposed SIP document.

Summary of Proposed State Implementation Plan

The purpose of this document is to examine Maryland’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) and determine if all necessary implementation, maintenance, and enforcement measures for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) are in place. §110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act provides a detailed listing of various requirements for state implementation plans regarding the national ambient air quality standards. In this SIP document, each subparagraph from (A) through (M) is broken down, with various provisions supporting the requirements.

The MDE has verified its authority, through this document, to implement the NAAQS.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS2 The Department will consider all pertinent comments, and revise the proposed plan if necessary, before making a final decision to adopt the plan and submit it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval as a Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The comment period for this SIP ends by 5 pm today.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001065801
<NAME>                        DERMATOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Mar-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   May-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         36,900
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               36,900
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 36,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       200
<OTHER-SE>                                     31,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   36,900
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 128 (Monday, July 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17714]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[License No. 04/04-0273]


Capital Across America, L.P.; Notice of Issuance of a Small 
Business Investment Company License

    On April 21, 1998, an application was filed by Capital Across 
America, L.P., 414 Union Street, Suite 2025, Nashville, Tennessee 
37219, with the Small Business Administration (SBA) pursuant to Section 
107.300 of the Regulations governing small business investment 
companies (13 CFR 107.300 (1997)) for a license to operate as a small 
business investment company.
    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Section 301(c) of the 
Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, after having 
considered the application and all other pertinent information, SBA 
issued License No. 04/04-0273 on June 17, 1998, to Capital Across 
America, L.P. to operate as a small business investment company.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 59.011, Small 
Business Investment Companies)

    Dated: June 17, 1998.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 98-17714 Filed 7-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No. 10-7280.

#### Edward Staley, Petitioner v. Brian Owens, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1149, 131 S. Ct. 931,

178 L. Ed. 2d 774,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 455.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 367 Fed. Appx. 102.
No. 10-7495.

#### George E. Diegner, Petitioner v. Steve Franke, Superintendent, Two Rivers Correctional Institution.

562 U.S. 1185, 131 S. Ct. 1010,

178 L. Ed. 2d 838,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 776.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 392 Fed. Appx. 554.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited Balance Sheet and the unaudited Statement of Income filed as part of
the quarterly report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             865
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,279
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,454
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     17,186
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          17,186
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            17,186
<LOANS>                                         94,972
<ALLOWANCE>                                        879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,789
<DEPOSITS>                                     102,402
<SHORT-TERM>                                    12,457
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                716
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,625
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           511
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 128,789
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,904
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  664
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   238
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,806
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,813
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,260
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,546
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      355
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    716
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         716
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       450
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### *In re Det. of Stout,*

No. 91944-5.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71343-4-I, June 15, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 1017. *Denied*November 4, 2015.
Preliminary evaluation of aluminum content in childhood vaccines and risk of 

asthma in a Danish nationwide cohort

Prof. Anders Hviid, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, June 23, 2023 
Study cohort

• Born in Denmark 2009-2016

• Study start 1/1 2011; study end 12/31 2018

• Follow-up from 2 to 5-years-of-age

• Exposure and outcome data from nationwideregisters

• N=470,477 children

2
The Danish schedule

3

Danish schedule

3 mo.: DiTePeIPVHib1 + PCV1

5 mo.: DiTePeIPVHib2 + PCV2

12 mo.: DiTePeIPVHib3 + PCV3

15 mo.: MMR1

4 yrs: MMR2

5 yrs: DiTePeIPV booster

12 yrs: HPV1 and HPV2
Cumulative aluminium exposure

4
Asthma outcome definitions

• Hospital contacts, ICD-10 J45 (asthma), J46 (status asthmaticus), in- and 

outpatients 

• Community anti-asthmatics prescriptions: Inhaled corticosteroids (n=2), shortacting beta-agonists (n=3), montelukast (n=2), long-acting beta-agonists (n=1)

• Primary outcome: Hospitalization and/or anti-asthma drug use

• Exclusion criteria: Any prescriptions or hospitalizations before the age of 2.

• Date of outcome: First among the above events

5
Secondary outcomes - latent class analysis

Inpt. Outpt. SABA ICS LABA MON 

Cluster 1: ”Montelukast” 

6.5%

Cluster 2: ”SABA”

23.3%

Cluster 3: ”Hospitalization”

7.9%

Cluster 4: ”Inhaled corticosteroids +/- SABA”

62.3%

6

SABA: Short-acting beta agonist; LABA: Long-acting beta agonist; ICS: Inhaled corticosteroid; MON: Montelukast.
Cohort characteristics

7

Cumulative aluminum received by 2-yrs-of-age

KOEN: Sex; OPR: Mothers country of origin.
Main Results – Hosp. or anti-asthma medication

Table: Association between cumulative aluminum received through vaccines by age 2 and asthma by 

age 5 among 470477 Danish children born 2009 to 2016 and followed 2011 to 2018

Asthma cases1Person-years of follow-up Hazard ratio (95% CIs)2

0 mg 62 13,082.00 0.90 (0.68 to 1.19)

<2.25mg 327 65,167.16 1.00 (- to -)

2.25mg 446 78,643.45 1.07 (0.92 to 1.24)

>2.25mg-<3.375mg 1092 206,053.42 1.00 (0.88 to 1.14)

3.375mg 3096 597,727.75 0.98 (0.86 to 1.11)

>3.375mg 838 165,528.63 1.00 (0.84 to 1.18)

1

Hospitalization and/or anti-asthma prescription drug use

2

Adjusted for sex, year of birth, maternal country of origin, and MMR vaccination by age 2.

