alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 07063 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 07063\07063_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

07063\07063_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 07063\07063_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 07063\07063_Part A (Version 1-3 of Database).xls Plant submitted survey file x 07063\07063_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 07063\07063_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 07063\07063_Part C (Version 1-3 of Database).xls Plant submitted survey file x 07063\07063_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 07063\07063_Part D (Version 1-3 of Database).xls Plant submitted survey file x 07063\07063_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 07063\07063_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

07063\Certification Statement Plant ID 07063.pdf Plant certification statement x 07063\Follow-up\Addl Information Request Letter_3_24_11.pdf Draft Questions for Follow Up x 07063\Follow-up\Follow-up Questions - Steam Electric Questionnaire (Plant 0.docx Draft Questions for Follow Up x 07063\Follow-up\Letter.docx Draft Questions for Follow Up x 07063\Follow-up\Revised Questionnaire Parts 3_24_11 Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 07063\Follow-up\Revised Questionnaire Parts 3_24_11\2011 3-23 Revised EPA ICR Part A

form - Plant# 0763.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 07063\Follow-up\Revised Questionnaire Parts 3_24_11\2011 3-23 Revised EPA ICR Part C

form - Plant# 0763.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

x 07063\Follow-up\Revised Questionnaire Parts 3_24_11\2011 3-23 Revised EPA ICR Part D

form - Plant# 0763.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up x 07063\Supplemental Documents\07063_BB_A5-2_Site plan.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 07063\Supplemental Documents\07063_BB_A5-3 Water Balance 2010.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 07063\Supplemental Documents\07063_BB_D3-1 Pond Diagrams.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

07063\07063_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### William S. Wright et al., Appellants, *v.*Samuel Booth et al., Respondents.

(Argued April 17, 1877;

decided April 27, 1877.)

This action was brought against defendants as directors of “ The Brooklyn Industrial Institute Company,” to recover a debt due from the corporation to plaintiffs, because of alleged failure to make, publish and file an annual report, as *621required by the general manufacturing act (chap. 40, Laws of 1848).

Said corporation was organized under and by special charter (chap. 493, Laws of 1873), with the powers and privileges conferred upon, and subject to the duties and liabilities imposed upon corporations, organized under the general laws. It is provided, however, in the charter (§ 8), that directors “ shall incur no personal liabilities beyond the amount of the capital stock held and owned by them respectively.” It was not alleged in the complaint that defendants were stockholders. The plaintiffs demurred to the answer. *Held,*that, if defendants were liable to any amount (as to which the court expressed no opinion), they were only liable for sums equal to the amount of the capital stock held and owned by them respectively; that the complaint was not framed to enforce such a liability, and there being no allegation therein that defendants were stockholders, there was no basis upon which an assessment against them could be made; and that plaintiffs, having demurred to the answer, whether it was sufficient or not, the judgment of the court upon the law of the case, as presented by the pleadings, was invoked, and that it was properly rendered against defendants.

*Charles H. Hodges,*for appellants.

*Geo. P. Sheldon,*for respondents.

*Per Curiam*

opinion for affirmance.

All concur; Miller, J., absent.

Judgment affirmed.
-  Home 
-  Registration 

# In This Section

                      -  Registration Overview 
                      -  Registration Information 
                      -  Registration Online 
                      -  Registration by Mail 
                      -  Registration International 

# FY 2020 Registration Program Summary Report

FY2020-Registration-Fee-Program-Summary-Final.pdf (190.46 KB)

FY 2020 Registration Program Summary Report

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
#### James O. Marshall *v.*William Clark et al.

The “Plea in Abatement” by the defendant Gail Marshall in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.

*660
      *Benjamin M. Ghapnick*and *Edward S. Snyder,*in support of the motion.

Submitted December 5, 1973

decided February 5, 1974
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News

51st FW soars with allies in CS23November 30, 2023 — U.S. Air Force pilots and maintainers assigned to the 51st Fighter Wing, Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea, participated in Commando Sling 23, a PACAF-sponsored field training exercise at Paya Lebar Air Base, Singapore, Nov. 6-24, 2023... MORE 

----

2024 (327)2023 (825)2022 (1193)2021 (1066)2020 (1083)2019 (1166)2018 (1116)2017 (1356)2016 (1475)2015 (1408)2014 (904)2013 (32)2012 (4)

About DoDDoD CareersJoin the MilitaryNewsUSA.govPhotos & VideosPrivacy & SecurityTop Issues

US INDOPACOM Inspector GeneralDoD Inspector General Accessibility/Section 508DoD FOIAUS INDOPACOM FOIALink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActRecovery ActINDOPACOM Webmaster

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - Instagram
                  - RSS

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
### §508. Effect of distribution other than under this title

