alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# COMPACT SCR (SELECTIVE CATALYTIC REDUCTION)

The new combined silencer and SCR unit developed by Wärtsilä is an ideal package for retrofitting projects. This Compact SCR offers the following
benefits: Modular and compact design enables • installation on the place of existing
silencer.
NO • x reduction 80

- 90 % Sound attenuation 25

- 35 dB(A) • Minimized size •

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) significantly reduces NO x emissions. As a result, only harmless substances normally
found in the air that we breath are released. SCR is currently the most efficient method
of NO x -reduction. A reducing agent, such as an aqueous solution of urea, is injected into the exhaust gas at a temperature of
300

- 450 oC. The urea in the exhaust gas decays into ammonia, which subsequently acts as a reducing agent in the SCR reactor to
convert NO x into harmless nitrogen and water.
The SCR method reduces NO x emission by
80

- 90 %. Hence, it is easy to reach a NO x level of 2g/kWh or lower, which complies with the most stringent levels at sea.

SCR technology A typical SCR plant consists of a reactor, containing several catalyst layers, a dosing and storage system for the reagent, and a control system. The SCR reactor is a square steel container large enough to house the layers of catalytic elements. Compact SCR concept for medium-speed engine
installations

# WARTSILA.COM WÄRTSILÄ ® is a registered trademark. Copyright © 2008 Wärtsilä Corporation.

Wärtsilä Corporation Kauppapuistikko 15, FIN-65100 Vaasa, Finland l Tel. +358 (0)10 709 0000

l Fax +358 (0)10 709 2422 The parameter for controlling the amount of urea injected is the engine load. To achieve more accurate control, the injection can be
linked to a feedback NO x analyzer after the catalyst. The rate of NO x reduction depends on the amount of urea injected which can be expressed as the ratio of NH 3 to NO x . The reduction rate can also be increased by increasing the catalyst volume. If an exhaust gas boiler and/or SO x scrubber are specified, they should be installed after the SCR, since the SCR requires a relatively high operating temperature. The lifetime of the catalyst elements is typically 3

- 5 years for liquid fuels and slightly longer if the engine is operating on gas. The main running costs of the catalyst come from urea consumption and replacement of catalyst layers. The urea consumption is about
20

- 25 g/kWh of 40 wt-% urea. The size of the urea tank depends on the size of the engine, the load profile and how often the ship will be entering harbours where
urea is available. Compact SCR technology is available for all engines in the Wärtsilä portfolio and for any engine from other engine suppliers. Today we
have delivered around 90 SCRs for marine applications, including SCR systems for newbuildings and compact SCRs for retrofits. Victoria I, a passenger ferry with four Wärtsilä Vasa 16V32 main engines and three Wärtsilä Vasa 6R32 auxiliary engines uses Wärtsilä compact SCR.

Installation of a Compact SCRWFI0005 Issue 2 GB Oct 2008
REGIONAL CORNER: TATARSTAN

----
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report of Superior Oil and
Gas Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the
"Report"),  I, Daniel  Lloyd,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby
certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 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.

Dated:  May 18, 2005

                                             /s/ Daniel Lloyd
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Daniel Lloyd
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
### [§1136. Vacant]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Prior to renumbering of sections 301 to 363 of this chapter as sections 1101 to 1163 by Pub. L. 102–83, §5(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 406, section 336 of this chapter, Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1123, which set forth the conditions under which wartime rates were payable to any veteran otherwise entitled to compensation under the provisions of this subchapter, was repealed by Pub. L. 92–328, title I, §108(c), title III, §301(b), June 30, 1972, 86 Stat. 396, 398, effective July 1, 1973.
§ 296.4 Limitations on assistance. ( a ) The Federal share of a project funded under the Program shall not be more than 50 percent of total project costs.
( b ) Federal funds awarded under this Program may be used only for direct costs and not for indirect costs, profits, or management fees.
( c ) No large-sized business may receive funding as a recipient or subrecipient of an award under the Program. When procured in accordance with procedures established under the Procurement Standards required by part 14 of Subtitle A of this title, recipients may procure supplies and other expendable property, equipment, real property and other services from any party, including large-sized businesses.
( d ) If a project ends before the completion of the period for which an award has been made, after all allowable costs have been paid and appropriate audits conducted, the unspent balance of the Federal funds shall be returned by the recipient to the Program.
NRC APPROVES POWER UPRATE FOR COOPER NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 30th approved a request by Nebraska 

