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

Travel Demand Model

(Trip-based VMT)

Start

Exhaust

Hot Soak Running 

Losses

Diurnal

VMT/ day X 

Emission rate

(g/mile) 

Resting

No. of veh. X 

Emission rate 

(g/day/veh.)

No. of 

starts/veh./day X 

No. of veh. X 

Emission rate 

(g/start)

No. of veh. X 

Emission rate

(g/day/veh) 

No. of 

starts/veh/day X 

No. of veh. X 

Emission rate 

(g/start)

DMV

(Vehicle Population)

Running 

Exhaust

Total 

Exhaust

Total 

Evaporative

Total 

Emissions

EMFAC 

Model

No. of 

starts/veh./day X 

No. of veh. X 

Emission rate 

(g/start)

Emissions Report
#### Premier Laundry, Inc., v. Alfred Klein et al.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals or for reargument and for continuation of injunction pending appeal denied, with $10 costs, and stay vacated. Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 946.]
#### Alice B. Elliott, Respondent, v. Joseph A. Palma, as President of the Borough of Richmond, et al., Appellants.

Present — Hagarty, Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
Exhibit 24.1
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
    Signatures
    
    Title/s/ Donald R. Kimble
    
    President and DirectorDonald R. Kimble
    
    (Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Thomas P. Reed
    
    Vice President and DirectorThomas P. Reed
    
    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)/s/ Richard A. Cheap

Richard A. Cheap
    
    Director/s/ Reginald D. Dickson
    
    DirectorReginald D. Dickson/s/ Edward J. Kane
    
    DirectorEdward J. Kane/s/ Roger E. Kephart
    
    DirectorRoger E. Kephart/s/ James D. Robbins
    
    DirectorJames D. Robbins/s/ Karen D. Roggenkamp
    
    DirectorKaren D. Roggenkamp
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penford Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), Thomas D. Malkoski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven O.
Cordier, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to his knowledge: (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. /s/ Thomas D. MalkoskiThomas D. MalkoskiChief Executive Officer Dated: July 11, 2005 /s/ Steven O. CordierSteven O. CordierSenior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer Dated: July 11, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Penford Corporation and will be retained by Penford Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### SUBCHAPTER II—MODEL CODE GOVERNING COURTS OF INDIAN OFFENSES
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134558 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134558 

 COA: 277073 
 Wayne CC: 05-012916-01

JEREMY ROMMEL BANKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2007 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1022 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 29, 2007 

 Clerk
#### In the Matter of Helen Tripp, an Incompetent Person. Leland G. Davis, as Committee, et al., Respondents; Department of Mental Hygiene of the State of New York, Appellant.

Fourth Department,

March 16, 1949.

*Nathaniel L. Goldstein, Attorney-General (Wendell P. Brown, Solicitor-General,*and *Margaret D. Hazel, Assistant Attorney-General*of counsel), for Department of Mental Hygiene of State of New York, appellant.

*Bavis, Townsend, McElvein & Potter*for Leland G. Davis, respondent.

*James L. Crane,*special guardian, respondent in person.

*Per Curiam.*

The incompetent’s aunt, of whose estate the incompetent inherited a one-fourth share, died on December 11, 1941. The incompetent’s committee was appointed on June 23, 1942. Although there was no committee in existence to obtain possession of the inheritance until after the repeal of the former section 24-a of the Mental Hygiene Law on May 8, 1942, never*37theless the inheritance vested in the incompetent upon the death of her aunt *(Matter of Hilliard,*164 Misc. 677, 692; *Matter of Cusimano,*173 Misc. 382, 383; 26 C. J. S., Descent and Distribution, § 65). Upon the death of her aunt the incompetent therefore became subject to any liability imposed by former section 24-a of the Mental Hygiene Law (L. 1940, ch. 805). That section provided for reimbursement to the State for the cost of maintenance of inmates in State institutions under circumstances specified therein, and subdivision 2 read in part as follows: “ If the property of such patient or inmate is sufficient the committee shall pay for institutional maintenance incurred prior to the appointment of the committee.”

The State became entitled to reimbursement pursuant to former section 24-a of the Mental Hygiene Law (see *Matter of Hofmann,*261 App. Div. 556). Such right already accrued, was not lost to the State by the repeal of that section and the enactment of a new section by chapter 747 of the Laws of 1942 effective May 8, 1942 (General Construction Law, § 93).

