alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: StacySword@aol.com [mailto:StacySword@aol.com] 

Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:45 AM

To: Francis, Loretta

Cc: carlvineyard@aol.com

Subject: K-2 Investigative report Sept 8th

Loretta,

I received a call from Scott Postma yesterday about the Hex Chrome calculation and I have made 

changes to the report based on our conversation. I am attaching a new pdf copy of the report with revised 

Hex Chrome numbers. If you could please review the report and forward a copy to Scott Postma when 

you have looked it over.

Thank you,

Stacy Sword

Grace Consulting, Inc.

510 Dickson Street

Wellington, OH 44090

(440) 647-6672 - phone

(440) 647-6673 - fax
EXHIBIT 32.2

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vertrue Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
B. Duffy, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, to my knowledge, 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 and 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/ James B. Duffy
------------------
James B. Duffy
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Vertrue Incorporated
February 9, 2005

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

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDGAR LEE WARREN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ED FOULK, Executive Director,Napa State Hospital; et al., 

Defendants.                                                      /

No. C 08-5794 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Edgar Lee Warren filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while

he was at Napa State Hospital.  The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend

because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against any defendant. 

The court explained the deficiencies in the complaint, ordered Warren to file an amended

complaint no later than November 6, 2009, and warned that the failure to file the amended

complaint by the deadline would result in the dismissal of the action.  Warren failed to file an

amended complaint and the deadline by which to do so has passed.  Mail sent to him was

returned as undelivered.  This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted against a defendant.  The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2010 _____________________ Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05794-MHP   Document 12   Filed 03/17/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T06:12:56-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             491
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   491
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,804
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,903
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,707
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,918
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,918)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,918)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,918)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Darrell Passeri et al., Appellants, v Children’s Village et al., Defendants, and Greenburgh 11 Union Free School District, Respondent.

[716 NYS2d 334]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered December 15, 1999, which denied their motion, denominated as a motion to renew, but which was in fact for reargument, of a prior motion by the defendant Green-burgh 11 Union Free School District for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, which was granted by order of the same court entered May 4, 1998.

*367Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiffs’ motion, denominated as a motion to renew, was, in fact, a motion for reargument *(see, Lowensohn v Bedford Garden Caterers,*266 AD2d 266). No appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(see, Haggerty v Agawam Realty,*271 AD2d 408). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
### §6212. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–113, div. O, title I, §101(a), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2987

Section, Pub. L. 94–163, title I, §103, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 877; Pub. L. 96–72, §22(b)(1), Sept. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 535, related to domestic use of energy supplies and related materials and equipment.
### §6908a. Agreements with Indian tribes

On and after October 21, 1998, the Administrator is authorized to enter into assistance agreements with Federally 1 recognized Indian tribes on such terms and conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate for the development and implementation of programs to manage hazardous waste, and underground storage tanks.

(Pub. L. 105–276, title III, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2499.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, and not as part of the Solid Waste Disposal Act which comprises this chapter.

1 So in original. Probably should not be capitalized.
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under	

EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Review.

Some commenters would like to reiterate their concerns expressed in the comments on page 82 of this 

NOPR. In the first round of passback, EPA did not make any changes to the NOPR based on the 

comments. In the first iteration of comments, the commenters opposed EPA’s proposal to continuing to 

allow dry-shipped HCFC-22 condensing units to be sold as repairs or replacements for existing split 

system central air conditioners that still use HCFC-22 as refrigerants. This replacement technique, 

besides prolonging the use of the HCFC-22 refrigerant, also lowers the energy efficiency of these 

systems. A new condensing unit paired with an old evaporator coil will result in lower system efficiency 

than replacing the system, and will not achieve the efficiency claimed for the condensing unit. This will 

cut dramatically into the energy savings projected to be achieved by energy efficiency standards on split 

system central air conditioners. This issue has also been flagged by industry: EPA includes discussion on 

this topic in the NOPR in large part because Carrier Corporation sent a letter in 2011 to EPA requesting 

EPA ban this type of replacement.