If a creditor of a partnership debtor receives, from a general partner that is not a debtor in a case under chapter 7 of this title, payment of, or a transfer of property on account of, a claim that is allowed under this title and that is not secured by a lien on property of such partner, such creditor may not receive any payment under this title on account of such claim until each of the other holders of claims on account of which such holders are entitled to share equally with such creditor under this title has received payment under this title equal in value to the consideration received by such creditor from such general partner.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2585; Pub. L. 109–8, title VIII, §802(d)(7), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 146.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### legislative statements

Section 508(b) of the House amendment is new and provides an identical rule with respect to a creditor of a partnership who receives payment from a partner, to that of a creditor of a debtor who receives a payment in a foreign proceeding involving the debtor.

#### senate report no. 95–989

This section prohibits a creditor from receiving any distribution in the bankruptcy case if he has received payment of a portion of his claim in a foreign proceeding, until the other creditors in the bankruptcy case in this country that are entitled to share equally with that creditor have received as much as he has in the foreign proceeding.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2005—Pub. L. 109–8 designated subsec. (b) as entire section and struck out subsec. (a) which read as follows: "If a creditor receives, in a foreign proceeding, payment of, or a transfer of property on account of, a claim that is allowed under this title, such creditor may not receive any payment under this title on account of such claim until each of the other holders of claims on account of which such holders are entitled to share equally with such creditor under this title has received payment under this title equal in value to the consideration received by such creditor in such foreign proceeding."

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2005 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 109–8 effective 180 days after Apr. 20, 2005, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under this title before such effective date, except as otherwise provided, see section 1501 of Pub. L. 109–8, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
# C_2006165EN.01001602.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/16

---

Action brought on 4 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-201/06)

(2006/C 165/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that, by requiring that a parallel imported plant protection product and a reference product have a common origin, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by requiring that a parallel imported plant protection product and a reference product have a common origin, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

| — | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In France, the grant and continuation of an import authorisation in respect of parallel imports of plant protection products from another Member State where they are lawfully placed on the market are subject to the requirement that parallel imported plant protection products and reference products have a common origin.

This constitutes a restriction on the free movement of plant protection products that is incompatible with Article 28 EC, is not justified on grounds of the protection of public health, animal health or the environment and is disproportionate in relation to the goal to be achieved.

---
157 So.2d 214

#### Ex parte Kenneth BRAWLEY.

2 Div. 449.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 31, 1963.

Kenneth Brawley, pro se.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Owen Bridges, Asst. Atty.- Gen.; for the State.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This proceeding seems to be a petition filed by Kenneth Brawley in this Court for mandamus to require the judge of the Circuit Court of Sumter County, Alabama, to provide him with a stenographer’s transcript of his trial in that court. The State has filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds.

■ It is not easy to understand just exactly what the situation is but from the allegations of the document filed by Brawley it appears that he was convicted of second degree burglary in the Circuit Court of Sumter County on October 9, 1962, and that “On or about February 25, 1963 petitioner petitioned the trial court for a full and complete transcript of the records in case No. 6810, together with application .for leave to proceed in forma pauperis * * * ”. Petitioner further alleges that “On or about April 10, 1963, petitioner filed notice of appeal with motion to secure records without payment of cost. A copy was forwarded to the Alabama Court of Appeals at the same time. After hearing nothing from either Court for approximately two months, petitioner, on June 4, 1963, filed, as best he could without the records, an appeal with the Alabama Court of Appeals”. Petitioner says that up to the date of the filing of the document in this Court, August 27, 1963, he had heard nothing from either court and prays that this Court issue a writ of mandamus to the Circuit Court of Sumter County, Alabama, directing that court to send up the necessary records in case No. 6810, and if it deems proper to issue its writ of mandamus to the Alabama Court of Appeals directing it to render a decision in his appeal now pending before that court.

Evidently petitioner seeks a free transcript under Act. No. 62 of the 1961 Legislature (Tit. 15, § 380 [1] et seq., Code 1940). However, his petition shows on its face that he failed to make timely application for the transcript. Section 3 of the Act provides a time limit of not more than ten days after conviction, except in speci.fied circumstances not material here. King v. State, 41 Ala.App. 646, 148 So.2d 492. See also Ex parte Argo, 273 Ala. 128, 136 So.2d 187.

It may be also noted that for the same reason the petition is not well taken under Act #525, Regular Session of the Legislature, 1963.

. It follows that the motion of the State to dismiss the petition is well taken.

Petition dismissed.