Public Power District (NPPD) to increase Cooper Nuclear Station’s generating capacity by 1.62 

percent. The reactor is about 23 miles south of Nebraska City, Neb. 

 The NRC staff determined that NPPD could safely increase the reactor’s output 

primarily through more accurate means of measuring feedwater flow. NRC staff also reviewed 

NPPD’s evaluations showing the plant’s design can handle the increased power level. 

The NRC’s safety evaluation of the plant’s proposed power uprate focused on several 

areas, such as the nuclear steam supply systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical 

systems, accident evaluations, radiological consequences, operations and training, testing, and 

technical specification changes. 

The power uprate will increase Cooper’s generating capacity from approximately 815 to 

830 megawatts electric. NPPD intends to implement Cooper’s uprate later this summer. 

The NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate application in the Federal 

Register providing the public an opportunity to comment or request a hearing. No requests for 

hearing were submitted. The agency’s evaluation of the Cooper uprate will be available through 

the NRC’s ADAMS electronic document database by entering ML081540278 on this Web page: 

http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm. 

 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. 08-124 July 2, 2008
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

East Penn Railways, Inc.

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board

concerning the status of East Penn Railways, Inc. (EPRI) as an

employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 et

seq.)(RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C.

§ 351 et sea.)(RUIA).

In Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) Finance Docket No. 32732,

decided July 10, 1995, EPRI filed a notice for a modified

certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate three

rail lines as follows: (1) the Perkiomen Branch, USRA Line No. 906,

between milepost 22.38 at Pennsburg, PA and milepost 38.23 at

Emmaus Junction, Emmaus, PA, a distance of 15.85 miles, in Berks,

Lehigh, and Montgomery Counties, PA; (2) the Colebrookdale

Industrial Track (Boyertown Branch), USRA Line No. 909, between

milepost 0.00 at Colebrookdale Junction (Pottstown, PA), and

milepost 8.60 at Boyertown, PA, a distance of 8.60 miles, in Berks

and Montgomery Counties, PA; and (3) the Kutztown Branch, USRA Line

No. 910, between milepost 0.17 at Topton, PA, and milepost 4.29 at

Kutztown, PA, a distance of 4.12 miles, in Berks County, PA. The

lines were acquired by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

(Pennsylvania) in 1982 . EPRI has entered into a five year contract

agreement with Pennsylvania to operate these rail lines.

Effective July 1, 1995, EPRI began rail operations. Information

regarding EPRI was provided by John C. Nolan, President of EPRI.

EPRI first compensated its four employees on October 2, 1995.

According to Mr. Nolan, EPRI provides freight operations. EPRI

interchanges with Conrail at terminal points in Emmaus, Pottstown,

and Topton, Pennsylvania.

The evidence establishes that EPRI transports property by railroad

in interstate commerce in the United States. Accordingly, the

Board holds that East Penn Railways, Inc. is a rail carrier

employer under the Railroad Retirement Act and the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act effective July 1, 1995, the date it

began operations.

