alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
---

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



I, Christopher Smith, Chief Financial Officer of Image Innovations
  Holdings Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
  on Form 10-QSB of Image Innovations Holdings Inc., for the quarterly period
  ending March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
  or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
  in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
  the financial condition and results of operations of Image Innovations Holdings
  Inc.



| | By:    | /s/ Christopher Smith  
| | ------ | -----------------------
| |        |                        
| | Name:  | Christopher Smith      
| |        |                        
| | Title: | Chief Financial Officer
| |        |                        
| | Date:  | September 18, 2003     



---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-1937

___________________________

David I. Namer,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: September 6, 2012 

Filed: September 12, 2012

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate David Namer appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Upon

1

The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
de novo review, see Meuir v. Greene Cnty. Jail Emps., 487 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir.

2007), we agree that summary judgment was proper for the reasons the district court

stated. To the extent Namer challenges any of the district court’s discovery rulings,

we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion. See id. at 1120. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
§ 590.420 Inspection. ( a ) Inspection shall be made, pursuant to the regulations in this part, of the processing of egg products in each official plant processing egg products for commerce, unless exempted under § 590.100. Inspections, certifications, or specification-type gradings, and other inspections which may be requested by the official plant and are in addition to the normal inspection requirements and functions for the processing, production, or certification for a wholesome egg product under this part, shall be made pursuant to the voluntary egg products inspection regulations (part 592 of this chapter).
( b ) Any food manufacturing establishment or institution which uses any eggs that do not meet the requirements of 21 U.S.C. 1044(a)(1) in the preparation of any articles for human food shall be deemed to be a plant processing egg products requiring inspection under the regulations in this part.
( c ) Any product which is prepared under inspection in an official plant shall be inspected in such plant as often as the inspector deems necessary in order to ascertain if the product is unadulterated, wholesome, properly labeled, and fit for human food at the time it leaves the plant. Upon any such inspection, if any product or portion thereof is found to be adulterated, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, such product or portion thereof shall be condemned and shall receive such treatment as provided in § 590.422.
[36 FR 9814, May 28, 1971, as amended at 85 FR 68678, Oct. 29, 2020]
# C_2011072EN.01003502.xml

| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/35

---

Action brought on 15 November 2010 — AR v Commission

(Case F-120/10)

2011/C 72/57

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AR (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodriguez, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of EPSO’s decision not to admit the applicant to the procedure for internal competition COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5 for administrators with Bulgarian or Romanian citizenship on account of the fact that the applicant failed the admission tests and of the decision on the complaint authorising the applicant to re-sit the admission tests for the competition in question.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 31 March 2010 not to admit the applicant to internal competition COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5, so as to enable the applicant to sit the tests; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 31 March 2010 not to admit the applicant to internal competition COM/INT/EU2/10/AD5, so as to enable the applicant to sit the tests;

| — | annul the decision adopted on 3 August 2010 by the appointing authority in that it did not uphold in its entirety the applicant’s complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted on 3 August 2010 by the appointing authority in that it did not uphold in its entirety the applicant’s complaint;

| — | request the Commission, if necessary be means of a measure of inquiry or measure of organisation of procedure, to produce the list of questions asked and answers given at the tests held at 13.00 on 5 March 2010 in Brussels. |
| --- | --- |

—

request the Commission, if necessary be means of a measure of inquiry or measure of organisation of procedure, to produce the list of questions asked and answers given at the tests held at 13.00 on 5 March 2010 in Brussels.

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE 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 report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007
(the "Report"), I, Samuel S. Lee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



|June 16, 2008 |  | /s/SAMUEL S. LEESamuel S. Lee
Chief Executive Officer
|------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73
          - [MB Docket No. 10-108; Report No. 2925]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Petition for reconsideration.

# SUMMARY:

In this document, a Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this document (Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Pacific Junction, Iowa)).

# DATES:

Oppositions to the Petition must be filed by March 18, 2011. Replies to an opposition must be filed March 28, 2011.

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew J. Rhodes, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 2925, released February 7, 2011. The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). The Commission will not send a copy of this                     *Notice*                     pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this                     *Notice*                     does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.                

