alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 30, 2008 

Dear Owner/Resident: 

A Lead Based Paint (LBP) assessment was recently performed on your property by the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as part of the Omaha Lead Superfund Site 

investigation. The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether a significant quantity of 

lead based paint is present on the exterior surface of structures, where deteriorating paint 

conditions (peeling, flaking, cracking, etc.) exist that might increase lead concentrations in the 

yard above acceptable levels. 

As requested, enclosed are the LBP assessment sheets for 2620 N 19 ST along with a LBP 

Fact Sheet. The EPA is currently developing paint stabilization eligibility criteria and at this 

time can not identify which homes will ultimately be eligible for EPA-funded paint 

stabilization. At present, paint stabilization is being offered at only those households with the 

most severe LPB problems, particularly where children under the age of 7 reside. The EPA 

stresses the importance of maintaining painted surfaces where any amount of LBP is present. 

The LBP Fact Sheet provides information pertaining to the EPA’s Exterior LBP Response 

Program. Once the eligibility criterion is finalized (and if your property qualifies) a 

representative from EPA or the Omaha Lead Hazard Control Program (LHCP) will contact you 

to arrange for paint stabilization at your property. 

Exposure to lead contamination can adversely affect the development and behavior of 

young children. If you have children less than seven years of age living in your home, we 

strongly recommend that you contact your doctor or the Douglas County Health Department at 

(402) 444-7825 and arrange to have their blood tested. 

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the EPA Public Information Center 

at (402) 731-3045. 

Sincerely, 

Steve M Langum 

Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 6601 College Blvd. Overland Park, KS 66211 USA Telephone: 913-458-2900 
Omaha Lead Site LBP Assessment I111l111111IIIII IIIII IIIII 1111 1111 29422
 - Samples Analyzed 

LEGEND: H - N - P - 01 - 12345 


--Sample Number 

Date: 0 Time: 2) 

- -6VID Number 


I- XRF unit: \ ~wk:151 


Sample Number Concentration StructurelFeature Substrate Color Deteriorated 

(Window, siding, porch, etc.) wood, concrete, etc.) Area 

-1 -d-
P - 05 - 29422 

i- - P - Q7 29422 


4 - - P - 08 - 29422 


H --- P - I1 29422 

- - 

- - 

- - 

- - 

- - 

- - 

- - 

- - 

-ID Number 

----Sample Number XRF Unit: [ ~ook [%( - Material. P = Parnt Date: 7//0/07 Time iO!3. 

----Sde of Structure N = North S = South E = East W = West 


- - Structure Type H = House G = Garage S = Shed F = Fence 


Sample Number Lead Loading StructureIFeature Substrate Color Deterioratec 

(Window, siding, porch, etc.) (Wood, concrete, etc.) Area 

k -5- P ­a-
 29422 

-- P - - 29422 


-- P - - 29422 


-- P - - 29422 


-- P - - 29422 


-- P - - 29422 


--P - - 29422 


--P - - 29422 


--- - P - - 29422 


-
 --- P - - 29422 


--P - - 29422 


- --- P - - 29422 


............... 


LBP-I 044701 Of I 
 I
# C_2021040EN.01000401.xml

| 5.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 40/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 40/4

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant positions at its meeting on 23 September 2020 at 10:30-13:00 (CEST (1)) concerning a draft decision in Case AT.40299 – Closure Systems

Rapporteur: Slovenia

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 40/04)

1.

The Advisory Committee (8 Member States) agrees with the Commission that both sets of conduct covered by the draft decision constitute two separate single and continuous infringements consisting of anticompetitive agreements and/or concerted practices between undertakings with the object to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment of the product and geographic scope for the single and continuous infringements contained in the draft decision.

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's assessment as regards the duration of the infringements.

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's draft decision as regards the addressees in respect of the infringements.

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the infringements should be ordered to be brought to an end and that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision for the infringements in which they were involved.

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the calculation of the fines, based on the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003.

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the reduction of the fines based on the 2006 Leniency Notice and the 2008 Settlement Notice.

8.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fine.

9.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---

(1)  Central European Summer Time (i.e. Brussels time).

1

---
KELLOGG SALES CO. v. Kimberly BALTIMORE

1150117

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 10, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 10252]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object to be included in the ongoing exhibition “Alberto Savinio,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also                               ( print page 1092)                            determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit object at the Center for Italian Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about January 11, 2018, until on or about May 30, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elliot Chiu in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of December 11, 2015). I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Alyson Grunder,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2018-00171 Filed 1-8-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Chris FOSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3103

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

Chris Foster, Crawfordville, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Chris Foster appeals the summary denial of Grounds One, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve of his amended motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. After careful consideration, we affirm the summary denial of Grounds One, Seven, Eight, Ten, and Twelve without further discussion.

In Grounds Six and Eleven, Foster alleges that ineffective assistance of counsel prejudiced him and claims that he pled guilty to Count III, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, based on the advice of counsel, despite the fact that the State had filed an amended information which did not include that charge. The State asserted that its intention was to simply sever that charge for a later trial; however, amending an information by deleting a charge has the same legal effect as entering a nolle prosequi. *See**State v. Belton* , 468 So.2d 495, 497 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Foster claims that if counsel had advised him that the State dropped Count III, he would not have stopped his trial nor pled guilty to that count.

