alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 5, 2010 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Meeting with Senator Carper’s Staff

FROM: Marc Thomas 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 

A conference call was held on October 26, 2010 between Senator Carper’s staff and EPA 

to discuss how the proposed rule, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that are 

Solid Wastes (NHSM),” characterized used oil. EPA explained that, under the proposed rule, 

used oil that meets the “on-specification” criteria under 40 CFR Part 279 standards for 

management of used oil would be considered a “traditional fuel” and not a solid waste. On the 

other hand, “off-spec” used oil, which does not meet the 40 CFR Part 279 standards, is 

considered to be a solid waste and can only be combusted in units meeting CAA section 129 

standards for solid waste incinerators. Off-spec used oil that is processed into on-spec used oil, 

however, would not be considered a solid waste. 

EPA also provided an overview of the related proposed rules under sections 112 and 129 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which establish emissions standards for boilers, process heaters, 

and certain solid waste incinerators. Additionally, EPA answered questions regarding potential 

impacts of the proposed rules on the used oil industry. 

List of Meeting Attendees: 

Stephanie Kotin, Senator Carper 

Laura Haines, Senator Carper 

Jim Berlow, EPA/OSWER 

Randy Detiz, EPA/OSWER 

George Faison, EPA/OSWER 

Marc Thomas, EPA/OSWER 

Kimberly Cochran, EPA/OSWER 

Robin Dunkin, EPA/OAR 

Megan Brachtl, EPA/OAR 

Peter Tsirigotis, EPA/OAR 

Ketan Patel, EPA/OAR 

Phil Loran, EPA/OAR 

Raquel Snyder, EPA/OCIR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

SAMUEL S. WALLACE, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 372 EAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED. 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
#### Esther Marton et al., Respondents, v. Merritt J. McCasland, Appellant.

Order, entered March 3, 1961, insofar as it sets aside the verdict *782of .the jury in favor of the defendant and grants a new trial upon the cause of action *fit*the plaintiff Esther Marton to recover for her alleged personal injuries and upon the derivative cause of action by her husband, plaintiff Theodore Marton, to recover damages for her alleged injuries, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the verdicts reinstated, and judgment directed thereon in favor of the defendant, with $20 costs and disbursements in favor of the defendant against the plaintiffs. It is settled that a jury verdict in favor of defendant may not he set aside unless it plainly appears that the evidence so preponderates in favor of the plaintiff that the verdict for the defendant could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence. *(Areson*v. *Hempstead Bus Corp.,*14 A D 2d 700; *Musumeci*v. *Pillsbury Mills,*12 A D 2d 941, 942; *Holpp v. Carafa,*8 A D 23 617; *Scheuerman*v. *Knapp Coal Co.,*238 App. Div. 874, 875; *Meyers*v. *Hines,*199 App. Div. 594, 595,) Here, the credibility of the testimony of the defendant driver was for the jury, and Ms testimony as to the manner and the circumstances of the happening of the accident, fairly interpreted, amply -supports the finding that he was free from negligence. Thus, the verdict for the defendant was conclusive and the trial court was in error in setting it aside upon the ground that in the court’s opinion the defendant was “ guilty to a degree of negligence ”, thereupon reaching the conclusion that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Also, it should be noted that the finding of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff driver, implicit in the verdict of the jury and supported by the evidence, would in any event defeat Ms right of recovery upon Ms alleged derivative cause of action for loss of services and medical expenses of Ms wife. (See 15 N. Y. Jur., Domestic Relations, § 309, p. 519; *Miller*v. *Rankin,*10 A D 2d 695; *Diem*v. *Adams,*266 App. Div. 307, 310.) Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J, P,, Rabin, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
### §13503. Exempt motor vehicle transportation in terminal areas

(a) Transportation by Carriers.—

(1) In general.—Neither the Secretary nor the Board has jurisdiction under this subchapter over transportation by motor vehicle provided in a terminal area when the transportation—

(A) is a transfer, collection, or delivery;

(B) is provided by—

(i) a rail carrier subject to jurisdiction under chapter 105;

(ii) a water carrier subject to jurisdiction under subchapter II of this chapter; or

(iii) a freight forwarder subject to jurisdiction under subchapter III of this chapter; and

(C) is incidental to transportation or service provided by the carrier or freight forwarder that is subject to jurisdiction under chapter 105 of this title or under subchapter II or III of this chapter.

