alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### P e r ez, I d a lia

Fr o m: K e v in O r e ll a n a < k o r e ll a n a@a q m d.g ov>

S e nt: T u e s d ay

, J ul y 21

, 2015 6 : 06 PM

To: Pe r e z

, Id a lia

C c: G a r y Q uinn

S u b j ec t: R E: qu e s ti o n a bo ut bo il e r s in SC



## Hi Idali a

, I looke d thr o ugh t h e data a n d he r e are m y r esults

, ba s ed on A ct i v e pe r mits :



## H o w m a n y boiler s > 5 MM B t u in AQ M D are s ubj e c t t o 1 1 46? 107 4

H o w m a n y boiler s > 5 MM B t u in AQ M D are i n R E C L A I M ? 2 3 0 ( Non

- R ef i n e r y)

TO T A L : 130 4

Let me k n o w i f y ou h ave a n y que s tions

.

Sincere l y,

K e v i n O re ll ana

Air Qu a l i t y S pe c i a li s t

P l a nnin g , R ul e D e v e l o p me n t
, a n d Ar e a S o ur c e s
S o u t h Co as t Ai r Qu a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t D i s t ri c t

21865 C

op l e y D riv e , D i a mo n d B a r , C A 9176 5 ( 909 ) 396

- 3492
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court

The State of South Car olina, Petitioner,

v. Tony Latrell Kinard, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2019-001604

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal from Newberry County Donald B. Hocker, Ci rcuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 27955 Heard March 11, 2020 – Filed March 18, 2020

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Deputy Attorney General W illiam M. Blitch Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor Da vid Matthew Stumbo, of Greenwood, all for Petitioner. Richard James Dolce, of Rich ard J. Dolce, Attorney at Law, and Michael Vincent La ubshire, both of Columbia, for Respondent.PER CURIAM: We issued a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in State v. Kinard , 427 S.C. 367, 831 S.E.2d 138 (C t. App. 2019). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEAR N, FEW and JAMES, JJ., concur.
§ 628.2 Which institutions are eligible to apply for an endowment challenge grant? An institution is eligible to apply for an endowment challenge grant if— ( a ) It qualifies as an eligible institution for the Strengthening Institutions Program under 34 CFR 607.2;
( b ) It qualifies as an eligible institution for the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program under 34 CFR 608.2;
( c ) It would have qualified as an eligible institution for the Strengthening Institutions Program if 34 CFR 607.2(a)(3) referred to a postgraduate degree rather than a bachelor's degree;
( d ) It would have qualified as an eligible institution for the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program if 34 CFR 608.2(a)(4)(i) referred to a postgraduate degree rather than a bachelor's degree; or
( e ) It qualifies as an institution that makes a substantial contribution to graduate or postgraduate medical educational opportunities for minorities and the economically disadvantaged.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1065)
[52 FR 36374, Sept. 28, 1987, as amended at 58 FR 11163, Feb. 23, 1993]
|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 Ventures-United, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert C. Taylor,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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: (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.

|                     |  |     |  |                                                                        | 
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: April 12, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert C. Taylor                                                   | 
|                     |  |     |  | Robert C. Taylor    Chief
Executive Officer    Chief Financial Officer | 

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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4784 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4784

  To require the National Institute of Justice to update its research 
       report, entitled ``A Review of Gun Safety Technologies''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 22, 2019

   Mr. Rush introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require the National Institute of Justice to update its research 
       report, entitled ``A Review of Gun Safety Technologies''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. UPDATING OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE RESEARCH REPORT ON 
              GUN SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES.

    Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Director of the National Institute of Justice shall cause to have its 
June 2013 research report, entitled ``Review of Gun Safety 
Technologies'' updated, and shall transmit to the Committee on the 
Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the 
Judiciary of the Senate, and make available online, a copy of the 
updated report.
                                 <all>
```
(No. 79-CC-0210

#### Gordon A. Mueller by Irene Gustafson, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Order filed February 23, 1979.*

*948Per Curiam.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institution, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that his property was lost, misplaced, stolen or destroyed while he was imprisoned, and that the loss of his property was proximately caused by the negligence of employees of the State of Illinois.

In *Bargas v. State, 32*Ill.Ct.Cl.__, this Court held that the State of Illinois does not owe a duty to inmates of its penal institutions to safeguard property which inmates keep in their cells. In the companion case of *Doubling u. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*we further held that only where the State takes actual physical possession of the property of an inmate, as during the course of his transfer between penal institutions, does a duty arise to use reasonable care in protecting the inmate’s property.

The complaint in this action does not allege that Claimant’s property was delivered to agents of the State, but rather that the property disappeared or was damaged in Claimant’s cell. Under our reasoning in *Bargas v. State, supra,*and *Doubling v. State, supra,*the complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore ordered that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
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

 992

 1,020

 1,058

 1,084

 1,085

 1,092

 1,117

 1,142

 1,125

 1,153

 1,156

 1,073

 1,092

 1,098

 1,060

 992

 1,041

 1,219

 1,235

 1,030

 991

 1,004

 910

 912

 930

 862

 876

 919

 710

 706

 714

 720

 718

 714

 724

 749

 769

 787

 827

 737

 728

 713

 692

 681

 668

 690

 692

 669

 653

 641

 632

 632

 623

 620

 618

 599

 833

 868

 869

 849

 844

 868

 905

 931

 938

 989

 1,001

 883

 913

 863

 834

 781

 809

 888

 863

 796

 774

 765

 728

 721

 720

 711

 722

 718

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:March 6, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 531

 552

 553

 541

 538

 552

 575

 591

 596

 627

 635

 562

 580

 549

 531

 499

 516

 565

 549

 508

 494

 489

 466

 462

 461

 455

 462

 460

TOTAL 23,384

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
(No. 77-CC-0643

#### Cyrilla M. Healy, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 16, 1977.*

*208Per Curiam.

This cause coining on to be heard on the joint stipulation of the parties hereto and the Court being fully advised in the premises.

This Court finds that this claim is for reimbursement of medical bills incurred and damages sustained to Claimant, Cyrilla M. Healy, while a visitor at the W. A. Howe Development Center of the Illinois Department of Mental Health.

On January 23, 1977, Cyrilla Healy attended a parent’s meeting in House 202 of the facility. After the meeting, Dwight McCall, a resident in House 202 started to tantrum. He threw a living room table which struck Claimant on the left leg.

The Unit Nurse on duty, LPN Lorraine Scherdin, applied ice to the leg which was swollen. The nurse also called the Dispensary and made arrangements for Claimant to be taken there to have the leg checked.

Claimant was told to go either to an emergency room or to a private physician for further treatment. Pursuant to these instructions, Ms. Healy obtained outside treatment and incurred medical bills in the amount of $98.00. The evidence further shows that Claimant was not insured against this loss.

Respondent has admitted that the amount of $98.00 is due and owing to Claimant for the injuries sustained as alleged in her complaint.

It appears that all matters in controversy between Claimant and the Respondent, State of Illinois, have been adjusted, to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, based on Respondent’s Departmental Report.

*209Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of $98.00, in full satisfaction of any and all claims presented to the State of Illinois under the above captioned claim.
**Exhibit 31.2**
 

 

I, Philip N. Kaplan, certify that:

1.   
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, as amended, of VitalStream Holdings, Inc.;   
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;   
3.   
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;   
4.   
The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:    
(a)  
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     
(b)  
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   
(c)  
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  
 5.   
The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     
(a)  
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   
(b)  
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.    

Date:
April 27, 2004 
/s/ Philip N. Kaplan   
Philip N. Kaplan, Chief Operating Officer
### Geochemistry of rocks and related soils and vegetation in the Yellow Cat area, Grand County, Utah

By: H.L. Cannon

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1176

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Monarch Ceramic Tile A privately held comp any in Mesquite, TX. Is this your business? Claim This Profile More Details for Monarch Ceramic Tile Categorized under Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile. Our records show it was established in 1998 and incorporated in Texas. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of less than $500,000 and employs a staff of approximately 1 to 4.



# Business Information Location Type Unknown State of Incorporation Texas Year Established 1998 Annual Revenue Estimate Less than $500,000 Employees 1 to 4

SIC Code 3253, Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile 

