alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Randy Hill- 7/30; 1:10pm

• Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Hello, my name is Randy Hill. I h ave been the Member Services Manager for the past 16 years. I have more than -25 - years experience at Planters Electric Membership Corporation. Planters EMC serves about 16,000 meters in mainly Burke, Screven and Jenkins Counties, but we also have meters in Bulloch, Effingham, Emanuel and Richmond Counties. We are in Southeast Georgia between Augusta and Savannah. • EPA - Please do not implement the proposed rules of the Clean Power Plan. • Planters EMC's service territory covers a large part of rural Georgia, and many areas that in the past few decades have been struggling to survive in the face of a tough economy and a constant increase in cost of goods. • As a non-profit cooperative, any increase in energy costs will have to be passed directly to our members, many of whom cannot afford any increases in their cost of energy. • By reducing the overall amount of dependable base load power generation available, the EPA is removing a vital safety net that prevents rolling blackouts at times of peak use. For example, on the morning of Jan. 6th and 7 th this year when record low temperatures gripped the nation, Georgia's electric utilities set all-time peak demands and usage for energy, and much of that demand happened in the pre-dawn and early morning hours. The energy that met that peak demand was nuclear, natural gas and COAL. All conventional sources of energy were absolutely critical to ensure that we were able to keep our homes and businesses running. • Lastly, we question whether EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act in the first place. • At most, 111(d) may permit the EPA to provide guidance to the states on how to determine the best system of emissions reductions at each power plant. But this proposal will require sweeping changes to the electric utility industry. • This proposal is basically granting the EPA limitless authority to regulate the entire economy and the lifestyles of every consumer in the country. • The EPA must withdraw this proposal and come up with a new approach that falls within the narrow scope of authority granted by Congress. • I want to repeat - EPA - Please do not implement the proposed rules of the Clean Power Plan. • Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed February 21, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-768

Lower Tribunal No. 17-01358

________________

Knauf de Colombia, S.A.S., et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Carlos Hakim-Daccach,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice 

Butchko, Judge.

White & Case LLP and Raoul G. Cantero and Zachary B. Dickens and 

David W. Rifkin, for appellants.

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP and David M. Gersten and 

Joseph A. Sacher; Sequor Law P.A., and Christopher A. Noel and Edward 

H. Davis, Jr., and Arnoldo B. Lacayo, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

We affirm on all counts without further discussion, except as to the 

issue of setoff, to which the Appellee has commendably conceded error. 

Accordingly, we affirm in part, and reverse in part, and instruct the trial court 

to set off the jury’s $19.5 million verdict by the $10 million bank defendant 

settlement and recalculate pre-judgment interest in an amended final 

judgment. See Addison Constr. Corp. v. Vecellio, 240 So. 3d 757, 764 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2018) (“The purpose of the setoff statutes is to prevent a windfall to

a plaintiff by way of double recovery.”).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean TDS

1 275 230 245 167

2 278 231 251 171

3 271 235 252 172

4 260 240 249 170

5 253 238 243 166

6 257 239 247 169

7 266 234 250 171

8 288 240 261 177

9 322 247 268 182

10 342 252 285 192

11 342 251 275 186

12 352 246 275 186

13 366 252 290 195

14 360 253 284 192

15 366 259 292 196

16 359 260 295 198

17 363 262 298 200

18 0 0 0 16

19 356 248 284 192

20 370 246 293 197

21 377 248 296 199

22 375 247 302 203

23 378 251 296 199

24 381 251 292 196

25 398 254 301 202

26 398 252 291 196

27 403 248 306 205

28 405 250 306 205

29 400 246 306 205

30 390 246 303 203

Total 8136

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Delta Mendota Canal At Check 20 

Period: September 2023 Run Date: 10/6/2023
#### Village of Osmond v. Hancy L. Matteson.

Filed September 18, 1901.

No. 10,052.

1. Petitioner for Detachment of Lands from City or Village, Must Be Legal Voter. The provisions of section 101, article 1, chapter 14, Compiled Statutes, for the detachment of territory from a city or village, are available only to leg’al voters of the territory sought to be disconnected. *Village of Osmond v. Hmatlierg,*62 Nebr., 509, decided herewith, followed.

