alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Rob Bamford <rbamford@ndep.nv.gov>

To: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Mike Elges <melges@ndep.nv.gov>

Date: 10/19/2010 05:08 PM

Subject: Questions

Hello Chuck, here’s the information:

1. As I explained on phone, we have questions about the Goldstrike autoclave 

data for Dry Grinding (systems 15A and 16A) for tests done on

8/3/2007 and 8/4/2007. The runs seem quite high compared to other tests, the 3 

runs are more than an order of magnitude apart from one another, there seems to 

be no blank value reported, the PM catch seems

under reported, etc... Anyway, did y'all do an evaluation of that data

and test report? If so, could you send the evaluation report for those

tests to me ASAP? Nevertheless, could you please let me know ASAP if

you (or your colleagues at NDEP) have any information, review, or opinions on 

these data, the validity, etc...?

The dry grind systems are associated with the roasters (not autoclaves).

We had a database maintenance error and those test should have been invalidated. 

I attached a detailed discussion on the subsequent investigation. During the 

test the company also ran OHM and 30b simultaneously. The discussion contains a 

very interesting discussion comparing M29, OHM and 30b. The variance measured 

between the 3 methods is huge, and the exemplifies NDEP’s concerns with 

alternative method, other than M29.

2. Could you please send us the run by run lb/hr values for a test conducted on 

Carbon Kiln #1 at Cortez on 1/1/2010. We have only the average of the 3 runs in 

our database right now and we need individual run values.

I have a test for kiln#1 on January 28, 2010, (not January 1st) is this the test 

you are referring to?

(Embedded image moved to file: pic30259.gif)

3. Could you please let me know if the Title V permits (or any other permits for 

that matter) contain requirements or obligations for cyanide management 

practices. If so, could you let me know what those say?

The Title 5 Permits do not contain requirements or obligations for cyanide 

management practices. I would assume that the company provides calculations 
during the application process to demonstrate that they do not emit > 10tpy. I 

could verify this further if you like.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions, -Rob

|-------------------+-----------------------------|

| (Embedded image |Rob Bamford |

| moved to file: |Supervisor, Nevada Mercury |

| pic00821.jpg) |Control Program |

| Description: |Nevada Division of |

|logo_new01_print_s |Environmental Protection |

| |Bureau of Air Quality |

| |Planning |

| | |

| |Phone: 775-687-9330 |

| |Cell: 775-315-3655 |

| |Fax: 775-687-6396 |

| |E-mail: rbamford@ndep.nv.gov |

|-------------------+-----------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STAEMENTS OF HOMECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD
ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         813,735
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,250,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                   232,750
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,001,557
<PP&E>                                       2,383,406
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,272,973
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,547,150
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,417,294
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           663
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,246,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,547,250
<SALES>                                         94,463
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,047,393
<CGS>                                           65,166
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,968,255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,728,021
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               133,500
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,758,626)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,758,626)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,758,626)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6652** 

CHRISTIAN ISRAEL LAVANDERA

- HERNANDEZ , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. DUANE TERRELL, Superintendent; ROBERT C. LEWIS, Director of Prisons; THEODIS BECK, Secretary , Respondents

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Thomas D. Schroeder , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00553

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Christian Israel Lavandera

- Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christian Israel Lavandera

- Hernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2006) p etition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debat able or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lavandera

- Hernandez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingl y, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument wou ld not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 4 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 5 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 6 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 7 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 8 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 9 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 10 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 11 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 12 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 13 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 14 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Document 38 Filed 06/17/10 Page 15 of 16
Case 3:09-cv-01363-EMC Docume
### §3712g. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3712g was editorially reclassified as section 10108 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 24, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00118

- CR

Stephen G. VIDALES

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar Cou nty, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR7839

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court ’ s certification states that this “ is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has

NO right of appeal. ” We therefore ORDER the trial court clerk to file, within ten days of the

date of this order, an electronic clerk ’ s record containing the following documents:

1. All pre

- trial motions and the orders on those motions, if any;

2. All documents relating to the defendant ’ s plea bargain, including the

court ’ s admonishments, the defendant ’ s waiver and consent to sti pulation

of testimony, and any other stipulations;

3. The judgment;

4. All post

- judgment motions and the orders on those motions, if any;

5. The notices of appeal;

6. The trial court ’ s certification of defendant ’ s right of appeal; and

7. The criminal docket sheet.All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk

of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court

clerk, and the court reporters responsible for prep aring the reporter ’ s record in this appeal.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Jus tice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Cl erk of Court
#### § 1000.216 What happens if the recipient does not submit the IHP to the Area ONAP by no later than 75 days before the beginning of the tribal program year?