BCD 1996-17

BA # 2363
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 6 2002 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN KASEL; Y. G. ARIAS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, an unincorporated labor organization; LOCAL UNION NO. 103 BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, an unincorporated labor organization; LOCAL UNION NO. 451 BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, an unincorporated labor organization; DIVISION 29 BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, an unincorporated labor organization; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and JOHN DOES 1-10, individuals, Defendants-Appellees. No. 01-1088 (D.C. No. 99-M-859) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *** Honorable John R. Gibson, Circuit Judge, United States Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designat ion. - 2 - Before EBEL , GIBSON ** , and PORFILIO , Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants John Kasel and Y.G. Arias are engineers with Union Pacific Railroad Company (“UP”) and members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (“BLE”) who were displaced as a result of the UPSouthern Pacific merger. They have brought claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against UP and claims for breac h of the duty of fair representation against BLE. Appellants claim that UP violated a commitment made to the BLE negotiators that Appellants would k eep the new Long Pool turns to which they were assigned after the merger unless there was a significant decrease in business. Appellants also contend that UP violated commitments that their vacation rights would be recognized based on their pre-merger seniority, and that they would be entitled to bump to Fireman posi tions in the event that they were displaced from their Long Pool positions. The district court ruled that it lacked jurisdictio n over Appellants’ claims against UP because the claims were subject to manda tory arbitration pursuant to the New York Dock conditions agreed to by UP when it sought the Surf ace Transportation Board’s approval of the merger. See New York Dock Ry.-ControlBrooklyn Eastern Dist. , 360 I.C.C. 60, 84-90 (1979). The district court also ruled- 3 -

that Appellants’ claims against BLE were time-barre d, and that the record did not support a finding that BLE breached its duty of fai r representation. Accordingly, the district court granted summary judgment to UP a nd BLE and dismissed Appellants’ suit. Appellants challenge each of the district court’s r ulings. After reviewing the briefs and record in this case, we agree with t he district court’s conclusions. For substantially the reasons set forth in the dist rict court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00267]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Hypersensitivity, Allergies and Mucosal Immunology.
    Date: February 7, 2019.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Alok Mulky, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4203, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-3566, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cbaaa7a4a0e5a6bea7a0b28ba5a2a3e5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f998959692d7948c959280b9979091d79e968f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This meeting notice is being published less than 15 days in 
advance of the meeting due to the partial Government shutdown of 
December 2018.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 24, 2019.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-00267 Filed 1-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EX-10.10.2



 






EXHIBIT 10.10.2








September 29, 2006




George Chamoun

35 Prince of Whales

Williamsville, NY 14221



Dear George,



On behalf of Synacor, Inc., I am pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your job
performance. Based on your job performance, you will receive a promotional increase for your base
salary of 20%. Your new annual salary will be $150,000. The effective date of this increase will be
September 1, 2006.



We are proud to have you working with us and look forward to your continuing contributions! 

Best
Regards,





/s/
Julia Culkin      





Julia Culkin

Vice President of Human Resources



Acknowledged and accepted:




/s/
George Chamoun       

Signature



George Chamoun
 
Date: 9/29/06
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 0 2

- 00 049

- CV

ACandS, Inc. , Appellant

v.
Dorothy A. Lehmann, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Clarence R. Lehmann, Deceased; Alan Sweeten; Eugene Kanak; James Jones;

James Scott; and Henry Taylor , Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY , 20TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 26,342

- A , HONORABLE EDWARD P. MAGRE , JUDGE PRESIDING

The parties have filed an amended joint motion to dismiss and an amended joint motion to
expedite the issuance of mandate. We dismiss the joint motion to dismiss and the joint motion to expedite,
we grant the amended joint motion to dismiss, and we grant the amended joint motion to expedite the

issuance of mandate.

__________________________________________ Marilyn Aboussie, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed on Joint Motion
Filed: April 25, 2002Do N ot Publish
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
              -----------------------------------------------------

                   CHASE CREDIT CARD OWNER TRUST SERIES 2000-2

             ------------------------------------------------------



      The undersigned, an Authorized Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, as Administrator pursuant to the Indenture for the Chase
Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2000-2 does hereby certify that:

                  1. The undersigned is an Authorized Officer pursuant to the
            Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture
            Trustee.