2. Owner of Included Agricultural Lands May Maintain Action. The owner of agricultural lands included within the boundaries of a city or village, although not a voter therein, may‘maintain a suit to have such lands detached from the municipality. *Supra.*

Error from the district court for Pierce county. Tried below before Robinson, J.

*Affirmed.*

*O. B. Willey,*for plaintiff in error.

*Berryman <& Hlewart, contra.*

Norval, O. J.

The questions involved in this case are identical with those in *Village of Osmond v. Smathers,*62 Nebr., 509, decided herewith, and for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in that case the judgment of the district court is '

Affirmed.

Sullivan, J., absent, not voting.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR EQUIVALENT

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report of Hitachi, Ltd. on Form 20-F for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2010 as amended by Amendment No.1 thereto (the Report) pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) for the purpose of complying with
Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Hiroaki Nakanishi, President of Hitachi, Ltd., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Hitachi, Ltd.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |     |  |                                
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------
|Date:    July 29, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Hiroaki Nakanishi          
|                       |  |     |  | Name:         Hiroaki Nakanishi
|                       |  |     |  | Title:           President
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASIUNGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NOS. 20I2NM060025; 2011NM06005; 201 1NM060073; 2011NM060072; 

2011NM060047; 201 INM060063; 2011NM060038; 201 !NM06008I; 20I 1NM060095; 

20 l 2NM0600 14 

FDMS NOS. FAA-2013-0292; FAA 2012-0777; FAA-20 12-0868; FAA-2012-0869; FAA-2012-

0872; FAA-2012-0873; FAA-20 12-0874; FAA-2012-0904; FAA-20 13-0617; FAA-2013-0619 

COMPLAINANT & RESPONDENT'S JOINT MOTION TO HOLD DECISIONS IN 

ABEYANCE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS 

Complainant & Respondent file this joint motion to hold the decisions in the abovereferenced cases in abeyance pending the outcome of settlement negotiations between the parties. 

I. As ofSeptember24, 2015, the matter of Sky West Airlines. Inc., FAA Case 

No. 2011NM06005, FDMS No. FAA 2012-0777, was fully briefed before the Administrator. 

2. As of October 28,2015, the matter of Sky West Airlines, Inc., FAA Case 

No. 20!2NM0650025, FDMS No. FAA 2013-0292, was fully briefed before the Administrator. 

3. As ofNovember 18,2015, the matters of Sky West Airlines. Inc., FAA Case Nos. 

2011NM060073; 2011NM060072; 2011NM060047; 2011NM060063; 2011NM060038; 

2011NM060081; 2011NM060095; 2012NM060014, and FDMS Nos. FAA-2012-0868; FAA-2012-

0869; FAA-20 12-0872; FAA-20 12-0873; F AA-2012-0874; FAA-2012-0904; FAA-20 13-0617; 

F AA-2013-0619, were fully briefed before the Administrator in a consolidated appeal. 

4. Representatives for Complainant and Respondent have initiated global settlement 

discussions applicable to Sky West enforcement cases, inclusive of those cun·ently pending before the 

Administrator. These discussions may result in settlement of the above-listed cases. 
WHEREFORE, Complainant and Respondent respectfully request the Administrator hold 

any decisions in the above-referenced cases in abeyance pending the outcome of these settlement 

negotiations and a further motion by the parties. 

Dated: April6, 2016 

Respectfully submitted, 

.. r\ r.r 1 11 1 

I t1U lJ! '/ j v: -~ L ... fft~ 1 n··"· VIl~l~:: 

Casey E. Gardber, ~ttorney Enforcement Division, AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Jndependence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Todd Emerson, Esq. 

General Counsel 

Sky West Airlines 

444 S. River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I served by personal delivery, the original and one copy of the foregoing 

Complainant's Request for an Extension of Time in the matter of Sky West, Inc., FDMS NO. FAA2013-0292, et, aL, addressed to: 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue SW 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl 00 

Washington, D.C., 20591 

By: B ~ y:_,, r~ 

Dated: April 7, 2016
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 604

 630

 672

 656

 656

 672

 671

 669

 680

 672

 681

 658

 679

 677

 630

 628

 602

 696

 635

 633

 494

 493

 477

 496

 499

 452

 493

 533

 483

 456

 459

 446

 461

 456

 463

 451

 437

 440

 426

 416

 430

 393

 461

 384

 401

 401

 448

 447

 441

 440

 452

 429

 435

 442

 445

 483

 535

 536

 544

 522

 542

 569

 554

 556

 548

 553

 552

 532

 530

 505

 513

 492

 474

 576

 538

 505

 468

 463

 463

 451

 456

 447

 472

 503

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 1, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 347