8

Aluminum
Main Results – Dose-response

9
Association between aluminum and asthma clusters 

10

Hazard Ratio* (95% CI)

* Adjusted for sex, year of birth, maternal country of origin, MMR vax before 2-yrs-of-age 

Comparing >3.375mg 

cumulative aluminum received

through vaccines by 2-yrs-of-age 

to <2.25mg 
Limitations

11

• Limited variability in cumulative aluminum

• Validity of using asthma diagnosis and antiasthma drug use before 5-yrs-of-age
Take-away

• No support for an association between 

aluminium in vaccines and asthma by 5-

yrs-of-age in Denmark

12
No. 10-7425.

#### Anthony Viserto, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1116, 131 S. Ct. 840,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9693.

178 L. Ed. 2d 570,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 391 Fed. Appx. 932.
# C_2014071EN.01003702.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/37

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 October 2013 — Moragrega Arroyo v Council

(Case F-49/13) (1)

(2014/C 71/75)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013, p. 20.

---
Exhibit 32.1

                            MICROPAC INDUSTRIES, INC.

                             CERTICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Micropac  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  February 24, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Mark  King,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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.


 /s/ Mark King
-------------------
Mark King, President and CEO
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Com. v. Long 20

05/10/2016

27 MAL (2016)

20

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 660
No. 10-6611.

#### Marvin Bryant, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 1049, 131 S. Ct. 609,

178 L. Ed. 2d 444,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8830.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 394 Ill. App. 3d 1101, 369 Ill. Dec. 92, 985 N.E.2d 1078.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18072]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD


Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted 
the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the 
Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.

Summary of Proposal(s)

    (1) Collection title: Earnings Information Request.
    (2) Form(s) submitted: G-19-F.
    (3) OMB Number: 3220-0184.
    (4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: 9/30/1998.
    (5) Type of request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    (6) Respondents: Individuals or households.
    (7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 1,500.
    (8) Total annual responses: 1,500.
    (9) Total annual reporting hours: 200.
    (10) Collection description: Under Section 2 of the Railroad 
Retirement Act, an annuity is not payable or is reduced for any 
month(s) in which the beneficiary works for a railroad or earns more 
than prescribed amounts. The collection obtains earnings information 
not previously or erroneously reported by a beneficiary.
    Additional Information or Comments: Copies of the form and 
supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency 
clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information 
collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement 
Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092 and the OMB 
reviewer, Laura Oliven (202-395-7316), Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-18072 Filed 7-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 130 (Wednesday, July 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 36883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18250]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND PLACE: 10:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 28, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference 
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Rule Enforcement Matter.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 98-18250 Filed 7-6-98; 2:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```
No. 10-7586.

#### Jackie Dewayne Blakey, Petitioner v. Missouri, et al.

562 U.S. 1155, 131 S. Ct. 951,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 418.

178 L. Ed. 2d 785,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 10-7865.

#### Diane Willis, Petitioner v. Ray Nagin, Mayor of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana, et al.

562 U.S. 1190, 131 S. Ct. 1023,

178 L. Ed. 2d 847,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 771.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 387 Fed. Appx. 473.
# C_2016038EN.01001301.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/13

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Jácint Gábor Balogh v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

(Case C-424/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 213 and 214 - Commencement of an activity not stated - Exemption scheme for small businesses - Penalty))

(2016/C 038/17)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Szekszárdi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jácint Gábor Balogh

Applicant:

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 213(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation requiring a taxable person to state when an economic activity commences where the proceeds of that activity do not exceed the threshold of the exemption scheme for small enterprises and the taxable person does not intend to carry out a taxable activity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 213(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation requiring a taxable person to state when an economic activity commences where the proceeds of that activity do not exceed the threshold of the exemption scheme for small enterprises and the taxable person does not intend to carry out a taxable activity.

| 2. | EU law must be interpreted as not precluding an administrative fine from penalising the failure by a taxable person to comply with his obligation to state when an economic activity commences where the proceeds of that activity do not exceed the threshold of the exemption scheme for small thresholds. It is for the referring court to assess whether, in the case in the main proceedings, the penalty imposed is in conformity with the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

EU law must be interpreted as not precluding an administrative fine from penalising the failure by a taxable person to comply with his obligation to state when an economic activity commences where the proceeds of that activity do not exceed the threshold of the exemption scheme for small thresholds. It is for the referring court to assess whether, in the case in the main proceedings, the penalty imposed is in conformity with the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the year
ending June-30-1997 10-K filing and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,416,801
<SECURITIES>                                10,706,782
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,163,830
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  8,201,875
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,819,899
<PP&E>                                      12,043,850
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,738,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,199,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          599,180
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       504,979
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,600,771
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,199,951
<SALES>                                     15,166,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,166,075
<CGS>                                       13,015,436
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,015,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,808,462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                867,223
<INCOME-TAX>                                   304,095
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            563,128
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   563,128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### *Finch et al., Petitioners, v. Thurston County et al., Respondents,*

No. 91761-2.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45792-0-II, March 24, 2015, 186 Wn. App. 1035. *Granted*September 30, 2015.