In the plea colloquy, Foster acknowledges that he is pleading guilty to Count III; however, that does not sufficiently address what advice counsel provided and whether Foster relied on that advice to his *202detriment. Accordingly, we find that the documents attached to the order summarily denying Grounds Six and Eleven do not conclusively refute those grounds. We remand for the postconviction court to either attach records that conclusively refute those grounds or conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding Grounds Six and Eleven.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

PALMER, EVANDER, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7616

CLARENCE PERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-01-1050-AM)

Submitted: June 6, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Perry, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

The district court granted Perry’s motion to reopen the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), which permits a district

court to reopen the appeal period as long as the motion requesting

such relief is filed within 180 days after entry of the order or

seven days after “receiv[ing] notice of the entry, whichever is

earlier.” Because we must examine our jurisdiction sua sponte in

all cases, Snowden v. CheckPoint Check Cashing, 290 F.3d 631, 635

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 695 (2002), and it is unclear

whether Perry’s motion was filed within the requisite time period,

we remand. 

Here, the record is unclear as to when Perry received a copy

of the docket sheet on which the district court entered its order

denying his § 2254 petition. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7). Receipt

of the docket sheet provides adequate notice to open the seven-day

window in Rule 4(a)(6). See McDaniel v. Moore, 292 F.3d 1304, 1305

06 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 493 (2002). Because we

cannot determine on the record before us whether Perry received

notice on September 25, 2002, or on September 30, 2002, we remand

this case to the district court for the court to make a factual

finding as to when Perry received notice of the denial of his
3

§ 2254 petition. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned

to this court for further review.

REMANDED
Srinath SUBRAMANIAN, Appellant, v. Veena SUBRAMANIAN, Appellee.

No. 4D16-4262

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 15, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Sterling Drilling Fund 1984-1 second quarter 1999  10Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,942
<PP&E>                                       7,982,144
<DEPRECIATION>                              (7,037,475)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 978,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,287
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     966,324<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   978,611
<SALES>                                         77,256<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,256
<CGS>                                          118,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  118,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (41,357)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (3.91)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other-se includes total partners' equity.
<F2>Sales includes $912 of interest income.
<F3>The income allocated to the limited partners was divided by the
total limited partner units of 9,236.
</FN>


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15787-15788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7984]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Xino Corp. (n/k/a Asher Xino Corp.), Xstream 
Mobile Solutions Corp., Yellowbubble.com, Inc. (n/k/a Reality Racing, 
Inc.), Yes! Entertainment Corp., and Yifan Communications, Inc.; Order 
of Suspension of Trading

April 3, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Xino Corp. (n/k/a Asher Xino Corp.) because it has not filed any 
periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-QSB for the period ended 
September 30, 2002.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Xstream Mobile Solutions Corp. because it has not filed any periodic 
reports since it filed a Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 
2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Yellowbubble.com, Inc. (n/k/a Reality Racing, Inc.) because it has not 
filed any periodic reports since it filed a Form 10-QSB for the period 
ended March 31, 2001.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Yes! Entertainment Corp. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since it filed a Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 1998.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Yifan

[[Page 15788]]

Communications, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since it filed a Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT 
on April 3, 2009, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 17, 2009.

    By the Commission.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-7984 Filed 4-3-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE
### F OR P UBLICATION



## UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

C I N D Y 

### L E E 

### G A R

C I A 

### , Plaintiff-Appellant
,

v

.
G O O G L E 

### , I

N C 

### ., a Delaware Corporation; Y O U 

### T U B E 

### , L L C, a California limited liability company ,

Defendants-Appellees
,
and

N A K O U L A 

### B A S S E L E Y 

### N A K

O U L A 

### , an individual, AKA Sam B acile; M A R K 

### B A S S E L E Y 

### Y O U S S E F 

### ; A B A N O B 

### B A S S E L E Y 

### N A K

O U L A 

### ; M A T T H E W 

### N E K O L A 

### ; A H M E D 

### H A M D Y 

### ; A M A L 

### N A D A 

### ; D A

N I E L 

### K. C A R

E S M A N 

### ; K R I T B A G 

### D I F R

A T 

### ; S O B H I 

### B U S H R

A 

### ; R O B E R T 

### B A C I L Y 

### ; N I C O L

A 

### B A C I L Y 

### ; T H O M A S 

### J

. T A N A S 

### ; E R W I N 

### S A L A M E H 

### ; Y O U S S E F F 

### M. B A S S E L E Y 

### ; M A L I D 

### A H L

A W I 

### , Defendants

. N o. 12-57302

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08315- MW F -VB K

ORDER

F iled November 12, 2014

### G A R C I A V



### . G O O G L E 

### , I

N C



### . 2

ORDER

THOMAS, Circuit J udg e :
Upon the vote of a majority o f nonrecused active judg es, it is ordered that thi s c ase b e reheard en banc pursuant to F ederal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circu it Rule 35-3. The three-judg e p anel opinion shall not be c i t ed a s precedent by

or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

J udg e s W ardlaw, Owens and F riedland did not p articipate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
EX PARTE Richard Conway DOBBINS

1160017 (CR-15-0600)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Dominique EASLEY, Appellant, v. Wiley BROWN, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1885

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15764-15765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7747]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,141]


Seagate Technology, Bloomington, MN; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 5, 2009 in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Seagate 
Technology, Bloomington, Minnesota.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.


[[Page 15765]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of March 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-7747 Filed 4-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
**
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification of CFO Pursuant to**

**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with this Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of First Eagle Alternative Capital BDC, Inc.(the “Registrant”) for the year ended December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Terrence W. Olson, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, herebycertify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 theRegistrant. 

 

/s/ TERRENCE W. OLSON
Name: Terrence W. OlsonTitle: Chief Financial OfficerDate: December 1, 2020**
Jessie BRINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1723

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 4, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Silas KENDRICKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1137

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed October 4, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.