 347

 352

 339

 351

 368

 358

 360

 355

 358

 357

 345

 344

 328

 333

 320

 309

 372

 348

 328

 305

 302

 302

 295

 298

 292

 308

 327

TOTAL 14,399

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
EXHIBIT 32.1

                              ADZONE RESEARCH, INC.
                CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of AdZone Research, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending SEPTEMBER 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles
Cardona, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Director of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to AdZone Research, Inc. and will be retained by AdZone Research, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


        Date: February 9, 2006


        /s/ Charles Cardona
        --------------------------------
        Name: Charles Cardona
        Title: Chief Executive Officer
        and Principal Accounting Officer
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Synthenol Inc. (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned
      John
      Page, Treasurer 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:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











November
                13, 2007
            
            */s/
                John Page*(Date)
            
            John
                Page
              Director
                / Treasurer
MAILING ADDRESS: UNITED AIR LINES, INC., 1025 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 1210, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 

STEVE MORRISSEY

MANAGING DIRECTOR—INTERNATIONAL & REGULATORY AFFAIRS

(202) 296-2733 

(202) 296-2873 FAX

STEVE.MORRISSEY@UNITED.COM

December 2, 2010 

Esta Rosenberg, Chief 

U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: United Air Lines, Inc. and TAM Linhas Aereas, S.A. 

 Docket DOT-OST-2007-0012 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

 Pursuant to the blanket Statement of Authorization granted to United Air Lines, Inc. 

(“United”) and TAM Linhas Aereas, S.A. (“TAM”), by Department Action, dated October 24, 

2007, in the above-referenced docket, United hereby notifies the Department of the display of 

United’s “UA*” designator code on flights operated by TAM between: 

 Miami and Brasilia, Brazil; and 

 Miami and Belo Horizonte, Brazil. 

The proposed code-share services are fully consistent with the U.S.-Brazil Air Service 

Agreement. United and TAM intend to implement these services on or after January 2, 2011. 

 Sincerely, 

 Steve Morrissey 

 Managing Director, International & 

Regulatory Affairs 

UNITED AIR LINES, INC. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this date served a copy of the foregoing document on all 

persons named below by causing a copy to be sent via email: 

carl.nelson@aa.com 

dan.weiss@coair.com 

donna.kooperstein@usdoj.gov 

dwight.moore@ustranscom.mil 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

jhill@dowlohnes.com 

john.allen@faa.gov 

jyoung@yklaw.com 

urskr@state.gov 

Annalei Avanceña 

Advisor—Regulatory Affairs 

Dated: December 2, 2010
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Martin F. Petersen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Raser Technologies, Inc. (the Registrant); and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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.



|             |  |  |  |                        |  |                        
|------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|May 22, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Martin F. Petersen
|             |  |  |  |                        |  | Martin F. Petersen,    
|             |  |  |  |                        |  | Chief Financial Officer
### §615b. Exportation of timber pulp wood and wood pulp from Alaska

Birch timber and pulp wood or wood pulp manufactured from timber in Alaska may be exported therefrom.

(Feb. 1, 1905, ch. 288, §2, 33 Stat. 628; June 5, 1920, ch. 235, §1, 41 Stat. 917.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 422 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

#### Amendments

1920—Act June 5, 1920, authorized exportation of birch timber.
#### Haines Meyers v. John R. Smith.

Filed October 5, 1899.

No. 10,830.

Petition to Open Judgment: Allegations: False Testimony. A petition in equity .which prayed that a judgment or decree be vacated, and a new. trial granted in a prior action, on the ground that the decree was based upon the false or perjured testimony of the successful party, and that'since the trial he has made statements out of court at variance with or contradictory to his testimony, which alleges no positive knowledge of such statements, which, if made as pleaded, were but impeaching in their nature, and would not afford direct or positive proof of perjury, is open to attack by general demurrer, and contains no sufficient statement of a cause of action.

