alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
combustionsurvey

- Data and Comments for the Reconsideration of the Industrial Boiler MACT

(40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD Docket No. OAR 2002-0058

Attached please find the data and comments of Ameren Corporation for consideration during the reconsideration of the Industrial Boiler MACT as requested in the notice of recons ideration published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2011 (76 FR 28662).

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : MICHAEL HUTCHESON Senior Environmental Engineer
Environmental Services

T 314.554.2319

F 314.554.4182

E mhutcheson@ameren.com



### ......................... Ameren Services
1901 Chouteau Ave. MC 602 St. Louis, MO 63103

Ameren.com

Please consider the environment before printing thi s e-mail.

The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confident ial and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended reci pient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you ar e hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly pr ohibited. Note that any views or opinions presented in this message are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ameren. All e-mails are subject to monitoring and archiva l. Finally, the recipient should check this message and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Ame ren accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. If you have rece ived this in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message and deleting the mate rial from any computer. Ameren Corporation From: "Hutcheson, Michael J" <MHutcheson@ameren.com>

To: "combustionsurvey@erg.com" <combustionsurvey@erg.com>

Date: 7/14/2011 4:22 PM Subject: Data and Comments for the Reconsideration of the Industrial Boiler M ACT (40 CFR 63

Subpart DDDDD Docket No. OAR 2002

- 0058

CC: "shrager.brian@epa.gov" <shrager.brian@epa.gov>, "Anderson, Kenneth J"

<KAnderson@ameren.com>, "Whitworth, Steve C" <SWhitworth@ameren.c om> Attachments: Comments on Reconsideration of Boiler MACT rev 2.pdf Page 1 of 1

8/2/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settings\GGibson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpw ise\4E1F17C6DO

...
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF MAI SYSTEMS CORPORATION

                                   (12/31/02)

The following is a list showing MAI Systems Corporation and each of its
subsidiaries, as of December 31, 2002, indicating each jurisdiction under the
laws of which it was organized:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                JURISDICTION OF
         NAME:                                                   INCORPORATION
         -----                                                   -------------
<S>                                                             <C>
MAI SYSTEMS CORPORATION                                         Delaware

Hotel Information Systems, Inc.                                 Delaware

CLS Software International, Inc.                                California

CLS de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                                     Mexico

Hotel Information Systems Ltd.                                  Hong Kong

Hotel Information Systems, Pte. Limited                         Singapore

MAI Information Solutions Limited                               United Kingdom

Boss Solutions Limited                                          Hong Kong

MAI del Caribe, Inc.                                            Delaware

Hospitality Services and Solutions                              Malaysia
</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.828 Trailing cable pulling.

The trailing cable must be de-energized prior to being pulled by any equipment other than the continuous mining machine. The cable manufacturer's recommended pulling procedures must be followed when pulling the trailing cable with equipment other than the continuous mining machine.

[75 FR 17549, Apr. 6, 2010]
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern Texas, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY DEON HOLLIE, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. ANTHONY HEDGPETH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents - Appellees. No. 10-55331 D.C. 2:08-cv-02950-JVS-DTB
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 12, 2011 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District Judge. ** 

# FILED
OCT 31 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS1 Because Hollie does not claim that the state court’s denial of his motion to sever his charges was based on an err oneous factual finding, Section 2254(d)(2) does not apply to this claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) (permitting habeas relief when the state court’s rejection of a claim was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.”). 2 Petitioner Rodney Deon Hollie (“Hollie”), a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm. 1. Hollie is not entitled to habeas relief on his claim that the state court’s denial of his motion for a separate jury trial on Counts 1 and 2 (“motion to sever charges”), violated his constitutional ri ght to due process. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), a federal court may only grant a state prisoner habeas relief if the state court’s denial of the prisoner’s claim cont ravenes “clearly esta blished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme C ourt of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The Supreme Court has never held that a trial court’s failure to provide separate trials on different char ges implicates a defendant’s right to due process. See Collins v. Runnels , 603 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting petitioner’s argument that United States v. Lane , 474 U.S. 438 (1986), provides “clearly established federa l law” governing a state court’s denial of a motion to sever). 13 2. The state court’s denial of Hollie’s motion to suppress his confession was not “based on an unreasonable determinati on of the facts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Hollie has not pointed to an obvious defect in the state court’s fact finding process. Cf
. Taylor v. Maddox , 366 F.3d 992, 1005 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding state court factual finding unreasonable where state court failed to “consider, or even acknowledge” the testimony of a key defense witness).

