alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Source Categories Emissions (tons/yr)%Cumulative

%

Chemical Manufacturing: Phenol Manufacturing 5.31E-02 0.01 0.01 Chemicals and Allied Products, nec 3.00E-03 0.00 0.01 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production [1] 1.85E+00 0.20 0.21 Flavoring Extracts and Syrups Production 2.85E-02 0.00 0.21 Food Preparations Production 3.84E+00 0.42 0.63
Industrial Boilers 2.70E+00 0.30 0.93 Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1.77E-01 0.02 0.95 Industrial Organic Chemical Manufacturing 5.75E+00 0.63 1.58 Insitutional/Commercial Heating 1.48E+01 1.63 3.21 Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) 1.98E+01 2.18 5.39 Nutritional Yeast Manufacturing 1.63E+01 1.79 7.18 Plastics Materials and Resins Manufacturing [2] 1.28E-01 0.01 7.19 Plywood/Particle Board Manufacturing 4.69E-02 0.01 7.20 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) 1.56E+01 1.72 8.92 Secondary Lead Smelting 1.72E-01 0.02 8.94 Sewage Sludge Incinerators 1.42E-01 0.02 8.95 Softwood Drying Kilns 1.68E+01 1.85 10.80 Stationary Combustion Turbines 2.85E+01 3.14 13.94 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 7.81E+02 85.9799.91
Tire Production 1.77E-02 0.0099.91 Wet Corn Milling 7.75E-01 0.09100.00

Total Emissions908.95100.00

Foot Notes [1] Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production was titled Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production (not subject to petroleum refining MACT) in the May 1999 Report [2] Plastics Materials and Resins Manufacturing (Nov. 2002 Inventory) was titled Polymers and Resins (I,II,IV) in the May 1999 Report 

### Acetaldehyde
Exhibit 21

                              Subsidiaries of Rand

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
        Name of Subsidiary                    State or other               Names under which such
                                      jurisdiction of incorporation       subsidiaries do business
                                             or organization
<S>                                              <C>                <C>
      Rand Finance Corp.                         Delaware                  Rand Finance Corp.

      Rand LL Holdings Corp.                     Delaware                  Rand LL Holdings Corp.

      Lower Lakes Towing Ltd.                     Canada                   Lower Lakes Towing Ltd.

Lower Lakes Transportation Company               Delaware           Lower Lakes Transportation Company

    Grand River Navigation Ltd.                  Delaware               Grand River Navigation Ltd.;
                                                                      GR Nav. (Name used in Michigan)

</TABLE>
steam_record - Fw: RRI Energy Niles Power Plant Request 

 

-----Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US on 07/02/2010 08:18PM ----- 

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

From: "Tondo, Rocco" <RTondo@rrienergy.com> 

Date: 06/30/2010 09:41AM 

cc: "Smith, James R. (Randy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.com>, "Whelan, Kerry M." 

<KWhelan@rrienergy.com>, "Frank, Stephen" <SFrank@rrienergy.com>, 

<DIANE.R.MARTINI@Sargentlundy.com>, "Macey, Francis E" <fmacey@rrienergy.com>, 

"Cunningham, Allison" <ACunningham@rrienergy.com>, "Greek, Matt E." 

<MGreek@rrienergy.com>, "Brown, Steven W." <SwBrown@rrienergy.com>, "Senedak, Thomas 

C." <TCSenedak@rrienergy.com> 

Subject: RRI Energy Niles Power Plant Request 

Dear Ms. Alicea,

Please see the attached request for a due date extension on the Steam Electric Questionnaire from the RRI 

Energy Niles power station. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Thank you,

Rocky Tondo

RRI Energy

General Manager

Niles Power Plant

1047 Belmont Ave

Niles, OH 44446

From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov>

To: <steam_record@erg.com>, <jordan.ronald@epa.gov>

Date: 7/2/2010 7:19 PM

Subject: Fw: RRI Energy Niles Power Plant Request

Attachments: US EPA Niles Request.pdf

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C2E3BC7D... 3/21/2011
Office 330-505-4327

Cell 330-301-2788

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\TMedley\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4C2E3BC7D... 3/21/2011
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3093 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3093

 To suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3',4,4'-Biphenyltetracarboxylic 
                          Dianhydride (BPDA).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2005

  Mr. Hobson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on 3,3',4,4'-Biphenyltetracarboxylic 
                          Dianhydride (BPDA).

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.11 of subchapter II of chapter 99 
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, relating to 
3,3',4,4'-Biphenyltetracarboxylic Dianhydride (CAS # 2420-87-3) is 
amended by striking 12/31/2006 and inserting 12/31/2009.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this subsection (a) 
applies with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
§ 4.9 Disclosure requirements for assistance subject to section 102(b). ( a ) *Receipt and reasonable expectation of receipt.* ( 1 ) In determining the threshold of applicability of Section 102(b), an applicant will be deemed to have received or to have a reasonable expectation of receiving: ( i ) The total amount of assistance received during the Federal fiscal year during which the application was submitted;
( ii ) The total amount of assistance requested for the fiscal year in which any pending application, including the current application, was submitted; and
( iii ) For the fiscal year described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, the total amount of assistance from the Department or any other entity that is likely to be made available on a formula basis or in the form of program income as defined in 2 CFR 200.80.
( 2 ) In the case of assistance that will be provided pursuant to contract over a period of time (such as project-based assistance under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937), all amounts that are to be provided over the term of the contract, irrespective of when they are to be received.
( b ) *Content of disclosure.* Applicants that receive or can reasonably be expected to receive, as defined in paragraph (a) of this section, an aggregate amount of assistance that is in excess of $200,000 must disclose the following information: ( 1 ) Other governmental assistance that is or is expected to be made available, based upon a reasonable assessment of the circumstances, with respect to the project or activities for which the assistance is sought;
( 2 ) The name and pecuniary interest of any interested party; and
( 3 ) A report of the expected sources and uses of funds for the project or activity which is the subject of the application, including governmental and non-governmental sources of funds and private capital resulting from tax benefits.
( c ) In the case of mortgage insurance under 24 CFR subtitle B, chapter II, the mortgagor is responsible for making the disclosures required under Section 102(b) and this section, and the mortgagee is responsible for furnishing the mortgagor's disclosures to the Department.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2510-0011) [61 FR 14449, Apr. 1, 1996, as amended at 80 FR 75934, Dec. 7, 2015]
### §1642. Land conveyances

Solely for the purpose of bringing claims that arise from the discharge of oil, the Congress confirms that all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the lands validly selected pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) by Alaska Native corporations are deemed to have vested in the respective corporations as of March 23, 1989. This section shall take effect with respect to each Alaska Native corporation only upon its irrevocable election to accept an interim conveyance of such land and notice of such election has been formally transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior.

(Pub. L. 96–487, title XIV, §1438, as added Pub. L. 101–380, title VIII, §8301, Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 572.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 92–203, Dec. 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688, which is classified generally to chapter 33 (§1601 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to incidents occurring after Aug. 18, 1990, see section 1020 of Pub. L. 101–380, set out as a note under section 2701 of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      17,277,348
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,950,049
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,860,995
<PP&E>                                      68,593,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                 531,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              90,002,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,132,100
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       107,250
<OTHER-SE>                                  64,107,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                90,002,416
<SALES>                                      1,916,117
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,355,463
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,288,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,056,653
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             484,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (473,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (473,807)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (473,807)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 3280.107 Interior privacy.

Bathroom and toilet compartment doors shall be equipped with a privacy lock.
#### Central of Georgia Railway Company *v.*Newman.

Lumpkin, J.

1. A widow brouglit suit against a railway company, seeking to recover damages on account of the homicide of her husband, and setting out the manner in which it was alleged that he was killed by the train of the defendant. Upon the trial counsel for the defendant announced in open court that the defendant admitted liability for the homicide, that the only question which would.be submitted to the jury was the amount for which the defendant was liable; and it was agreed that the plaintiff did not seek to recover punitive damages. In his charge the presiding judge stated in substance what the plaintiff alleged in her petition, informed the jury that the defendant admitted liability but denied that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount which she claimed, and instructed them that their investigation would be only as to that question. *Held,*that, while he might have more briefly stated the nature of the case, it was not error requiring a new trial that he stated in substance what the plaintiff alleged.

(a) The contention that this mode of informing the jury of the nature of the case was calculated to prejudice them, and to affect the amount of the damages allowed, is not sound, in view of the fact that the judge stated the allegations of the plaintiff only as such.

2. Where, in a suit by a widow against a railway company for the homicide of her husband, liability was admitted, and the only question for submission to the jury was the measure of damages, it was not error to charge, in the language of the Civil Code (1910), § 4425, that she was entitled to recover the full value of his life, “and that the full value of the life of the deceased, as shown by the evidence, is the *146full value of the life of the deceased without'deduction for necessary or other personal expenses of the deceased had he lived.”

May 15, 1912.

Action for damages. Before Judge Freeman. Meriwether superior court. June 3, 1911.

*Battle & Hollis,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. T. Tuggle*and *H. A. Hall,*contra.

*(a)*Such a charge was not erroneous because there was certain evidence as to farming operations, in addition to a salary received by him, and . because the court, in the absence of any request therefor, did not charge that from the gross production of his farm or other industries should be deducted the actual expenses of the operation thereof, or of . such production, except his own personal or other necessary expenses. If such a charge had been desired, it should have been requested.

3. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Sill, J., disqualified.*
#### GOODRICH, Appellant, v. GOODRICH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 15, 1905.)

Action by George Goodrich against S. Worth Goodrich. No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### § 206.15 Insurance.

Mortgages originated under this part must be endorsed through the Direct Endorsement program under § 203.5 of this chapter, except that any references to § 203.255 in § 203.5 shall mean § 206.115. The mortgagee shall submit the information as described in § 206.115(b) for the Direct Endorsement program; the certificate of housing counseling as described in § 206.41; a copy of the title insurance commitment satisfactory to the Commissioner (or other acceptable title evidence if the Commissioner has determined not to require title insurance under § 206.45(a)); the mortgagee's election of either the assignment or shared premium option under § 206.107; and any other documentation required by the Commissioner. If the mortgagee has complied with the requirements of §§ 203.3 and 203.5, except that any reference to § 203.255 in these sections shall mean § 206.115 for purposes of this section, and other requirements of this part, and the mortgage is determined to be eligible, the Commissioner will endorse the mortgage for insurance by issuing a Mortgage Insurance Certificate.
39–008

105TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 105–15

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 852, THE

PAPERWORK ELIMINATION ACT OF 1997

MARCH 11, 1997.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 88]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 88, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 852, the ‘‘Paperwork Elimination Act of 1997’’ under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small

Business.

Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Record

prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to

offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules.

Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
Lease Equity Appreciation Fund II, L.P. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Crit S. DeMent, Chief
Executive Officer of the General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|               |  |                        
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|March 31, 2010 |  | /s/ Crit S. DeMent     
|               |  | Crit S. DeMent         
|               |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Char-Mo Investors, Inc., Respondent, v Market Insurance Company, Appellant.

In an action on a policy of fire insurance, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered January 4, 1977, as, upon reargument, *inter alia,*denied its motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action was barred by the limitation provision in the policy. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss the complaint granted. Plaintiff entered into a contract of fire insurance with defendant. In accordance with section 168 of the Insurance Law, that policy provided for a 12-month limitation of actions. On December 19,1974, during the effective life of the policy, plaintiff allegedly suffered a loss by fire. Effective September 1, 1975, section 168 of the Insurance Law was amended to increase the limitations period to two years (L 1975, ch 560, § 1). Defendant refused to indemnify plaintiff for its loss and, on February 20, 1976, plaintiff commenced the instant action by service of a summons and complaint. The action is thus barred by the terms of the policy, but would be permitted by section 168 as amended. The question to be decided on this appeal is whether that amendment may be applied to extend the period of limitation set forth in plaintiff’s policy. We conclude that it may not. Ordinarily, Statutes of Limitation are given a prospective construction unless the contrary is clearly indicated. (See, e.g., *Hastings v Byllesby & Co.,*265 App Div 643; McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes, § 59, p 129.) The amendment to section 168 gives no indication that it was meant to apply retroactively. Accordingly, the one-year limitation period contained in the policy applies, and plaintiff’s action is barred. Martuscello, J. P., Lat-ham, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
§ 401.311 Standards of conduct. ( a ) *Minimum ethical standards for PAEs.* In connection with the performance of any PRA and during the term of such PRA, a PAE or other restricted person (as defined in § 401.310) may not: ( 1 ) Solicit for itself or others favors, gifts, or other items of monetary value from any person who is seeking official action from HUD or the PAE in connection with the PRA or has interests that may be substantially affected by the restricted person's performance or nonperformance of duties to HUD;
( 2 ) Use improperly (or allow the improper use of) HUD property or property over which the restricted person has supervision or charge by reason of the PRA;
( 3 ) Use its status as PAE for its own benefit, or the financial or business benefit of a third party, except as contemplated by the PRA; or
( 4 ) Make any unauthorized promise or commitment on behalf of HUD.
( b ) *18 U.S.C. 201 .* Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 201, whoever acts for or on behalf of HUD in connection with the matters covered by this part is deemed to be a public official. Public officials are prohibited from soliciting or accepting anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of official actions. Violators are subject to criminal sanctions.
( c ) *18 U.S.C. 1001 .* Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001, whoever knowingly and willingly falsifies a material fact, makes a false statement or utilizes a false writing in connection with a PRA is subject to criminal sanctions. Other Federal civil statutes also apply to making false statements to the United States.
( d ) *18 U.S.C. 207 .* Former Federal Government employees are subject to the prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. 207.
#### PATTERSON *vs.*THE STATE.

[indictment eok ketailing.]

L *Sdléig liquor drunlc on or about premises.*— Held, on the authority of *dSasterlint/s*■case, (30 Ala. 46,) *Downman’s*ease, (14 Ala. 243,) and *Brown’s*caso, (31 Ala. 353,) that the court properly refused to instruct the jury, at the request of the defendant, “ that if they believed from the evidence that the liquor was drunk in the State of Tennessee,” or, “that it was carried uponland belonging to another person, and over which the defendant had no control, and drunk there, — they must find the defendant not guilty.”

*298From the Circuit Court of Lauderdale,

Tried before the Hou. ¥m, S. Mudd.

The bill of exceptions in this case is as follows:

“ On the trial of this case, Hugh R. Reynolds, a witness for the State, testified, that he bought a quart of whiskey from the defendant, at the time mentioned in the indictment, in the county of Lauderdale; and that he took it, in a quart cup belonging to the defendant, about fifty yards from the grocery, across the State line into Tennessee, and upon the land of a man by the name of Adams, where he and others drank it. It was proved, also, that 'the defendant kept' a grocery, or a house where he sold ■spirituous liquors; and that said grocery was located in. ■said county of Lauderdale, Alabama, near the line of the 'State of Tennessee. Upon this state of facts, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury — 1st, that if they believed from the evidence that the liquor was drunk in the State of Tennessee, they must find the defendant not guilty; and, 2dly, that if they believed, from the evidence that the liquor was carried upon land belonging to another person, and over which the defendant had no control, and drunk there, they must find the defendant not guilty. The court refused to give either of these charges, and the defendant excepted to their refusal.”

E. A. O’Neal, for the defendant.

M. A. Baldavin, Attorney-General, contra.

STONE, J.

It is clear that, under section 1058 of the Code, neither the fact that the liquor was drunk in the State of Tennessee, nor that the drinking took place on lands over which the defendant had no control, would, as matter of law, require the acquittal of the accused. See Easterling v. The State, 30 Ala. 46; Downman v. The State, 14 Ala. 243; Brown v. The State, 31 Ala. 353.

Judgment of the circuit court affirmed.
*E-Filed 7/26/10*

Case 3:09-cv-02001-RS Document 47 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 2
7/26/10

Case 3:09-cv-02001-RS Document 47 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2