(2) Applicability of other provisions.—Transportation exempt from jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of this subsection is subject to jurisdiction under chapter 105 when provided by such a rail carrier, under subchapter II of this chapter when provided by such a water carrier, and under subchapter III of this chapter when provided by such a freight forwarder.

(b) Transportation by Agent.—

(1) In general.—Except to the extent provided by paragraph (2) of this subsection, neither the Secretary nor the Board has jurisdiction under this subchapter over transportation by motor vehicle provided in a terminal area when the transportation—

(A) is a transfer, collection, or delivery; and

(B) is provided by a person as an agent or under other arrangement for—

(i) a rail carrier subject to jurisdiction under chapter 105 of this title;

(ii) a motor carrier subject to jurisdiction under this subchapter;

(iii) a water carrier subject to jurisdiction under subchapter II of this chapter; or

(iv) a freight forwarder subject to jurisdiction under subchapter III of this chapter.

(2) Treatment of transportation by principal.—Transportation exempt from jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of this subsection is considered transportation provided by the carrier or service provided by the freight forwarder for whom the transportation was provided and is subject to jurisdiction under chapter 105 of this title when provided for such a rail carrier, under this subchapter when provided for such a motor carrier, under subchapter II of this chapter when provided for such a water carrier, and under subchapter III of this chapter when provided for such a freight forwarder.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title I, §103, Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 860.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 10523 of this title prior to the general amendment of this subtitle by Pub. L. 104–88, §102(a).

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1996, except as otherwise provided in Pub. L. 104–88, see section 2 of Pub. L. 104–88, set out as a note under section 1301 of this title.
#### § 886.117 [Reserved]
#### Elizabeth Egnoto, Appellant, v. State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 32161.)

— Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Certain findings of fact reversed and new findings made. Memorandum: For the reasons given in the companion ease *(Stornelli*v. *State of Neio York,*11 A D 2d 1088), the judgment in this ease should rest upon a finding that there was no negligence on the part of the State, as well as upon the finding that the claimant’s damages had been fully paid by the owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims dismissing claimant’s claim.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                          

 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.2
 
                          MEDICAL MANAGER CORPORATION
                      BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                   FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
 
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    THREE MONTHS
                                                         ENDED
                                                    MARCH 31, 1997
                                                    --------------  
<S>                                                 <C>         
Net Income                                          $        2,740 
                                                    ==============
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:                                       
                                                                
Weighted average common shares outstanding                  19,481 
                                                    ==============  
                                                                
Basic earnings per share                            $         0.14 
                                                    ==============  
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:                                     
                                                                
Weighted average common shares outstanding                  19,481 
                                                    ==============
  
Diluted earnings per share                          $         0.14 
                                                    ==============  

</TABLE>
CONFIDENTIAL
 Exhibit 10.167


*** Confidential Portion has been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment by the Company to, and the material has been separately filed with, the SEC. Each omitted Confidential Portion is marked by three Asterisks.





SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO THE FULL-TIME-TRANSPONDER CAPACITY AGREEMENT (PRE-LAUNCH)








This Seventh Amendment to the Full-Time Transponder Capacity Agreement (Pre-Launch) (the “Seventh Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 6th day of November, 2008 by and between INTELSAT CORPORATION, formerly known as PanAmSat Corporation, a Delaware corporation
(“Intelsat”), and GCI COMMUNICATION CORP., an Alaskan corporation (“Customer”).





RECITALS





WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Full-Time Transponder Capacity Agreement (Pre-Launch) dated as of March 31, 2006, as amended (collectively, the “Agreement”) between Intelsat and Customer, Intelsat is providing Customer with *** (***) *** transponders and *** (***)
*** transponders on Galaxy 18, and *** (***) *** transponder, *** (***) *** transponder on Horizons 1, and an additional *** (***) *** Transponder Segment on Horizons 1;





WHEREAS, Customer and Intelsat wish to amend the terms of the Agreement to exercise Customer’s *** Transponder, as defined in the Agreement;





AGREEMENT





NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:





1.
Except as specifically provided herein, all terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.





2.
*** Transponder.  Intelsat agrees to provide to Customer and Customer agrees to accept from Intelsat *** (***) *** Transponder (the “*** Transponder”) meeting the performance specifications set forth in Appendix B attached hereto.





3.
Capacity Term.  The Capacity Term for the *** Transponder Capacity shall commence on ***, *** and continue until 23:59 Greenwich Mean Time on ***, ***.