AFFIRMED.
§ 57.22308 Methane monitors (III mines). ( a ) Methane monitors shall be installed on continuous mining machines and longwall mining systems.
( b ) The monitors shall— ( 1 ) Give warning at 1.0 percent methane;
( 2 ) Automatically deenergize electrical equipment, except power to monitoring equipment determined by MSHA to be intrinsically safe under 30 CFR part 18, and prevent starting such equipment when methane levels reach 1.5 percent; and
( 3 ) Automatically deenergize the equipment when power to a sensor is interrupted.
( c ) Sensing units of monitors shall be positioned at a location which provides for the most effective measurement of methane.
§ 745.12 Terms. Each cooperative agreement shall include: ( a ) Terms obligating the State regulatory authority to inspect all surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in accordance with the State regulatory program and to enforce the State program on Federal lands;
( b ) A description of the powers and authority reserved by the Secretary, including, but not limited to, those specified under § 745.13;
( c ) Provisions for the administration and enforcement by OSM and the State of this subchapter so as to minimize overlap and duplication;
( d ) Provisions for regular reports by the State regulatory authority to OSM on the results of the State's implementation and administration of the cooperative agreement.
( e ) Terms requiring the State regulatory authority to maintain sufficient personnel and facilities to comply with the terms of the cooperative agreement, and to notify OSM of any substantial change in State statutes, regulations, funding, staff, or other changes which would affect the State's ability to carry out the terms of the cooperative agreement;
( f ) Terms for coordination among the State regulatory authority, the Federal land management agency, the Bureau of Land Management and OSM;
( g ) Terms obligating the State regulatory authority to— ( 1 ) Make available to OSM information on any action taken regarding any permit application for surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands; and
( 2 ) Where lands containing leased Federal coal are involved, provide OSM, in the form specified by OSM in consultation with the State, with written findings indicating that each permit application is in compliance with the terms of the regulatory program and a technical analysis of each permit application to assist OSM in meeting its responsibilities under other applicable Federal laws and regulations.
#### § 77.604 Protection of trailing cables.

Trailing cables shall be adequately protected to prevent damage by mobile equipment.
### **CHAPTER 52—RESTITUTION FOR WORLD WAR II INTERNMENT OF JAPANESE-AMERICANS AND ALEUTS**

Sec.
4201.
Purposes.
4202.
Statement of the Congress.

#### SUBCHAPTER I—UNITED STATES CITIZENS OF JAPANESE ANCESTRY AND RESIDENT JAPANESE ALIENS

4211.
Short title.
4212.
Remedies with respect to criminal convictions.
4213.
Consideration of Commission findings by departments and agencies.
4214.
Trust Fund.
4215.
Restitution.
4216.
Board of Directors of the Fund.
4217.
Documents relating to the internment.
4218.
Definitions.
4219.
Compliance with Budget Act.
4220.
Entitlements to eligible individuals.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—ALEUTIAN AND PRIBILOF ISLANDS RESTITUTION

4231.
Short title.
4232.
Definitions.
4233.
Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Restitution Fund.
4234.
Appointment of Administrator.
4235.
Compensation for community losses.
4236.
Individual compensation of eligible Aleuts.
4237.
Attu Island restitution program.
4238.
Compliance with Budget Act.
4239.
Severability.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—TERRITORY OR PROPERTY CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES

4251.
Exclusion of claims.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 100–383, Aug. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 903, comprising this chapter, was formerly set out in the Appendix to this title, prior to the elimination of the Appendix to this title and the editorial reclassification of the Act as this chapter. For disposition of sections of the former Appendix to this title, see Table II, set out preceding section 1 of this title.
§ 77.1914 Electrical equipment. ( a ) Electric equipment employed below the collar of a slope or shaft during excavation shall be permissible and shall be maintained in a permissible condition.
( b ) The insulation of all electric conductors employed below the collar of any slope or shaft during excavation shall be of the flame resistant type.
( c ) Only lamps and portable flood lights approved by the Bureau of Mines or the Mine Safety and Health Administration under Part 19 and Part 20 of this chapter (Bureau of Mines Schedules 6D and 10C) shall be employed below the collar of any slope or shaft.
1

Vaupel, Claudia

From: John Morrissey <mojo@lrapa.org>

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 8:57 AM

To: Vaupel, Claudia

Subject: FW: LRAPA Open Burning RulesSMITH Grant S * ODF <Grant.S.SMITH@oregon.gov>

Attachments: LaneCo_ODF_ProtectionBoundries.kmz

Claudia,

Attached is a map of the DOF boundaries. The DOF unprotected areas are essentially within the Willamette River drainage

and urban or populated areas where there really aren’t any bona fide forest operations. Thanks.  

