alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: "Charles D. Johnson" <cjohnson@aluminum.org>

To: David Putney/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/22/2011 11:01 AM

Subject: RE: PAL capacities, legal names, and COS meeting

David, I don’t have a list of legal names of corporate owners for these facilities, but I looked up the entities that 

might be separate from the list of producers that I work with. I went through the Primary smelter facilities in the 

US, looking for the criteria as I understood it that you are working with, and came up with the following:

 Lake Charles Carbon

 Ormet

 Noranda

 Columbia Falls

 Intalco

 Alcoa (5 facilities)

 Reynolds Metals Co.

 Alumax

 Century Aluminum

 Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc.

This is purely informational, and I hope it can help. 

Regarding production capacity, Noranda should be updated to reflect a permitted annual capacity of 325,000 

tons/year.

Finally, I spoke to Mike Palazzolo about the COS meeting with EPA staff. It looks like, due to anti-trust issues 

surrounding the discussion of Coke pricing and availability, we will have Mike meet with you to discuss this issue 

unilaterally. I might attend, but no other companies will do so. He is unavailable for a meeting until at least the 

second week of May. In the meantime, we agreed to poll our members directly to answer some of the substantive 

work practice questions you posed for COS. We’ll get that to you ASAP, so that your team can move forward on 

the issue. I think we can have you something by the same time as the original early May timing we discussed for a 

meeting.

Regards,

Chuck Johnson
From: Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 9:17 AM

To: Charles D. Johnson

Subject: PAL capacities, legal names, and COS meeting

Chuck,

Just a follow up to our telephone conversation yesterday. I'm hoping to get an email from you listing the 

permitted production capacities of the PAL facilities and the legal names of their corporate owners. I just 

got approval of the ICR from management here and would like to send those letters out ASAP - but I want 

to make sure I get the names correct on the ICR cover letters.

Also, I was hoping to get a date for a meeting with industry representative to discuss the COS issue.

Thanks again for all your assistance and coordination efforts on this project,

David Putney, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243-02

Ph: (919) 541-2016 Fax: (919) 541-3207

Email: putney.david@epa.gov
#### § 2.707 May the LBO and interested parties file a response to the statement of reasons?

Yes. Any interested party, as well as the LBO, may file a response to the statement of reasons, thereby becoming a participant.
**Complete the follow ing tables for each sampling point** 

**Plant Name Sample** 

**Collection Number**  **Date of Sample**

**Collection Sample Collection**  **Time Temperature (°C)**  **pH (S.U.)**  Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

**Plant Name Sample** 

**Collection Number**  **Influent Samples**

**Collected as Grabs**  **(Yes or No) Mercury and Cyanide** 

**Samples Collected as Grabs**  **(Yes or No) Bioreactor Influent** 

**and Bioreactor Effluent Samples**  **Collected as 24-Hour Composites**  **(Yes or No) Tyvek Suits**  **used (Yes or No)**  **Dust Masks**

**Used for Mercury**  **(Yes or No) Clean Hands/Dirty** 

**Hands Sampling Techniques Used**  **(Yes or No) Description of Sample** 

**Collection Technique (if different than**  **instructions)** Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4**Description of A bnormal** 

**Conditions in FGD System or FGD Wastew** **ater Treatment System that May**  **Impact Concentrations Complete the following tables based on the plant operating characteristics during each set of samples collected** 

**Units Operating During Sampling**  **Day Units Off-line** 

**Entire Sampling Day**  **SCRs/SNCRs**

**Operating on Units**  Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

**Flow Rate (gpm) Duration**  Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4

**Lime Usage (tons)**  **Ferric Chloride**

**Usage (Liters/day)**  **Organosulfide Usage**

**(Liters/day) Polymer Usage** 

**(Liters/day) Acid Usage** 

**(Liters/day) Chemical** 

**Precipitation System**  **Effluent Flow Rate (gpd)**  **Dilution Water**

**Addition Prior to Biological**  **Treatment System**  **(gpd) Biological** 

**Treatment System**  **Effluent Flow Rate (gpd)**  Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 **FGD Wastewater Treatment Operation During Sample Collection**

**Plant Name Date of Sample**  **Collection Sample**  **Collection Number**  **Scrubber Purge Flow Rate During**  **Influent Sample Collection**  **(gpm) Plant Name**  **Date of Sample Collection**  **Sample Collection**  **Number Plant Operation During Sample Collection** 

**Percent Hydroclone Overflow Recycled**  **Back to Scrubber Plant Name**  **Sample**

**Collection Number**  **Date of Sample**

**Collection Scrubber Slurry Blowdown Flow**  **Rate Scrubber**  **Slurry Percent Solids**  **Plant Operation During Sample Collection**

## Unit 1 **Unit 2 Daily Power Generation (MW-hrs)**  **Plant Name Date**  **Provide the daily power generation for each scrubbed unit starting two weeks prior to the first set of samples through the last set of samples** 

## Chemical **Precipitation Effluent**  **Dilution Water**

**Ad dition Prior to**  **Biological Treatment**  **System Biological Treatment** 

**System Effluent Plant Name**  **Date FGD Wastewater Treatment System Flow Rates**  **(gpd) Provide the average flow rate in the FGD wastewater treatment system for each stream included in the**  **table starting two weeks prior to the first set of samples through the last set of samples**
#### § 311.39 Biological residues.

Carcasses, organs, or other parts of carcasses of livestock shall be condemned if it is determined that they are adulterated because of the presence of any biological residues.
### §8753. Tolls and fares: payment or reimbursement

Naval appropriations chargeable for transportation or travel are available for the payment or reimbursement of ferry, bridge, and similar tolls and of streetcar, bus, and similar fares.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 464, §7523; renumbered §8753, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(7), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7523 | 34 U.S.C. 899a. | Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 756, §23, 60 Stat. 856. |

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7523 of this title as this section.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
### §1748a. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–117, title XI, §1108(aa), Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 507

Section, act June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title VIII, §802, as added Aug. 8, 1949, ch. 403, §1, 63 Stat. 571; amended Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 783, title IV, §401, 69 Stat. 646, created the Armed Services Housing Insurance Fund.

For establishment of the General Insurance Fund, see section 1735c of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          18,050
<SECURITIES>                                    12,736
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,210
<PP&E>                                          18,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,494
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,638
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,168
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,606
<OTHER-SE>                                    (54,960)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,638
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,875
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,406)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       258
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,664)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,664)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.60)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAYMOND DENNIS JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-72-352-G)

Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 1, 1998

Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond Dennis Jackson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to terminate his sentence. 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. United States v.

Jackson, No. CR-72-352-G (M.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 1997). 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
# C_2010260EN.01000502.xml

| 25.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 7 July 2010 — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-338/10)

()

2010/C 260/07

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS)

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is an anti-dumping regulation adopted by the European Commission in proceedings under Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) invalid because the Commission adopted that anti-dumping regulation by reference to a normal value determined on ‘[an]other reasonable basis’ (in this case, on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for like products in the Community) without conducting further investigations to ascertain a normal value after two companies in a country which the Commission had initially considered to be an analogue country had been contacted in writing but to no effect (one of them not replying at all and the other indicating its willingness to cooperate but failing to respond to the questionnaire which was then sent to it), and parties to the proceedings had drawn the Commission’s attention to another possible analogue country?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.

1

---
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Modoc County Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Alturas, CA. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to review Resource Advisory Committee Project Applications.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held March 14, 2011, 4 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Modoc National Forest Office, Conference Room, 800 West 12th St., Alturas.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly Anderson, Forest Supervisor and Designated Federal Officer, at (530) 233-8700; or Resource Advisory Coordinator, Stephen Riley at (530) 233-8706.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The business meeting on March 14, 2011 will begin at 4 p.m., at the Modoc National Forest Office, Conference Room, 800 West 12th St., Alturas, California 96101. Agenda topics will include voting and discussion of project proposals that meet the intent of Public Law 110-343. Time will also be set aside for public comments at the beginning of the meeting.