If the IHP is not initially sent by at least 75 days before the beginning of the tribal program year, the recipient will not be eligible for IHBG funds for that fiscal year. Any funds not obligated because an IHP was not received before this deadline has passed shall be distributed by formula in the following year.

[77 FR 71526, Dec. 3, 2012]
#### Wallace E. Breed et al., Individually and Doing Business as North Auto Parts, Appellants, v. Town of Clay, Respondent.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with $10 costs.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CertificationPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code), I, Michael G. Long, Chief Financial Officer of EdgePetroleum Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify, to my knowledge, that:

(1)                                  theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: | November 9, 2006                                        | /s/ Michael G. Long |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|   | Michael G. Long  Chief Financial and Accounting Officer |

 

----
### §7614. Labor standards

The Administrator shall take such action as may be necessary to insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on projects assisted under this chapter shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for the same type of work on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor, in accordance with sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40. The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this subsection,1 the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267) and section 3145 of title 40.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title III, §314, formerly §307, as added Pub. L. 90–148, §2, Nov. 21, 1967, 81 Stat. 506; renumbered §314 and amended Pub. L. 91–604, §§12(a), 15(c)(2), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1705, 1713.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950, referred to in text, is set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Codification

In text, "sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40" substituted for "the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended, known as the Davis-Bacon Act (46 Stat. 1494; 40 U.S.C. 276a—276a–5)" and "section 3145 of title 40" substituted for "section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C. 276c)", on authority of Pub. L. 107–217, §5(c), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1303, the first section of which enacted Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works.

Section was formerly classified to section 1857j–3 of this title.

#### Amendments

1970—Pub. L. 91–604, §15(c)(2), substituted "Administrator" for "Secretary" meaning the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

1 So in original. Probably should be "section,".
§ 252.2 GNMA right to assignment. If the lender-issuer defaults on its obligations under the GNMA Mortgage-Backed Securities Program, GNMA will have the right to cause all Coinsured Mortgages held in GNMA pools by the defaulting coinsuring lender-issuer to be assigned to another GNMA-approved coinsuring lender-issuer, or to GNMA itself. ( a ) For any Coinsured Mortgage that is not in default and is held by a defaulting lender-issuer, GNMA will have the right to perfect an assignment of the mortgage to itself. However, before exercising this right, GNMA will attempt to have the Mortgage assigned to another eligible coinsuring lender (unless GNMA determines, with the agreement of the Commissioner, that the attempt would prove ineffectual because of market conditions or other factors). This attempt will be undertaken by soliciting offers to assume the defaulting lender-issuer's rights and obligations under the Mortgage from those eligible coinsuring lenders that are also GNMA issuers and that are indicated on a periodically updated listing furnished to GNMA by the Commissioner.
( b ) For any Coinsured Mortgage that is in default and held by a defaulting lender-issuer, GNMA will have the right to perfect an assignment of the Coinsured Mortgage directly to itself before extinguishing the Mortgage by completion of foreclosure action or acquisition of title by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure.
( c ) GNMA, as assignee, will give the Commissioner written notice, within 30 days after taking a Mortgage by assignment in accordance with this section, in order to allow an appropriate endorsement and necessary changes in the Commissioner's records.
( d ) The Commissioner will endorse any Mortgage assigned to GNMA as provided by this section for full insurance, effective as of the date of assignment in accordance with the appropriate provisions of 24 CFR part 232. Any future claim by GNMA, or any assignment of the fully insured Mortgage, will be governed by the appropriate provisions of 24 CFR part 232, except that any payment will be made in cash instead of debentures.
[59 FR 1475, Jan. 11, 1994]
### §143. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–533, §1(14), June 29, 1960, 74 Stat. 248

Section, act June 25, 1910, ch. 421, §3, 36 Stat. 848, required Secretary of the Interior to report withdrawals to Congress.
Exhibit 11
                                     
                  Metris Companies Inc. and Subsidiaries
                     Computation of Earnings Per Share
              (in thousands, except share and per share data)

                               Three Months Ended        Six Months Ended
                                      June 30,                June 30,
                                 1997        1996         1997         1996
Primary:
Net Income                   $     9,719 $     5,039   $   17,457  $     8,894
                              
Weighted average share        
  common stock outstanding(1) 19,225,000  15,966,667   19,225,000   15,966,667

Common stock equivalents (2)     904,963     522,687      928,935      509,974

Weighted average common and
  common equivalent shares    20,129,963  16,489,354   20,153,935   16,476,641

  Net income per share       $       .48 $       .31   $      .87  $       .54

  Fully diluted:
  Net income                 $     9,719 $     5,039   $   17,457  $     8,894

  Weighted average shares
    of common stock 
    outstanding (1)           19,225,000  15,966,667   19,225,000   15,966,667

  Common stock equivalents(2)  1,002,178     529,269    1,007,528      529,269

  Weighted average common and
    common equivalent shares  20,227,178  16,495,936   20,232,528   16,495,936

  Net income per share       $       .48 $       .31   $      .86  $       .54
(1) Assume shares outstanding as if the Company reorganization had occurred
at  the beginning of the periods shown.
(2) Based on the treasury stock method using the average market price for
primary earnings per share and the higher of the average or year-end market
price for fully diluted earnings per share.  Prior to October 25, 1996, the
initial public offering price of $16 was used.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                               99048
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1305104
<ALLOWANCES>                                        371685
<INVENTORY>                                        2274641
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   4067495
<PP&E>                                             1426525
<DEPRECIATION>                                     1385114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     4110706
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              2247321
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                              4419
<OTHER-SE>                                         1858966
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       4110706
<SALES>                                            2362567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   2362645
<CGS>                                              1729279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1729279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    549189
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   19743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      64434
<INCOME-TAX>                                         25774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  38660
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         38660
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .01



</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00134-CV

SO SON HARABEDOFF AND SO

SON HARABEDOFF AS

EXECUTOR OF ESTATE OF

U\RRY R. HARABEDOFF,

DECEASED

FORT WORTH EMPLOYEES'

RETIREMENT FUND

V.

APPELLANT

APPELLEE

FROM THE 96TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

ORDER

On May 1, 2013, we sent the parties a letter suggesting that this case may

be appropriate for referral to an alternative dispute resolution procedure. On May

13, 2013, appellee filed a written objection to the proposed referral. Because we

have determined that there is a reasonable basis for the objection, we sustain the

objection.
The clerk's record and reporter's record are due on or before Monday,

May 20, 2013.

The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the

attorneys of record, the trial court judge, the trial court clerk, and the court

reporter.

DATED May 14, 2013.

PER CURIAM
### **CHAPTER 18—SURVEY OF PUBLIC LANDS**

Sec.
751.
Rules of survey.
751a.
Survey system extended to Alaska.
751b.
Surveys in Nome and Fairbanks districts.
752.
Boundaries and contents of public lands; how ascertained.
753.
Lines of division of half quarter sections; how run.
754 to 756. Repealed.
757.
Cost of survey of private land claims to be reported and paid.
758.
Delivery of patent contingent on refund of cost of survey.
759.
Survey for and by settlers in township.
760.
Deposit for expenses deemed an appropriation.
761.
Repayment of excess of deposits to cover cost of surveys of mineral lands.
762.
Deposits made by settlers for surveys to go in part payment of lands.
763.
Deposits in Louisiana applicable to resurveys.
764, 765.
Repealed.
766.
Geological surveys, extension of public surveys, expenses of subdividing.
767 to 769. Repealed.
770.
Rectangular mode of survey; departure from.
771.
Repealed.
772.
Resurveys or retracements to mark boundaries of undisposed lands.
773.
Resurveys or retracements of township lines, etc.
774.
Protection of surveyor by marshal.
775.
Omitted.
776.
Cadastre of Federal real property.
§ 206.209 Prepayment. ( a ) *No charge or penalty.* The borrower may repay a mortgage in full or prepay a mortgage in part without charge or penalty at any time, regardless of any limitations on repayment or prepayment stated in a mortgage.
( b ) *Insurance and condemnation proceeds.* If insurance or condemnation proceeds are paid to the mortgagee, the principal limit and the outstanding loan balance shall be reduced by the amount of the proceeds not applied to restoration or repair of the damaged property.
( c ) Funds received from a partial prepayment shall be applied in accordance with the Note.
### SUBCHAPTER LI—MOUNTAIN PARK PROJECT, OKLAHOMA

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

#### Change of Name

Pub. L. 94–77, Aug. 9, 1975, 89 Stat. 410, provided: "That the Mountain Park Reservoir, Oklahoma, authorized to be constructed by the Act of September 21, 1968 (82 Stat. 853) [sections 616aaaa to 616ffff of this title], shall be known and designated hereafter as the Tom Steed Reservoir. Any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of the United States in which such reservoir is referred shall be held to refer to such reservoir as the Tom Steed Reservoir."
§ 115.200 Purpose. This subpart implements section 810(f) of the Fair Housing Act. The purpose of this subpart is to set forth: ( a ) The basis for agency interim certification and certification;
( b ) Procedures by which a determination is made to grant interim certification or certification;
( c ) How the Department will evaluate the performance of an interim and certified agency;
( d ) Procedures that the Department will utilize when an interim or certified agency performs deficiently;
( e ) Procedures that the Department will utilize when there are changes limiting the effectiveness of an interim or certified agency's law;
( f ) Procedures for renewal of certification; and
( g ) Procedures when an agency requests interim certification or certification after a withdrawal.