John

From: SMITH Grant S * ODF [mailto:Grant.S.SMITH@oregon.gov]  

Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 1:57 PM

To: John Morrissey <mojo@lrapa.org>

Cc: WAGENBLAST Greg * ODF <Greg.WAGENBLAST@oregon.gov>; HUDGIK AJ * ODF <AJ.HUDGIK@oregon.gov>

Subject: RE: LRAPA Open Burning RulesSMITH Grant S * ODF <Grant.S.SMITH@oregon.gov>

Hi John,

Sorry for the slow reply, I’ve been trying to take a few days off here and there.   

I’ve included file that should load up on Google Earth.  It delineates our protection district boundary which is the area that

we have jurisdiction over regarding smoke management.  It does create confusion that we have Forest Practices oversight

outside that boundary but not fire protection or smoke management......

If this file format doesn’t work for you, reply to AJ or myself and we can send something different.  AJ is our GIS whiz and can

make that happen.  I have cc’d Greg Wagenblast in this message and included the protection boundary for eastern Lane

County (South Cascade District) as well.  I’m assuming that would be helpful based upon your request.

Take care,

Link

From: John Morrissey [mailto:mojo@lrapa.org]  

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 3:37 PM

To: SMITH Grant S * ODF <Grant.S.SMITH@oregon.gov>

Subject: LRAPA Open Burning Rules

Link,

I am being asked by the EPA in regards to approval of our 2008 open (outdoor) burning rules about the provision that allows

LRAPA to write letter permits for forest slash open burning outside of areas covered by the DOF Smoke Management Plan.

Prior to 1995 the LRAPA rules were silent about that type of burning and the EPA thinks that it may be less stringent for

LRAPA to provide for that type of burning. Can you provide some sort of map or description that can show the DOF Smoke

management boundaries such that I can show the EPA that even if there is LRAPA permitted forest slash burning the area

would be small and the impacts would likely be de minimis. Thanks.

John
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 15-10






DTE Energy Company and
The Detroit Edison Company
Detroit, Michigan

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of DTE Energy Company and subsidiaries and of The Detroit Edison
Company and subsidiaries for the periods ended March 31, 1999 and 1998, as
indicated in our report dated April 28, 1999. Because we did not perform an
audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1999, is
incorporated by reference in the following Registration Statements:

         FORM                      REGISTRATION NUMBER

         DTE Energy Company
         Form S-3                    33-57545
         Form S-8                    333-00023

         The Detroit Edison Company.
         Form S-3                    33-53207
         Form S-3                    33-64296
         Form S-3                    333-65765

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.




DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Detroit, Michigan
April 28, 1999
2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-14-2011

Township of Lyndhurst v. Priceline.com Inc

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 09-2053

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Township of Lyndhurst v. Priceline.com Inc" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 428.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/428
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 09-2053

THE TOWNSHIP OF LYNDHURST, NEW JERSEY

on behalf of itself and all similarly situated taxing

authorities within the State of New Jersey,

Appellant

v.

PRICELINE.COM INC.; LOWESTFARE.COM; TRAVEL WEB LLC;

TRAVELOCITY.COM, INC.; TRAVELOCITY.COM, L.P.; SITE59.COM,

LLC; EXPEDIA, INC.; HOTELS.COM, L.P.; HOTWIRE INC.;

TRAVELNOW.COM, INC.; ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC.;

TRAVELPORT AMERICAS, LLC; TRIP NETWORK, INC., doing

business as CHEAP TICKETS, INC.; ORBITZ, LLC

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2-08-cv-03033)

District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares

 

Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES, and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

_______________________________ O R D E R _______________________________

The Court, on its own motion, recalls the mandate. The Court's opinion, filed

August 2, 2011, is hereby vacated and panel rehearing is granted. An amended

precedential opinion, containing clarifying and typographical changes, will be issued

forthwith. Upon filing of the Court's opinion, the mandate will be issued. 