4.
Monthly Fee.  The Monthly Fee for the *** Transponder Capacity shall be US$***,*** per month.





5.
Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the amendment remain in full force and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has duly executed and delivered this Seventh Amendment as of the day and year above written.








INTELSAT CORPORATION                                                                                                                   
         GCI COMMUNICATION CORP.








/s/ Patricia Casey


/s/ Jimmy R. SipesName: Patricia Casey


Name: Jimmy R. SipesTitle: Senior VP and Deputy General Counsel


Title: VP Network Services & Chief Engineer
Proposed PSD Permit Amendment and Related Documents

MCU Facility PSD Permit Amendment
CONFIDENTIAL
 Exhibit 10.168


*** Confidential Portion has been omitted pursuant to a request for confidential treatment by the Company to, and the material has been separately filed with, the SEC. Each omitted Confidential Portion is marked by three Asterisks.





EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE FULL-TIME-TRANSPONDER CAPACITY AGREEMENT (PRE-LAUNCH)








This Eighth Amendment to the Full-Time Transponder Capacity Agreement (Pre-Launch) (the “Eighth Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 8th day of June, 2009 by and between INTELSAT CORPORATION, formerly known as PanAmSat Corporation, a Delaware corporation
(“Intelsat”), and GCI COMMUNICATION CORP., an Alaskan corporation (“Customer”).





RECITALS





WHEREAS, pursuant to that certain Full-Time Transponder Capacity Agreement (Pre-Launch) dated as of March 31, 2006, as amended (collectively, the “Agreement”) between Intelsat and Customer, Intelsat is providing Customer with *** (***) 36 *** transponders and *** (***)
*** transponders on Galaxy 18, and *** (***) *** transponders on Horizons 1;





WHEREAS, Customer and Intelsat wish to amend the terms of the Agreement to exercise Customer’s option for the *** Transponder, as defined in the Agreement;





AGREEMENT





NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:





1.
Except as specifically provided herein, all terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.





2.
*** Transponder.  Intelsat agrees to provide to Customer and Customer agrees to accept from Intelsat *** (***) *** Transponder (the “*** Transponder”) meeting the performance specifications set forth in Appendix B attached hereto.





3.
Capacity Term.  The Capacity Term for the *** Transponder Capacity shall commence on *** and continue until 23:59 Greenwich Mean Time on ***.





4.
Monthly Fee.  The Monthly Fee for the *** Transponder Capacity shall be US$***,*** per month.





5.
Except as specifically set forth in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the amendment remain in full force and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has duly executed and delivered this Seventh Amendment as of the day and year above written.








INTELSAT CORPORATION                                                                                                                         
  GCI COMMUNICATION CORP.








/s/ Patricia Casey


/s/ Jimmy R. SipesName: Patricia Casey


Name: Jimmy R. SipesTitle: Senior VP and Deputy General Counsel


Title: VP Network Services & Chief Engineer
### §26105. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter—

(1) the term "financial assistance" includes grants, contracts,,1 cooperative agreements, and other transactions;

(2) the term "high-speed rail" means all forms of nonhighway ground transportation that run on rails or electromagnetic guideways providing transportation service which is—

(A) reasonably expected to reach sustained speeds of more than 125 miles per hour; and

(B) made available to members of the general public as passengers,

but does not include rapid transit operations within an urban area that are not connected to the general rail system of transportation;

(3) the term "publicly financed costs" means the costs funded after April 29, 1993, by Federal, State, and local governments;

(4) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Transportation;

(5) the term "State" means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any other territory or possession of the United States; and

(6) the term "United States private business" means a business entity organized under the laws of the United States, or of a State, and conducting substantial business operations in the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 103–440, title I, §103(a)(2), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4618; amended Pub. L. 105–178, title VII, §7201(b), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 470; Pub. L. 109–59, title IX, §9001(c), Aug. 10, 2005, 119 Stat. 1919.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2005—Par. (1). Pub. L. 109–59 substituted ", cooperative agreements, and other transactions" for "and cooperative agreements".

1998—Par. (2). Pub. L. 105–178 amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (2) read as follows: "the term 'high-speed rail' has the meaning given such term under section 511(n) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976;".

1 So in original.
### §§753, 754. Repealed. July 3, 1950, ch. 446, §5(2), (4), 64 Stat. 320

Section 753, acts Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §38, 39 Stat. 964; Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 503, §6, 44 Stat. 1420; May 17, 1932, ch. 190, 47 Stat. 158, authorized Legislature to regulate rates, tariffs, etc., of public carriers and public service commission to enforce those laws.

Section 754, acts Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, §35, 39 Stat. 963; May 17, 1932, ch. 190, 47 Stat. 158, which had been transferred to section 814a of this title, related to qualifications of electors.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal of sections 753 and 754 effective July 25, 1952, see note set out under section 732 of this title.
Exhibit 32
                                   ----------


                            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 Quarterly Report of Commodore Separation Technologies,
  Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003
  as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
  "Report"), we, Paul Hannesson and Andrew P. Oddi, Chief Executive Officer and
  Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
  U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
  2002, that to our knowledge:

         (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 result of
              operations of the Company.



  November 3, 2003


  /s/ Paul Hannesson
  ------------------
  Paul Hannesson
  Chief Executive Officer



  /s/ Andrew P. Oddi
  ------------------
  Andrew P. Oddi
  Chief Financial Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 30, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00758

- CV

Michelle NINO, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Nino,

Deceased; Julyssa Sixx Nino; Robert Nino Jr.; and Alyssa Nikki Nino

, Appellant s

v.

PRIMORIS ENERGY SERVICES CORPORATION D/B/A Primoris Pipeline,

Appellee s

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 12

- 12787

- DCVAJA

Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant s ’ reply brief wa s due on April 22 , 2019. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(c). On t he

due date , Appellant s filed a n unopposed first motion for a thirty

- day exten sion of time to file the

reply brief.

Appellant s ’ motion is GRANTED

. Appellant s ’ reply brief is due on May 22 , 2019. See

id. R. 38.6(d).

I t is so ORDERED o n this 30th day of April, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED :

_____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Jenna Garland, Atlanta, GA 

jenna.garland@gmail.com 

-----·· ''•• ... _ My name ~~'Jenna Garlan~ 

"--,,, _/ 

I grew up in 1/1/ooasfock, GA, about 30 minutes from where we sit today. I had the great pleasure 

of going to a wonderful school and living in a wooded, pretty area where we spent a lot oftime 

outdoors playing, both at school and at home. I remember this time mostly very fondly. My bad 

memories are from when my best friend, Anna, suffered asthma attacks on the playground or in 

the backyard, or when we were cooped up and not allowed to go outside because air quality was 

bad and could trigger an asthma attack. 

When I got older, I learned that for my entire childhood, Georgia Power was burning coal at its 

Jack rv1cDonough power plant in nearby rv1arietta. Georgia Power has since converted this plant 

to natural gas, so fewer pollutants that trigger asthma attacks are coming out of its 

smokestacks, but still, I will never forget how I felt when I learned that myself, my family and my 

friends had been breathing in pollution from that plant. 

I am angry on behalf of my friend Anna, who suffered needlessly, and on behalf of the other 

children I grew up with that breathed in that pollution. I am angry on behalf of children today, and 

future generations of children, who will have to choose between playing outside - a special, 

important part of our lives -and risking an asthma attack, or staying indoors. 

As an adult, spending time outdoors, hiking, running, participating in my outdoor boot camp with 

my friends, heck, even reading in the backyard as my cats chase bugs, are all very important to 

me and my partner. Carbon pollution from power plants threaten all these activities. 

Carbon pollution is linked to the air pollution that triggers asthma attacks, causes respiratory 

illness, decreased lung function and can even trigger a heart attack. 

Carbon pollution from power plants drives climate disruption, driving extreme weather events like 

those we've faced here in Georgia over the last decade and frankly, throughout most of my 

lifetime. 

I applaud the US Environmental Protection Agency, Administrator Gina rv1cCarthy and President 

Barack Obama in taking this critical first step to curbing unchecked carbon pollution and making 

Georgia, the Southeast region and the United States more resilient, more secure and more 

prosperous. 

Thank you.
#### (A) Joseph J. Griffin, Respondent, v. Corporation of the Church of the Assumption of Mechanicville, Appellant. (B) In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Di Michele, Respondent, v. George H. Flinn Corporation et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

[In each action] Appeal [s] dismissed, without costs, unless appellant [s] shall file and serve record, -brief and note of issue on or before April 17, 1961, and is [are] ready for argument at the term to commence May 15-, 1961, in which event the motion is denied.