LIVINGSTON,' C. j., and MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
§ 273.140 What is the funding formula to distribute funds? Funds will be distributed to contractors based upon a funding formula. The funding formula is calculated using data obtained by the Department of Education from the previous year. ( a ) The funding formula to determine the funding to be distributed to each contractor is the Weight Factor multiplied by the number of eligible Indian students, where the Weight Factor is: ( 1 ) The State average cost per pupil count divided by the national average cost per pupil count; or
( 2 ) A default weight factor of 1.3, if the calculation in paragraph (a)(1) of this section results in a weight factor of less than 1.3.
( b ) Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, Federal funds appropriated for the purpose will be allotted pro rata in accordance with the distribution method outlined in this formula.
( c ) For four fiscal years following the date of enactment of the JOM Modernization Act (December 31, 2018): ( 1 ) Existing contractors will not receive an amount that is less than the amount received for Fiscal Year 2018 (the fiscal year preceding the date of enactment of the JOM Modernization Act), unless: ( i ) The existing contractor fails to submit a complete annual report;
( ii ) The Secretary has found that the existing contractor has violated the terms of a contract under this part; or
( iii ) The number of eligible Indian students reported in the annual report has decreased below the number of eligible Indian students served by the existing contractor in Fiscal Year 2018 (the fiscal year preceding the date of enactment of the JOM Modernization Act).
( 2 ) Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section notwithstanding, no existing contractor will receive an amount of funding per eligible Indian student that is less than the amount of funding per eligible Indian student that the existing contractor received for Fiscal Year 2018 (the fiscal year preceding the enactment of the JOM Modernization Act).
( d ) Beginning December 31, 2022 (4 years after the December 31, 2018, date of enactment of the JOM Modernization Act), no contracting party will receive for a fiscal year more than a 10 percent decrease in funding per eligible Indian student from the previous year.
1

Filed 8/25/21 

## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE

, Plaintiff and Respondent

,

v. VINCE E. LEWIS

, Defendant and Appellant.

S 260598

Second Appellate District, Division One

B295998

Los Angeles County Superior Court

TA117431

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND

DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

THE COURT:

The opening sentence of the opinion in this matter filed July 26,

2021 , and appearing at 11 Cal. 5 th 952 , is modified to read as follows: Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015; Senate Bill 1437)
eliminated natural and probabl e consequences liability for murder as it applies to aiding and abetting

, and limited the scope of the felony murder

rule. This modification does not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 3 , 2012 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Mercedes M eeting with EP A R egarding Proposal for 2017 - 2025 L ig ht - Dut y (LD) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards FROM: Ed Nam, US EPA TO: EPA Docket # EPA - HQ - OAR - 2010 - 0799 This memo documents a meeting held on June 29 , 2012 between representatives of Mercedes and EPA to discuss Me rcedes’ comments on the LD GHG proposed rule . Mercedes distributed P owerpoint slides that contained confidential business information. Mercedes generally discussed the potential to add flexibilities in the rule consistent with their publicly submitted co mments. The meeting attendees included the following: Mercedes : Peter Oblander, Walter Puetz, Bill Craven, Pat Rahrer EPA : Chet France, Edward Nam
# C_2007034EN.01001101.xml

| 16.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/11

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS 2007

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

Programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 34/04)

The Executive Agency for the Public Health Programme is today launching the call for proposals ‘Public health — 2007’ within the framework of the Programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) (1).

1

The deadline for submission of proposals is 21 May 2007.

All the information, including the Commission Decision adopting the work plan for 2007 for implementation of the programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008), including the annual work programme for grants, and the Commission Decision laying down general principles and criteria for the selection and funding of actions under the Public Health Programme, are available on the website at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/phea

---

(1)  Decision No 1786/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 adopting a programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003-2008) — Commission Statements, (OJ L 271, 9.10.2002, p. 1).

1

---
# C_2006295EN.01002702.xml

| 5.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/27

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4370 — EBN/COGAS Energy)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/C 295/07)

On 28 September 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4370. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4370. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

  I, Brian Baker, certify that:

  1.I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
    required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
    10-K of the J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-C6
    (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

  2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
    whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other
    information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
    covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

  4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
    in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as
    disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
    fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all
    material respects; and

  5.All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
    asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment
    of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required
    to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB
    and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to
    this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
    instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in
    this report on Form 10-K.

  In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
  provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

  Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland Loan
  Services, Inc., a Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special
  Servicer, U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Wells Fargo Bank,
  National Association, as Certificate Administrator, Wells Fargo Bank, National
  Association, as Custodian, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as Senior Trust
  Advisor, Holliday Fenoglio Fowler, L.P., as Primary Servicer, CoreLogic
  Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., as Servicing Function Participant, and
  National Tax Search, LLC, as Servicing Function Participant.


    Dated:   March 28, 2014



    /s/ Brian Baker
    Signature

    President and Chief Executive Officer
    (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)