                    This document is published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e).                     *See*                     1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)).                

*Subject:*                     In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Pacific Junction, Iowa) (MB Docket No. 10-108).                

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     1.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Bulah P. Wheeler,

Deputy Manager, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.

[FR Doc. 2011-4687 Filed 3-2-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 2355

DONALD VAN METER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Fairfax District Office, Acting in Individual Capacity; FRANCESCA GAINS, Acting in Individual Capacity; KIMBERLY WILSON, Appeals Examiner , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv
- 00892

- LO

- JFA )

Submitted : March 29, 2018 Decided: April 2, 2018

Before AGEE and DIAZ , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Donald Van Meter, Appellant Pro Se. Scott F. Weber, DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Donald Van Meter appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his complaint alleging civil rights violations relating to state court orders on domestic relation s cases. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. V an Meter v. DCSE , No. 1:17

- cv
- 00892

- LO

- JFA (E.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2017) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFI RMED
# C_2010134EN.01003801.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/38

---

Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM — Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA)

(Case T-107/10)

2010/C 134/66

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natura Cosméticos, SA (Itapecerica da Serra, Brazil)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 November 2009 in case R 1558/2008-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 November 2009 in case R 1558/2008-2;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings before the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings before the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NATURAVIVA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registrations of the mark ‘VIVA’, for goods in class 3; Community trade mark registration of the mark ‘VIVA’, for goods in class 3

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---
#### § 1304.8 Denials.

TVA may, at its sole discretion, deny any application to construct, operate, conduct, or maintain any obstruction, structure, facility, or activity that in TVA's judgment would be contrary to the unified development and regulation of the Tennessee River system, would adversely affect navigation, flood control, public lands or reservations, the environment, or sensitive resources (including, without limitation, federally listed threatened or endangered species, high priority State-listed species, wetlands with high function and value, archaeological or historical sites of national significance, and other sites or locations identified in TVA Reservoir Land Management Plans as requiring protection of the environment), or would be inconsistent with TVA's Shoreline Management Policy. In lieu of denial, TVA may require mitigation measures where, in TVA's sole judgment, such measures would adequately protect against adverse effects.
#### § 78.13 Other movements.

The Administrator may, upon request in specific cases, permit the interstate movement of cattle not otherwise provided for in this subpart, under such conditions as the Administrator may prescribe in each case to prevent the spread of brucellosis. The Administrator shall promptly notify the State animal health officials of the States involved of any such action.

[51 FR 32580, Sept. 12, 1986, as amended at 56 FR 54534, Oct. 22, 1991]
JUSTIN DIXON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D13-4888

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 8, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Zachary Lawton, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Justin D. Chapman, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, BENTON, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
§ 317.17 Interpretation and statement of labeling policy for cured products; special labeling requirements concerning nitrate and nitrite. ( a ) With respect to sections 1(n) (7), (9), and (12) of the Act and § 317.2, any substance mixed with another substance to cure a product must be identified in the ingredients statement on the label of such product. For example, curing mixtures composed of such ingredients as water, salt, sugar, sodium phosphate, sodium nitrate, and sodium nitrite or other permitted substances which are added to any product, must be identified on the label of the product by listing each such ingredient in accordance with the provisions of § 317.2.
( b ) Any product, such as bacon and pepperoni, which is required to be labeled by a common or usual name or descriptive name in accordance with § 317.2(c)(1) and to which nitrate or nitrite is permitted or required to be added may be prepared without nitrate or nitrite and labeled with such common or usual name or descriptive name when immediately preceded with the term “Uncured” as part of the product name in the same size and style of lettering as the product name, provided that the product is found by the Administrator to be similar in size, flavor, consistency, and general appearance to such product as commonly prepared with nitrate or nitrite, or both.
( c ) ( 1 ) Products described in paragraph (b) of this section or § 319.2 of this subchapter, which contain no nitrate or nitrite shall bear the statement “No Nitrate or Nitrite Added.” This statement shall be adjacent to the product name in lettering of easily readable style and at least one-half the size of the product name.
( 2 ) Products described in paragraph (b) of this section and § 319.2 of this subchapter shall bear, adjacent to the product name in lettering of easily readable style and at least one-half the size of the product name, the statement “Not Preserved—Keep Refrigerated Below 40 °F. At All Times” unless they have been thermally processed to Fo 3 or more; they have been fermented or pickled to pH of 4.6 or less; or they have been dried to a water activity of 0.92 or less.
( 3 ) Products described in paragraph (b) of this section and § 319.2 of this subchapter shall not be subject to the labeling requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section if they contain an amount of salt sufficient to achieve a brine concentration of 10 percent or more.
[37 FR 16863, Aug. 22, 1972, as amended at 44 FR 48961, Aug. 21, 1979]
More TSD's Bill Maxwell to: Cortney_Higgins
12/01/2011 12:20 PM Cc: RobertJ Wayland