Error from the district court of Richardson county. Tried below before Stull, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Broady & Pettis*and *J. L. Barnes,*for plaintiff in error.

*Edwin Falloon, contra.*

*37Harrison, C. J.

Haines Meyers instituted an action in the district court of Richardson county of criminal conversation against John R. Smith; and was given a verdict and judgment in the sum of $3,000; and in an error proceeding to this court the judgment, on a hearing, also rehearing, was affirmed. For report of first opinion see 52 Nebr., 70, and the second in 51 Nebr., 1. Smith then commenced an action in the same district court, in which he sought, and was granted, the result of a trial, a decree by which the judgment in the prior suit was vacated; and a new trial of the issues awarded on the ground that the judgment had been procured through false testimony. The decree is the subject of attack in error proceeding to this court and has been argued and submitted. Meyers, after the decree was rendered by which his judgment was vacated, filed a petition in the district court, in which he alleged that said decree was procured by the false testimony or perjury of the party it favored, and it was prayed that the decree be canceled; and the action in which it had been rendered dismissed. To this petition a general demurrer was filed, which on hearing was sustained, and the cause dismissed. That these things were done constitutes the burden of the complaint of a petition in error filed in this court, and the matter has been submitted for decision. The allegation of the petition was of the information and belief of the plaintiff that the party who had obtained the judgment or decree against which this action was directed had made a statement out of court about the time or soon after the trial which was wholly different to, and contradictory of, his testimony during the trial. The statement was set forth in the pleading, the subject of attack by demurrer, and was clearly impeaching in its nature and made without oath. If shown in evidence, it would not establish anything, direct or positive, as to the question of perjury of the witness, These things being true, the petition was *38clearly insufficient in a statement of a cause of action for equitable relief to consist of tire vacation of a judgment and the granting of a new trial. See *Meyers v. Smith,*59 Nebr., 30. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
§ 370.14 How does a designated agency appeal a written decision to redesignate? ( a ) A designated agency may appeal to the Secretary a Governor's written decision to redesignate only if the designated agency submitted to the Governor a timely written response to the Governor's notice of proposed redesignation in accordance with § 370.12.
( b ) To appeal to the Secretary a Governor's written decision to redesignate, a designated agency shall file a formal written appeal with the Secretary within 15 days after the designated agency's receipt of the Governor's written decision to redesignate. The date of filing of the designated agency's written appeal with the Secretary will be determined in a manner consistent with the requirements of 34 CFR 81.12.
( c ) If the designated agency files a written appeal with the Secretary, the designated agency shall send a separate copy of this appeal to the Governor by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or other means that provides a record that the Governor received a copy of the designated agency's appeal to the Secretary.
( d ) The designated agency's written appeal to the Secretary must state why the Governor has not met the burden of showing that good cause for the redesignation exists or has not met the procedural requirements under §§ 370.11 and 370.13.
( e ) The designated agency's written appeal must be accompanied by the designated agency's written response to the Governor's notice of proposed redesignation and may be accompanied by any other written submissions or documentation the designated agency wishes the Secretary to consider.
( f ) As part of its submissions under this section, the designated agency may request an informal meeting with the Secretary at which representatives of both parties will have an opportunity to present their views on the issues raised in the appeal.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0520) (Authority: Sections 12(c) and 112(c)(1)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; 29 U.S.C. 709(c) and 732(c)(1)(B))
### §1163. Embezzlement and theft from Indian tribal organizations

Whoever embezzles, steals, knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, willfully misapplies, or willfully permits to be misapplied, any of the moneys, funds, credits, goods, assets, or other property belonging to any Indian tribal organization or intrusted to the custody or care of any officer, employee, or agent of an Indian tribal organization; or

Whoever, knowing any such moneys, funds, credits, goods, assets, or other property to have been so embezzled, stolen, converted, misapplied or permitted to be misapplied, receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or the use of another—

Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

As used in this section, the term "Indian tribal organization" means any tribe, band, or community of Indians which is subject to the laws of the United States relating to Indian affairs or any corporation, association, or group which is organized under any of such laws.

(Added Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 822, §2, 70 Stat. 792; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(H), (K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §606(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–294 substituted "$1,000" for "$100" in third par.

1994—Pub. L. 103–322, in third par., substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $5,000" after "Shall be" and for "fined not more than $1,000" after "he shall be".