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro, Circuit Judge

Dated: September 14, 2011

tmm/cc: John M. Angnello, Esq. 

James E. Cecchi, Esq. 
2

Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. 

William P. Deni, Jr., Esq. 

Michael R. Griffinger, Esq. 

Randolph K. Herndon, Esq. 

Karen L. Valihura, Esq. 

Brian S. Stagner, Esq. 

Scott R. Wiehle, Esq. 

Jeffrey A. Rossman, Esq. 

Michael W. Weaver, Esq. 

Melissa Fulton, Esq. 

Lazar P. Raynal Esq.
M. P. No. 76-315.

#### Lorraine L. Meinhold *v.*Richard J. Meinhold.

*Moore, Virgadamo, Boyle & Lynch, Ltd., Francis J. Boyle, Robert M. Silva,*for petitioner.

*Macioci and Grimm, E. Paul Grimm,*for respondent.

The respondent’s motion for a partial stay is denied.

This case is assigned to the October 1977 calendar for oral argument.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 11-1


           DONALDSON, LUFKIN & JENRETTE, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES

            Computation of Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share
               (In thousands, except per share amounts)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                               Three Months Ended                  Nine Months Ended
                                                               September 30,                       September 30,
                                                          1997               1996             1997               1996
                                                      ------------       -----------      ------------       --------
<S>                                                     <C>                <C>              <C>               <C>  

Weighted Average Common Shares:
     Average Common Shares Outstanding                 55,114           53,300             54,751            53,300
      
    Average Restricted Stock Units Outstanding          3,283            5,140              3,633             5,160
                                                        
    Average Common Shares Issuable Under Employee
      Benefit Plans                                     7,081            2,174              6,973             2,156

    Average Common Shares Issuable
      Upon Conversion of Convertible Debt                 675                -                560                 -
                                                    ---------         ---------         ---------         ---------
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding             66,153           60,614             65,917            60,616
                                                    =========         ========          =========         =========
Earnings:
     Net Income                                     $ 120,300         $ 56,100          $ 306,900         $ 218,200
     Less:  Preferred Stock Dividend
      Requirement                                       2,970            4,967              9,174            14,901
                                                   ----------         ---------         ---------         ---------

Earnings Applicable to Common Shares                $ 117,330         $ 51,133          $ 297,726         $ 203,299
                                                   ==========         ========          =========         =========


Fully Diluted Earnings Per Common Share             $    1.77         $   0.84          $    4.52         $    3.35
                                                   ==========         ========          =========         =========
</TABLE>





                                      27
#### § 57.11008 Restricted clearance.

Where restricted clearance creates a hazard to persons, the restricted clearance shall be conspicuously marked.

[53 FR 32528, Aug. 25, 1988]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

EFRAIN CARDENAS ALCARAS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 50292

D.C. No. 2:17

- cr

- 00755

- PSG

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Efrain Cardenas Alcaras appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty

- plea conviction and 151

- month sentence for conspiracy to

distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 846. Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Cardenas Alcaras ’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 50292

counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Cardenas Alcaras the

opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or

answering brief has been filed.

Cardenas Alcaras waived his right to appeal his conviction, wi th the

exception of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involunt ary. He also

waived the right to appeal his sentence, provided the court imposed a total term of

imprisonment of 151 months and 5 years of supervised release. Our independent

review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disclo ses

no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Cardenas Alcaras ’s plea

.

We therefore affirm as to th at issue and dismiss the remainder of the appeal of the

conviction and sentence in light of the valid appeal waiver. See United States v.

Watson , 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
#### § 7.62 Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this subpart:

*Blasting circuit.* A circuit that includes one or more electric detonators connected in a single series and the firing cable used to connect the detonators to the blasting unit.

*Blasting unit.* An electric device used to initiate electric detonators.

*Normal operation.* Operation of the unit according to the manufacturer's instructions with fully-charged batteries, with electric components at any value within their specified tolerances, and with adjustable electric components set to any value within their range.
#### § 750.14 Lands designated unsuitable for mining by Act of Congress.

Part 761 of this chapter is applicable on Indian lands.