                  2. This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.9 of
            the Indenture.

                  3. A review of the activities of the Issuer for the calendar
            year ended December 31, 2002, and of performance under this
            Indenture has been made under the supervision of the undersigned.

                  4. To the best of the undersigned knowledge, based on such
            review, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and covenants in
            all material respects under this Indenture for the calendar year
            ended December 31, 2002. No default in the compliance of any such
            condition or covenant has occurred or is continuing except as set
            forth in paragraph 5 below.

                  5. The following is a description of each default in the
            performance of the Issuer's obligations under the provisions of the
            Indenture known to the undersigned to have been made during such
            period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such
            default, (ii) the action taken by the Issuer, if any, to remedy each
            such default and (iii) the current status of each such default:
            NONE.


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 28th day of March, 2003.

                                                By CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
                                                USA, National Association,
                                                as Administrator




                                                By:  /s/ Patricia M. Garvey
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                Name: Patricia M. Garvey
                                                Title: Vice President
(October 18, 1943.)

#### In the Matter of Joseph B. Margolin, an Attorney, Respondent.

Present— Close, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ.
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Alliance Terminal Railroad, LLC

DEC 0 3 2004

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the status of

Alliance Terminal Railroad, LLC, as an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act

(45 U.S.C. § 231 et sea.) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C.

§ 351 et sea.).

In Surface Transportation Board Finance Docket No. 34537, Alliance filed a notice

of exemption to sublease from Quality Terminal Services, LLC (a covered

employer under the Acts; B.A. No. 4874), and operate approximately 12.9 miles of

rail line owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company (BNSF).

Alliance is owned by Mr. Patrick Broe who also owns OmniTRAX, Inc., a company

which is not covered under the Acts and which owns a number of rail carriers.

Alliance has 16 employees. They were first compensated July 25, 2004, and

Alliance began operations on or about October 1,2004. It interchanges with the 

Burlington Northern.

Alliance's operation consists of "taking cars from the interchange point with the 

BNSF and moving them to BNSF’s intermodal ramp and then moving cars from the

intermodal ramp to the interchange point. In addition, it will provide switching

services within the ramp. Finally, it may pick up and set up railcars at another

BNSF facility about eleven (11) miles from the intermodal ramp."

Section 1 (a)(1) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 (a)(1)), insofar as

relevant here, defines a covered employer as:

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the jurisdiction of the

Surface Transportation Board under Part A of subtitle IV of title 49,

United States Code;

(ii) any company which is directly or indirectly owned or

controlled by, or under common control with, one or more employers

as defined in paragraph (i) of this subdivision, and which operates

any equipment or facility or performs any service (except trucking

service, casual service, and the casual operation of equipment or

facilities) in connection with the transportation of passengers or

property by railroad * * *.

Sections 1 (a) and 1 (b) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. §§

351(a) and (b)) contain substantially similar definitions, as does section 3231 of the

Railroad Retirement Tax Act (26 U.S.C. § 3231).

BA#4871
-2-

The evidence of record establishes that Alliance is a carrier operating in interstate

commerce. Accordingly, it is determined that Alliance is an employer within the

meaning of section 1(a)(1)(i) of the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. §

231 (a)(1)(i)) and the corresponding provision of the Railroad Unemployment

Insurance Act as of July 25, 2004, the date as of which it first compensated

employees. Cf. Rev. Ruling 82-100, 1982-1 C.B. 155, wherein the Internal Revenue

Service ruled that a company becomes an employer under the Railroad 

Retirement Tax Act on the date it hires employees to perform functions directly

related to its commencement of railroad carrier operations.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Quintlin Renard Jimerson, Appellant

No. 06-18-00201-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 276th District Court of 

Marion County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. F14989). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by deleting the $350.00 

assessment for court-appointed attorney fees. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Quintlin Renard Jimerson, has adequately indicated his inability 

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

RENDERED MAY 22, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk