alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

160) M-K- (B)-159 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:53 AM Sheet 160 of 325 
P.2 

"~Y 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC. 

* — t 

1655 NORTH PORT MYER DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 703/528-1900 

December 14, 1984 

A-83-27 

II-K-(B)-159 

Mr. Robert Short 

Economic Analysis Branch 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Drop-12 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Subject: EPA Contract No. 68-02-4202, Work Assignment #3 

Dear Robert: 

Attached are 1990 IFCAM projections for a new scenario. A special 

S02 emissions limit for new residual fuel oil-fired boilers was assumed 

if the annual capacity utilization rate is less than 30 percent. 

Sincerely, 

TH/ce 

Enclosure 

cc: Dr. A. Wehe 

/ ^>KV M 0}3-_tW 

Tim Hogan // 

MANAGEMENT / ECONOMICS / ENGINEERING 
P.3 

_- *-» 

1990 IFCAM PROJECTIONS* 

S 02 emissions 

(IO3 short tons) 

Annualized costs 

(IO6 $ 1982) 

Fuel demand 

(IO12 Btu) 

coal 

residual fuel oil 

natural gas 

100-150 

15 

938 

0 

67 

62 

Boiler size 

150-200 

9 

762 

0 

58 

54 

(MMBtu/hr) 

200-250 

5 

460 

0 

33 

34 

>250 

20 

1,307 

26 

67 

98 

>100 

50 

3,467 

26 

225 

248 

New industrial fossil fuel-fired boilers installed after 1985. Reference 

case fuel prices. Coal: 0.6 lb S0?/MMBtu. Residual fuel- oil: 0.3 lb 

S02/MMBtu if capacity utilization rate is >30 percent, 0.8 lb S02/MMBtu 

if capacity utilization rate is <30 percent.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

April 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 130251 & (107) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, CHARLES F. FAWCETT, LINDA S. Justices FAWCETT, MICHAEL P. REINERTSEN, CHERYL L. REINERTSEN, and NORTHWESTERN SAVINGS BANK & TRUST, Plaintiffs/CounterdefendantsAppellees,

v SC: 130251 COA: 253819 Kalkaska CC: 98-006213-PZ ESTATE OF ANNETTE C. MEYER, Deceased, JOSEPH ELFELT, JOAN F. ELFELT and STEPHEN M. ELFELT,Defendants/CounterplaintiffsAppellants,

and

CLARENCE J. MEYER and CLEMENT B. MEYER, Defendants/Counterplaintiffs.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 15, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to
strike is DENIED.

d0424 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 28, 2006

Clerk
§ 25.5 Administrative actions. ( a ) *General.* The Board is authorized to take administrative actions in accordance with 12 U.S.C. 1708(c), including, but not limited to, the following: issue a letter of reprimand, probation, suspension, or withdrawal; or enter into a settlement agreement.
( b ) *Letter of reprimand.* A letter of reprimand shall be effective upon receipt of the letter by the mortgagee. Failure to comply with a directive in the letter of reprimand may result in any other administrative action that the Board finds appropriate as provided by 12 U.S.C. 1708(c).
( c ) *Probation.* Probation shall be effective upon receipt of the notice of probation by the mortgagee. Failure to comply with the terms of probation may result in any other administrative action that the Board finds appropriate as provided by 12 U.S.C. 1708(c).
( d ) *Suspension* — ( 1 ) *Effect of suspension.* ( i ) During the period of suspension, HUD will not endorse any mortgage originated by the suspended mortgagee under the Title II program unless prior to the date of suspension: ( A ) A firm commitment has been issued relating to any such mortgage; or
( B ) A Direct Endorsement underwriter has approved the mortgagor for any such mortgage.
( ii ) During the period of suspension, a lender may not originate new Title I loans under its Title I Contract of Insurance or apply for a new Contract of Insurance.
( 2 ) *Effective date of suspension.* A suspension issued pursuant to § 25.7(d) is effective upon issuance. Any other suspension is effective upon receipt of the notice of suspension by the mortgagee.
( e ) *Withdrawal* — ( 1 ) *Effect of withdrawal.* ( i ) During the period of withdrawal, HUD will not endorse any mortgage originated by the withdrawn mortgagee under the Title II program, unless prior to the date of withdrawal: ( A ) A firm commitment has been issued relating to any such mortgage; or
( B ) A Direct Endorsement underwriter has approved the mortgagor for any such mortgage.
( ii ) During the period of withdrawal, a lender may not originate new Title I loans under its Title I Contract of Insurance or apply for a new Contract of Insurance. The Board may limit the geographical extent of the withdrawal, or limit its scope (e.g., to either the single family or multifamily activities of a withdrawn mortgagee). Upon the expiration of the period of withdrawal, the mortgagee may file a new application for approval under 24 CFR part 202.
( 2 ) *Effective date of withdrawal.* ( i ) If the Board determines that immediate action is in the public interest or in the best interests of the Department, then withdrawal shall be effective upon receipt of the Board's notice of withdrawal.
( ii ) If the Board does not determine that immediate action is necessary according to paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, then withdrawal shall be effective either: ( A ) Upon the expiration of the 30-day period specified in § 25.10, if the mortgagee has not requested a hearing; or
( B ) Upon receipt of the Board's decision under § 25.10, if the mortgagee requests a hearing.
[73 FR 60540, Oct. 10, 2008, as amended at 77 FR 51467, Aug. 24, 2012]
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.2
 