In the draft NOPR, EPA proposes to request information from manufacturers on how and to what extent 

these units are being shipped today, as EPA believes condensing unit sales are decreasing, and therefore 

won’t materially affect the HCFC-22 phase out. The commenters are not convinced that condensing unit 

sales are in fact decreasing, given manufacturer certification data, which shows a large uptick in certified 

R-22 models in 2012 relative to 2011, implying a larger market for this equipment; and that 

manufacturers that had previously exited the market have since re-entered the market for competitive 

reasons. Commenters are concerned that under EPA’s proposed approach, manufacturers have little 

incentive to provide additional information, as doing so could draw attention to data that would lead 

EPA to close what could be a sizable loophole. 

Instead, the commenters propose that EPA indicate in this section that it is “strongly considering 

banning dry-shipped condensing units intended for use with HCFC-22.” Manufacturers and other 

stakeholders would be invited to comment on this proposed approach. Presumably, manufacturers 

would then supply EPA with any data indicating this approach would have a deleterious effect on 

manufacturers or consumers. This proposal would not require EPA to change its underlying analysis but 

would have the benefit of ensuring that any available data surrounding this issue would be provided, 

enabling EPA to make its ultimate decision with all of the information at its disposal.
### §5811. Establishment of Energy Research and Development Administration

There is hereby established an independent executive agency to be known as the Energy Research and Development Administration (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the "Administration").

(Pub. L. 93–438, title I, §101, Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1234.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–438, Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1233, which enacted this chapter, amended sections 5313 to 5316 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, repealed sections 2031 and 2032 of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under section 5801 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5801 of this title and Tables.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Functions

Energy Research and Development Administration terminated and functions vested by law in Administrator thereof transferred to Secretary of Energy (unless otherwise specifically provided) by sections 7151(a) and 7293 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Herbert L. Gross et al., Petitioners, v State Tax Commission, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the State Tax Commission, which held petitioners liable for additional personal income taxes under article 22 of the Tax Law for the year 1973. During the relevant tax year, petitioner resided in New Jersey. He worked as a management consultant for a firm with offices in New York. The firm allowed petitioner to perform his paper work at *home*and, consequently, petitioner worked 194 of 247 working days in New Jersey. He paid New York income tax on the 53 days worked in New York. Respondent assessed an additional $967.60 after its determination that all income was subject to New York tax. Petitioner argued before respondent, and argues here, that his employer required him to work at home to allow him more working time and increase his productivity. Respondent decided that the work could have been performed at the firm’s offices and that there was no necessity for the petitioner to work at home. Petitioner seeks review of that determination. Income earned outside New York State may be subject to New York income tax in certain circumstances (Tax Law, § 632, subd [c]). Respondent’s regulations provide: "If a nonresident employee * * * performs services for his employer both within and without the State, his income derived from New York sources includes that proportion of his total compensation for services rendered as an employee which the total number of working days employed within the State bears to the total number of working days employed both within and without the State * * *. However, any allowance claimed for days worked outside of the State must be based upon the performance of services which of necessity—as distinguished from convenience—obligate the employee to out-of-State duties in the service of his employer.” (20 NYCRR 131.16.) It is apparent that a confirmance is compelled here. Petitioner misconstrues the concept of work required to be performed outside the State. Work is so required if it could not be performed within the State *(Matter of Speno v Gallman,*35 NY2d 256). In the case at bar, petitioner could just as easily *1118have performed his work at his office in New York, but found it more convenient to work at home. That his employer prefers him to work at home to allow for more efficient use of time is irrelevant to the issue of whether the work could have been performed in New York (see *Matter of Page v State Tax Comm.,*46 AD2d 341). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
### §2315. Repealed. Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, title I, §302(b), as added Pub. L. 95–110, §1, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 884; renumbered title I, Oct. 24, 1992, Pub. L. 102–486, title IX, §902(a)(8), 106 Stat. 2944

Section, act Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 10, §103, 69 Stat. 483, provided that sections 2251 to 2257 of this title were applicable to all matters coming under this chapter.
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIELLE POLLAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C08-4196 BZ

SCHEDULING ORDER

Inasmuch as the settlement conference has been

rescheduled to March 2, 2010, it is hereby ordered that the

hearing on the pending motions for summary judgment is

continued to March 17, 2010.

If the parties agree that settlement prospects would be

improved by continuing the current briefing schedule, they may

file a stipulation proposing a new briefing schedule.

Dated: February 5, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\POLLAR V. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA\Scheduling Order-SJ.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-04196-BZ Document 76 Filed 02/05/10 Page 1 of 1
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No PMN: 08-0733 734 Focus Ready Draft 10/6/2008 ENGINEER: Arnold \ CPW PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER: USE: OTHER USES: MSDS: Yes Label: No Gen Eqpt: Respirator: Health Effects: TLV/PEL: CRSS : Chemical Name: Multi-walled carbon nanotubes S-H20: 0.000001 g/L @ VP: 1.0E-6 torr @ MW: %<500 %<1000 Physical State and Misc CRSS Info:Consumer Use: SAT (concerns) (09/30/2008): Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

. Migration to groundwater: Unknown PBT rating: PBT P3BUT2 Health: 1-2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 1 No releases to Water OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2B NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS: P2 Claims:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

Number of Sites/ Location: unknown site(s) Days/yr: Basis:

Process Description: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation: Dermal: Use: Number of Sites/ Location:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No Process Description: ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation: Dermal: Use: Number of Sites/ Location: unknown site(s) Days/yr: Basis: Process Description:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium.

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURES ESTIMATE SUMMARY Tot. # of workers exposed via assessed routes: Basis: Inhalation:INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT CBI: No Dermal:
### §6350. Industrial insulation and audit guidelines

#### (a) Voluntary guidelines for energy efficiency auditing and insulating

Not later than 18 months after October 24, 1992, the Secretary, after consultation with utilities, major industrial energy consumers, and representatives of the insulation industry, shall establish voluntary guidelines for—

(1) the conduct of energy efficiency audits of industrial facilities to identify cost-effective opportunities to increase energy efficiency; and

(2) the installation of insulation to achieve cost-effective increases in energy efficiency in industrial facilities.

#### (b) Educational and technical assistance

The Secretary shall conduct a program of educational and technical assistance to promote the use of the voluntary guidelines established under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 102–486, title I, §133, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 2840; Pub. L. 104–66, title I, §1052(a)(2), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 717; Pub. L. 105–362, title IV, §401(e), Nov. 10, 1998, 112 Stat. 3282.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and not as part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1998—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–362 struck out heading and text of subsec. (c). Text read as follows: "Not later than 2 years after October 24, 1995, and biennially thereafter, as part of the report required under section 6349(d) of this title, the Secretary shall report to the Congress on activities conducted pursuant to this section, including—

"(1) a review of the status of industrial energy auditing procedures; and

"(2) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the guidelines established under subsection (a) of this section and the responsiveness of the industrial sector to such guidelines."

1995—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–66 in introductory provisions substituted "1995" for "1992", and inserted "as part of the report required under section 6349(d) of this title," after "and biennially thereafter,".
### §4004. Definitions applicable to Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012

#### (a) In general

In this subtitle, the following definitions shall apply:

#### (1) 100-year floodplain

The term "100-year floodplain" means that area which is subject to inundation from a flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.

#### (2) 500-year floodplain

The term "500-year floodplain" means that area which is subject to inundation from a flood having a 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.

#### (3) Administrator

The term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

#### (4) National Flood Insurance Program

The term "National Flood Insurance Program" means the program established under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4011 et seq.).

#### (5) Write Your Own

The term "Write Your Own" means the cooperative undertaking between the insurance industry and the Federal Insurance Administration which allows participating property and casualty insurance companies to write and service standard flood insurance policies.

#### (b) Common terminology

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, any terms used in this subtitle shall have the meaning given to such terms under section 1370 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4121).

(Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title II, §100202, July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 916.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subtitle, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is subtitle A (§§100201–100249) of title II of div. F of Pub. L. 112–141, July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 916, known as the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. For complete classification of this subtitle to the Code, see Short Title of 2012 Amendment note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, referred to in subsec. (a)(4), is title XIII of Pub. L. 90–448, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 572, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, and also as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, also known as the MAP–21, and not as part of National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 which comprises this chapter.