The order insofar as appealed from, should be reversed on the law and the claim allowed in the sum of $2,743.68, without costs.

All concur. Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

Order, so far as appealed from, reversed on the law, without costs of this appeal to any party, and claim allowed in the sum of $2,743.68, without costs.
### Revised CMAS and Boiler Area Source Packages **Nick Parsons** to: Cortney_Higgins 11/23/2011 10:53 AM Cc: Penny Lassiter, Paul Versace, JohnB Chamberlin, Thomas Gillis, RobertJ Wayland, Jim Eddinger, Jonathan Averback Cortney, Attached are redline strikeout revisions of the CMAS and Boilers Area Source packages , with changes made to the sections on title V to address your concerns.

Boiler Area Source PreambleRule 112311 redline.docx EO12866_CMAS_2060-AQ89_Reconsideration_Proposal20110614_Interagency Comments Under EOs 12866 and 13563 EPA 112311.doc
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of Fingerhut Companies, Inc. for the fiscal
quarter ended June 27, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1997
<CASH>                                          83,392
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  727,592
<ALLOWANCES>                                   162,493
<INVENTORY>                                    129,458
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,018,621
<PP&E>                                         469,438
<DEPRECIATION>                                 197,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,361,708
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          446,536
<BONDS>                                        246,435
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           460
<OTHER-SE>                                     612,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,361,708
<SALES>                                        630,263
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               746,229
<CGS>                                          323,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  703,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,071
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                58,628
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,084
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,664
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,740
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,470
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
        

</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER LVII—UPPER AND LOWER CHEHALIS TRIBES: DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUND
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos ORTIZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-7961.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.

Decided March 6, 2006.

Carlos Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Ortiz, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying without prejudice his motion filed under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b), in which he sought reconsideration of the denial by the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Ortiz,*Nos. CR-92-301-S; CA-05-2793-WDQ-1 (D.Md. Nov. 9, 2005). 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*
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

29

DAY HIGH

 204

 205

 224

 215

 231

 226

 230

 236

 233

 231

 228

 223

 227

 238

 238

 279

 244

 240

 233

 227

 221

 219

 232

 208

 199

 201

 189

 193

 199

 165

 183

 187

 192

 198

 210

 215

 214

 211

 207

 204

 207

 212

 218

 212

 209

 202

 197

 197

 197

 193

 187

 177

 175

 163

 172

 168

 171

 179

 180

 192

 199

 202

 210

 217

 221

 224

 221

 217

 213

 214

 219

 227

 229

 229

 220

 217

 214

 210

 206

 204

 200

 191

 183

 184

 178

 178

 183

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 13, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
#### § 61.202 Time limitations for filing notice and claim.

The time limitation provisions found in 5 U.S.C. 8119 apply to the filing of claims under section 101(a) of the War Hazards Compensation Act. The Office may waive the time limitations if it finds that circumstances beyond the claimant's control prevented the filing of a timely claim.
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

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 713.13

 713.36

 713.68

 713.95

 714.19

 714.38

 714.64

 714.81

 714.24

 712.64

 710.81

 708.63

 705.81

 701.82

 698.14

 698.12

 698.11

 698.12

 698.14

 698.08

 698.09

 698.11

 698.09

 698.05

 698.46

 699.62

 700.47

 701.08

 701.65

 702.08

 702.46

 955

 963

 973

 981

 989

 995

 1,003

 1,009

 991

 940

 885

 823

 745

 645

 560

 560

 559

 560

 560

 559

 559

 559

 559

 558

 567

 593

 613

 627

 641

 651

 660

STORAGE

+9

+8

+10

+8

+8

+6

+8

+6

-18

-51

-55

-62

-78

-100

-85

+0

-1

+1

+0

-1

+0

+0

+0

-1

+9

+26

+20

+14

+14

+10

+9

CHANGE

5

4

5

4

4

3

4

3

1

-6

-8

-11

-19

-32

-28

9

9

11

10

9

10

20

20

9

15

13

10

7

7

5

5

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 10

 20

 20

 20

 20

 18

 15

 9

 10

 10

 10

 10

 10

 20

 20

 10

 10

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2003 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: August 28, 2003