Cortney --

Here are some additional MATS TSDs.

The Emissions Inventory TSD from MATS Proposal was not changed for final: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/emch/index.html#toxics

Thanks.

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division
U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01
109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-5430
FAX: 919-541-5450

MATS_EFs_CaseStudies_CurrentBaseEI.pdf

EGU Hg Speciation Profiles for CAMR.pdf

Emis_overview_memo_MATSfinal.pdf
# We Energies’ **generating system**

COAL **September 2008**

**Location:** This plant occupies more than 400 acres of land on the shore of Lake Michigan, 20 miles south of Milwaukee.

**Type of Plant:** Coal-based, base-load (typically operating 24 hours a day).

**Initial Cost:** $246 million

**Number of Active Generating Units:** 4 steam turbines

**Year in Service (South Plant):** Unit 5: 1959 Unit 7: 1965 Unit 6: 1961 Unit 8: 1967

**Generating Capacity:** Unit 5: 261 megawatts Unit 6: 264 megawatts Unit 7: 298 megawatts Unit 8: 312 megawatts*

**Total Net Generating Capacity:** 1,135 megawatts 

# Oak Creek **Power Plant** 

**The most thermally efficient generating power plant**  **in Wisconsin.**

Unit 8 is Oak Creek’s largest turbine-generator unit, measuring 125 ft. long, 28 ft. wide, 31 ft. high and weighing 1,600 tons. The entire turbine and generator are bolted together in one long shaft system. Units 5, 6 and 7 each have two parallel shaft systems with two separate generators. *

# We Energies’ generating system

COAL

**Contribution to Total System Electric Energy Production Capability:**  20 percent

**Voltage:** Generator: 18,000 Step-Up Transformer: 138,000 (Unit 5) 230,000 (Unit 6,7,8)

**Fuel:** Pulverized coal; natural gas for boiler start-up.

**Coal Handling:** Transportation: Unit train (135 coal cars per train) Storage: Indoor: 55,000 tons Outdoor (inactive): 475,000 tons Preparation: 16 pulverizers crush coal at 33 tons per hour each

**Average Coal Use:** 5,000-10,000 tons daily (depending on system demands) **Boilers:** (Units 5-8); One per turbine generator. Height: 18 stories (Unit 8) Furnace temperature: 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit Steam temperature: 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit Steam pressure: 2,400 pounds per square inch

**Ash Handling:** More than 99 percent of fly ash is removed by electrostatic precipitators. Bottom ash is removed by a hydraulic removal system.
**Chimney:** One for every two boilers. The southern-most chimney, Oak Creek’s largest, is 550 ft. tall.

**Cooling System:** 800,000 gallons of water from Lake Michigan are used every minute to convert the exhaust steam from the turbine back into water for reuse. The water is returned to the lake.

**Control Room:** All major functions in the plant are controlled by operators with computer support to continuously monitor and report on pressures, temperatures, flow rates, etc. In addition, the computer aids in start-up, shutdown, makes load adjustments during operation and records information for future reference. 

# Oak Creek Power Plant
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Jacob Y.Terner, M.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 
| May  15, 2006 | /s/  JACOB Y. TERNER                                   |       |
|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------|------------|
|          | **Jacob Y. Terner, MD**                                |       |
|          | **Chairman of the Board and  Chief Executive Officer** | ** ** |

 

----