Dated: March 1, 2011.

Mario Longoria,

Civil Rights Specialist.

[FR Doc. 2011-5167 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00269-CR

Byron Dale Brinkley, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. A-02-0862-S, HONORABLE THOMAS J. GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury found appellant Byron Dale Brinkley gui lty of five counts of aggravated sexual

assault of a child. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2004). For each count, the jury

assessed a forty-three year prison term and a $10,000 fine.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the app e al is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of A nders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. S ee also Penson v. Ohio

, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State

, 573

S.W.2d 8 0 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State

, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State

, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State

, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised of his

right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.2 We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: January 15, 2004

Do Not Publish
#### § 151.5 Alteration of pedigree certificate.

No pedigree certificate which in the opinion of the Administrator has been substantially altered will be accepted.

[23 FR 10104, Dec. 23, 1958, as amended at 54 FR 34969, Aug. 23, 1989]
# C_2006294EN.01004501.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/45

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Koistinen v Commission

(Case T-259/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Definition of habitually resident)

(2006/C 294/94)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Anne Koistinen (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin Membiela, A, Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Claim for annulment of the Commission's decision of 18 July 2003 refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission's decision refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission's decision refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

1

---
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Michael Duane Holt, Appellant

No. 06

- 15

- 00006

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 71st District Court of Harrison County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 12

- 0381X ). Opinion delivered b y Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial cour t

. We note that the appellant, Michael Duane Holt, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 1 8, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### SUBCHAPTER III—GOVERNMENTS
# C_2007082EN.01005001.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/50

---

Action brought on 21 February 2007 — ratiopharm GmbH v OHIM (BioGeneriX)

(Case T-47/07)

(2007/C 82/104)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ratiopharm GmbH (Ulm, Germany) (represented by Rechtsanwalt S. Völker)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 20 December 2006 in appeal No. R1047/2004-4 concerning Community trade mark application No. 001701762. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 20 December 2006 in appeal No. R1047/2004-4 concerning Community trade mark application No. 001701762.

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark BioGeneriX for goods and services in the classes 5, 35, 40 and 42 (Application No. 1 701 762).

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal to register.

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 (1), on the basis that the trade mark applied for demonstrates the minimum distinctive character required and that there is no specific need for availability.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994, L 11, p. 1).

1

---
### §1883. Insurance rates; report to Congress

The Federal supervisory agencies shall consult with

(1) insurers furnishing insurance protection against losses resulting from robberies, burglaries, and larcenies committed against financial institutions referred to in section 1881 of this title, and

(2) State agencies having supervisory or regulatory responsibilities with respect to such insurers

to determine the feasibility and desirability of premium rate differentials based on the installation, maintenance, and operation of security devices and procedures. The Federal supervisory agencies shall report to the Congress the results of their consultations pursuant to this section not later than two years after July 7, 1968.

(Pub. L. 90–389, §4, July 7, 1968, 82 Stat. 295.)
### §284. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, §2 (part), 38 Stat. 253, was omitted as obsolete pursuant to a communication from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System dated Mar. 7, 1941, which stated "As originally enacted the Federal Reserve Act provided for a Reserve Bank Organization Committee to have charge of the initial steps in organizing the Federal Reserve System and this Committee was authorized to allot Federal Reserve Bank stock to the United States in the event that subscriptions to such stock by banks and by the public were inadequate. However, subscriptions by member banks were adequate and there was no necessity or authority for the allocation of any stock to the United States. Accordingly, [this section] is now of no practical effect, and may be regarded as obsolete."

This section was based on part of the tenth par. of section 2 of act Dec. 23, 1913. The rest of the tenth par. was not included in the Code. For classification of other pars. of section 2 of this Act, see Codification note set out under section 222 of this title.