# Monarch Ceramic Tile (/c/mm7 5yp9/monarch-ceramic-tile) Monarch Ceramic Tile Inc, 359 Clay Road Mesquite, TX 75182 

#  (972) 226-0475 (tel:9722260475) 

#  Map (/cmap/mm75yp9/monarch-ceramic-tile) Own This Business?

Company Contacts Is this your business? Claim This Profile

Search for more contacts (/ cs/mm75yp9/monarch-ceramic-tile? q=monarch+ceramic+tile+Mesquite+Texas&cx=0005134543142 47386359%3Aarvxicegnim&cof=FORID%3A10&type=contacts) Gianni Mattioli (/cs/mm75yp9/monarch-ceramic-tile? q=monarch+ceramic+tile+Mesquit e+Texas&cx=000513454314247386359% 3Aarvxicegnim&cof=FORID%3A10&type=contacts) Chief Executive Office r 

# 

11 / 3 /201 4NAICS Code 23834005, Tile & Terrazzo Contractors Business Categories Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile in Mesquite, TX (/mb_55_E80FD000_KS1/c eramic_wall_and_floor_tile/mesquite_tx) Mfg Ceramic Wall/Floor Tile

More Businesses Like This American Marazzi Tile Inc (/c/mmf f0dm/american-marazzi-tile-inc) Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile in Sunnyvale, TX Dal-Tile (/c/mr5dcm7/dal-tile) Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile in Arlington, TX M&G Fabricators Inc (/c/mt ms148/m-g-fabricators-inc) Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile in Houston, TX Dal-Tile (/c/mmykk4g/dal-tile) Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile in Houston, TX Dunis Studios (/c/mm ddqxr/dunis-studios) Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile in Bulverde, TX

1 Browse By Categories Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile in Mesquite, TX (/mb_55_E80FD000_KS1/ceramic_wall_and_floor_tile/mesquite_tx)



### 11 / 3 /201 4
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 5, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

128924 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 128925 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128924, 128925 COA: 252872, 253861 Kent CC: 03-002380-FH DAVID RONALD ECKMYRE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY

, J., would peremptorily re verse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand for a new trial based on the trial judg e’s failure to give an instruction on the burden of proof.

p0329 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 5, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1
                       CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of
GreenShift Corporation (the "Company"), certifies that:

1.	The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78o(d)); and

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





                                         /S/ KEVIN KREISLER
                                         ------------------------
                                         KEVIN KREISLER
                                         Chief Executive Officer
Date: May 19, 2006



                                         /S/ JAMES GRAINER
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         JAMES GRAINER
                                         President and Chief Financial Officer
Date: May 19, 2006

This certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any
other purpose.
### §3115. Inventory upon execution and return of search warrant—(Rule)

#### See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Inventory of property seized under search warrant and copies to persons affected, Rule 41(d).

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 820.)
### §1918. Disloyalty and asserting the right to strike against the Government

Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5 that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia if he—

(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government;

(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia; or

(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Government of the United States or of individuals employed by the government of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the right to strike against the Government of the United States or the government of the District of Columbia;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 89–554, §3(d), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 609; amended Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §601(a)(8), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3498.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 118r. | Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 690, §3, 69 Stat. 625. |
| | [Uncodified.] | June 29, 1956, ch. 479, §3 (as applicable to the Act of Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 690, §3, 69 Stat. 625), 70 Stat. 453. |

Statutes at Large

The section is rewritten to conform to the style of title 18. The statement of the acts prohibited is supplied from the Act of Aug. 9, 1955, ch. 690, §1, 69 Stat. 624, which is codified in section 7311 of title 5, United States Code.

The words "From and after July 1, 1956", appearing in the Act of June 29, 1956, are omitted as executed.

The words "shall be guilty of a felony" are omitted as unnecessary in view of the definitive section 1 of this title. (See reviser's note under section 550 of this title.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–294 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000" in concluding provisions.
appellant does not challenge the statute as unconstitutional. We are not

convinced that the sentence is unreasonably disproportionate to the gravity of the offense so as to violate the proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003) (plurality opinion); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion).

To the extent appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing appellant as it did, we discern no abuse of discretion in this instance. Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 1376, 1379 (1987); Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 (1976) (recognizing that this court will not interfere with sentence imposed "[sic, long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence").

Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that they lack merit, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

,J. J Hardesty

Parragu Cherry

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2ffai [WM EVIEROMM , ` L''" T;R:ri.0435"7-70 IIUM 

### cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 

### 3