                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                      OF
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF
                               BIONOVA U.S. INC.
 
  Bionova U.S. Inc. (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and existing
under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "DGCL"),
hereby certifies as follows:
 
  FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, by written consents
in lieu of special meeting dated September 25, 1996, adopted resolutions
proposing and declaring advisable these amendments to the Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation set forth in ARTICLES FOURTH and FIFTH below,
and calling for the submission of said amendments to the sole stockholder of
the Corporation for its consideration.
 
  SECOND: That the sole stockholder of the Corporation, by written consents in
lieu of a special meeting dated September 25, 1996, consented to and adopted
these amendments.
 
  THIRD: That these amendments were duly adopted in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Section 242 of the DGCL.
 
  FOURTH: That ARTICLE I of the Certificate of Incorporation of the
Corporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
 
    "The name of the Corporation is DNAP Holding Corporation."
 
  FIFTH: That ARTICLE IV, Section I, of the Certificate of Incorporation of
the Corporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
 
    "Section 1. The total number of shares of all classes of stock which the
  Corporation shall have authority to issue is Twenty-Five Million Five
  Thousand (25,005,000) shares, consisting of (1) Twenty-Five Million
  (25,000,000) shares of Common Stock, par value One Cent ($.01) per share
  ("Common Stock"), and (2) Five Thousand (5,000) shares of Preferred Stock,
  par value One Cent ($.01) per share ("Preferred Stock")."
 
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate has been signed on behalf of the
Corporation by its Chief Executive Officer on this 25th day of September,
1996.
 
                                          BIONOVA U.S. INC.
 
                                          By:   /s/ CARLOS HERRERA
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Carlos Herrera,
                                            Chief Executive Officer
### §1065. Summary removal of inclosures

The President is authorized to take such measures as shall be necessary to remove and destroy any unlawful inclosure of any of the public lands mentioned in this chapter, and to employ civil or military force as may be necessary for that purpose.

(Feb. 25, 1885, ch. 149, §5, 23 Stat. 322.)
§ 3280.406 Air chamber test methods for certification and continuing qualification of formaldehyde emission levels. ( a ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this section, the definitions found in 40 CFR 770.3 apply.
( b ) *Testing requirements.* Testing of composite wood products must be performed pursuant to the general requirements of 40 CFR 770.20(a) and (b). Certification testing must be performed pursuant to one of the air chamber test methods specified in 40 CFR 770.15 (ASTM E1333-14, or ASTM D6007-14, both incorporated by reference, see § 3280.4). Quarterly testing must be performed pursuant to one of the air chamber test methods specified in 40 CFR 770.20(c) (ASTM E1333-14 or ASTM D6007-14).
( c ) *Samples for testing.* Samples for testing shall comply with 40 CFR 770.24.
[85 FR 5566, Jan. 31, 2020]
§ 26.7 Respondent's representative. The party against whom the administrative action is taken may be represented at hearing, as follows: ( a ) Individuals may appear on their own behalf;
( b ) A member of a partnership or joint venture may appear on behalf of the partnership or joint venture;
( c ) A bona fide officer may appear on behalf of a corporation or association upon a showing of adequate authorization;
( d ) An attorney who files a notice of appearance with the hearing officer may represent any party. For purposes of this paragraph, an attorney is defined as a member of the bar of a federal court or of the highest court of any state or territory of the United States; or
( e ) An individual not included within paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section may represent the respondent upon an adequate showing, as determined by the hearing officer, that the individual possesses the legal, technical, or other qualifications necessary to advise and assist in the presentation of the case.
Exhibit 32.2




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 filing of this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report (the "Report") of Rand Logistics, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 31, 2014 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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, as amended; and




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




Date: July 29, 2014/s/ Joseph W. McHugh, Jr.Joseph W. McHugh, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
### §§615aa to 615hh. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 615aa, Pub. L. 86–529, §1, June 27, 1960, 74 Stat. 225, authorized construction, operation, and maintenance of Norman Project, Oklahoma and provided for contracts and advances.

Section 615bb, Pub. L. 86–529, §2, June 27, 1960, 74 Stat. 225, related to allocation of costs for this project.

Section 615cc, Pub. L. 86–529, §3, June 27, 1960, 74 Stat. 226, related to contracts with water users' organization.

Section 615dd, Pub. L. 86–529, §4, June 27, 1960, 74 Stat. 226, related to transfer of care, operation, and maintenance of this project to water users' organization.

Section 615ee, Pub. L. 86–529, §5, June 27, 1960, 74 Stat. 226, related to construction of the project in units or stages.

Section 615ff, Pub. L. 86–529, §6, June 27, 1960, 74 Stat. 226, related to construction of public parks and recreational facilities on lands adjacent to reservoirs of this project.

Section 615gg, Pub. L. 86–529, §7, June 27, 1960, 74 Stat. 226, related to expenditures for Norman Reservoir.

Section 615hh, Pub. L. 86–529, §8, June 27, 1960, 74 Stat. 226, authorized appropriations for this project.
### §209. Extension of public-land laws to certain lands in Oklahoma

The public-land laws of the United States be, and the same are, extended to the public lands in that part of the Red River between the medial line and the south bank of the river, in Oklahoma, between the ninety-eighth meridian and the east boundary of the territory established as Greer County by the Act of May 4, 1896 (29 Stat. 113): Provided, That such lands shall not be subject to disposition, settlement, or occupation until after the same have been classified and opened to entry, and other disposal by the Secretary of the Interior according to law.

(June 22, 1948, ch. 605, §1, 62 Stat. 576.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The public-land laws of the United States, referred to in text, are classified generally to this title.

Act of May 4, 1896, referred to in text, is act May 4, 1896, ch. 155, 29 Stat. 113, which is not classified to the Code.
#### NORTHERN ELEVATOR CO., Respondent, v. LEHIGH VAL. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 27, 1903.)

Action by the Northern Elevator Company against the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.
### §883. Collection of costs of surveying, etc.; reimbursement of purchaser

If any railroad corporation required by law to pay the costs of surveying, selecting, or conveying any lands granted to such company or for its use and benefit by Act of Congress shall for thirty days neglect or refuse to pay any such costs after demand for payment thereof by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall notify the Attorney General, who shall at once commence proceedings to collect the same. But when any sum shall be collected of such railroad company as costs of surveying, selecting, and conveying any tract of land which shall have been purchased under the provisions of section 882 of this title, the Secretary of the Interior shall out of such collections reimburse said purchaser, his heirs or assigns, the amount of money paid by him as the costs of such surveying, selecting, and conveying.

(July 10, 1886, ch. 764, §2, 24 Stat. 143.)
### §7705b. Seismic standards

#### (a) Assessment and recommendations

Not later than December 1, 2019, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall jointly convene a committee of experts from Federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private sector entities, disaster management professional associations, engineering professional associations, and professional construction and homebuilding industry associations, to assess and recommend options for improving the built environment and critical infrastructure to reflect performance goals stated in terms of post-earthquake reoccupancy and functional recovery time.

#### (b) Report to Congress

Not later than June 30, 2020, the committee convened under paragraph (1) shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Committee on Natural Resources, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report on recommended options for improving the built environment and critical infrastructure to reflect performance goals stated in terms of post-earthquake reoccupancy and functional recovery time.

(Pub. L. 95–124, §8, as added Pub. L. 101–614, §8(a), Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3237; amended Pub. L. 115–307, §5, Dec. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 4415.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–307 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section related to adoption of seismic safety standards.

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

#### Report on Vulnerability of Buildings Owned and Leased by Government

Pub. L. 101–614, §8(b), Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3238, directed Comptroller General, not later than 18 months after Nov. 16, 1990, to report to Congress on vulnerability of buildings owned and leased by the Federal Government and on efforts of Federal agencies to improve the seismic resistance of buildings they own or lease, and for each such agency, the Comptroller General to enumerate the number of buildings owned or leased by the agency, the seriousness of the seismic risk to such buildings, and the value of the buildings at risk, as well as tabulate the expenditures each such agency had devoted to reducing earthquake damage and estimate the total expenditure necessary to address the problem adequately.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Executive Order No. 12941

Ex. Ord. No. 12941, Dec. 1, 1994, 59 F.R. 62545, which related to seismic safety of existing federally owned or leased buildings, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 13717, §5, Feb. 2, 2016, 81 F.R. 6409, set out as a note under section 7704 of this title.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0406

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CATHIE IRIS WARREN

a/k/a CATHIE ODEGAARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 30, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 22 2022

02/22/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0411
#### DUPIGNAC v. BERNSTROM.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by Frank J. Dupignac against John Bernstrom individually.

No opinion. Motion denied.
August 7 , 2014.



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

REGINA ROMERO , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00100

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______ _________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
### §262. Repealed. Dec. 16, 1930, ch. 14, §1, 46 Stat. 1029

Section, act Mar. 2, 1907, ch. 2568, 34 Stat. 1248, provided for refund of excess payments. See section 1374 of this title.
Case 3:09-cv-01273-JCS Document 18 Filed 03/03/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cv-01273-JCS Document17 Filed03/02/10 Page1 of 2
Case3:09-cv-01273-JCS Document17 Filed03/02/10 Page2 of 2

Dated: March 3, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:09-cv-01273-JCS Document 18 Filed 03/03/10 Page 2 of 2
### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 17 , 

### OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIRTRAVEL AND SCOT SPENCER AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. AND RICHARD BERNARD Unauthorized Air Transportation, Unfair and Deceptive Practices and UnfairMethods ofCompetition, and Violations ofPublic Charter Rules EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Unfair and Deceptive Practices and Unfair Methods of Competition, and Violations ofPublic CharterRules Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT ·-·· ;,,...



### DOT-OST-1995-272 formerly Docket 49233

The Office ofthe Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuant to Your Honor's March 22,2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status ofthis proceeding and settlement negotiations. The Department has not ruled on the outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed bythe Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004- 17486.2 There have been no further settlement discussions. Date: December 28, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,

amuel Podberesky Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings

# ~li~j0~ Senior Trial Attorney United States Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Room 96-429 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-9342 FAX: 202-366-71523

Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 I hereby certify that on this 28th day ofDecember, 2012, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: Original U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey**A~enue,** S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 By First Class Mail The Honorable Ronnie A Yoder ChiefAdministrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX: (202) 366-7536 By First Class Mail Scot Spencer SBD Aircraft Services 255 S Leland Norton Way Sam Bernardino, CA 92408
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40885 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICTOR HUGO MORALES-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-156-ALL

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Victor Hugo Morales-Mendoza has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Morales received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but he has not filed a response. O ur independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.