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -286 98 0 242

ACRE-FEET -286 194 0 480

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 480

 480

 946

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L

Table 7
### §1282. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–438, §2, Sept. 29, 1972, 86 Stat. 741, which exempted funds distributed per capita under the provisions of this subchapter from Federal and State income taxes, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS 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 on Form 10-K of Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
Terry R. McCormack, as Chief Executive Officer and Thomas H. Madden, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of his knowledge:



|(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 Registrant.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Terry R. McCormack                           
|Terry R. McCormack                               
|President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director 
|(Principal Executive Officer)                    
|March 16, 2010                                   
|/s/ Thomas H. Madden                             
|Thomas H. Madden                                 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)                    
|March 16, 2010
Exhibit 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Reza Zarif, certify that:  1. I  have  reviewed  this  annual  report  of  Probe Manufacturing,  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.    DATED  this  30th day  of  March 2008.  /s/ Reza Zarif __________________________ Reza Zarif Chief Executive Officer and Director
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF V.I.M.B.

PETITION OF: N.B., JR., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 627 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF N.H.M.B.

PETITION OF: N.B., JR., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 628 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF J.T.C.B.

PETITION OF: N.B., JR., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 629 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES
A Lehman Brothers Company

Via UPS

February 23, 2006
Karen Schluter
Citibank, NA
11l Wall Street, l4th Floor/Zone 3
New York, NY 10005

RE:SASCO 2005 - 11H
Annual Officer's Certificate as to Compliance

Dear Ms. Schluter:

The undersigned Officer certifies the following for the period ending on
December 31, 2005:

1.     I have reviewed the activities and performance of the Master Servicer
during the preceding calendar year under the terms of the Trust Agreements
and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its duties, responsibilities or obligations under the
Agreements;

2.     Based on said review and to the best of this Officer's knowledge, the
Master Servicer is not in default of its obligations under the terms of the
Trust Agreements in any material respect, or, if there is a default in the
fulfillment of its obligations, a description of each default or failure and
the nature and status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

3.     To the best of this Officer's knowledge, nothing has arose to lead
this Officer to believe that its Servicer has failed to perform any of its
duties, responsibilities and obligations under its Servicing Agreement during
the preceding calendar year;

4.     To the best of this Officer's knowledge, the Servicer is not in
default of its obligations under the terms of its Servicing Agreement in any
material respect, or, if there is a default in the fulfillment of
its obligations, a description of each default or failure and the nature and
status thereof has been reported to this Officer;

5.     The Master Servicer has received from its Servicer such Servicer's
annual certificate of compliance and a copy of such Servicer's annual audit
report, in each case to the extent required under the applicable Servicing
Agreement, or, if any such certificate or report has not been received by the
Master Servicer, the Master Servicer is using its best reasonable efforts to
obtain such certificate or report.


Certified By:

/s/ R. Peter Karr
------------------
R. Peter Karr
Senior Vice President
Master Servicing Division
§ 802.308 Conduct of oral argument. ( a ) Oral argument shall be held in Washington, DC, unless the Board orders otherwise, and shall be conducted at a time reasonably convenient to the parties. For good cause shown, the presiding judge of the panel may, in his or her discretion, postpone an oral argument to a more convenient time.
( b ) The proceedings shall be conducted under the supervision of the Chairman or, if the Chairman is not on the panel, the senior judge, who shall regulate all procedural matters arising during the course of the argument.
( c ) Within the discretion of the Board, oral argument shall be open to the public and may be presented by any party, representative, or duly authorized attorney. Presentation of oral argument may be denied by the Board to a party who has not significantly participated in the appeal prior to oral argument.
( d ) The Board shall determine the scope of any oral argument presented and shall so inform the parties in its notice scheduling oral argument pursuant to § 802.307.
( e ) The Board in its discretion shall determine the amount of time allotted to each party for argument and rebuttal.
EXHIBIT 23.1



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

          We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in this  Registration
Statement of OMI  Corporation  on Form S-3 of our report dated February 23, 1999
(February 28, 1999 as to Note 7), appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of
OMI  Corporation for the year ended December 31, 1998 and to the reference to us
under  the  heading  "Experts"  in  the  Prospectus,   which  is  part  of  this
Registration Statement.

                                        /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
                                        --------------------------


                                        New York, New York
                                        February 11, 2000