alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 913.17 State regulatory program provisions and amendments disapproved. ( a ) The proposed definition of “previously mined area” in 62 IAC 1701.5, as submitted by Illinois on May 22, 1987, is disapproved to the extent that it includes lands subject to the reclamation standards of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 *et seq.*).
( b ) In 62 IAC 1761.11(c) and 1761.12(e)(1), as submitted by Illinois on May 22, 1987, the phrase “publicly owned” is disapproved to the extent that it modifies the term “places listed on the National Register of Historic Places” or an equivalent term.
( c ) The proposed revisions to the definition of “valid existing rights” in 62 IAC 1701.Appendix A, also known as 62 IAC 1701.5, as submitted by Illinois on May 22, 1987, are disapproved to the extent that they expand the “needed for and adjacent” test to allow claims of valid existing rights for lands for which the applicant obtained the requisite property rights after August 3, 1977.
( d ) In 62 IAC 1816.68(a) and 1817.68(a), as submitted by Illinois on July 17, 1989, the deletion of “wind velocity and direction” from the list of factors required in the blast records is disapproved.
[53 FR 43138, Oct. 25, 1988, as amended at 54 FR 123, Jan. 4, 1989; 55 FR 35314, Aug. 29, 1990]
Comparison of VOC emissions impact from addition of PV-Vent requirement to 

addition of exemption for salvage yard operators

Data and Assumptions for PV-Vent Calculation:

1. The PV-Vent requirement will affect approximately 390 facilities not currently

required to have such devices. (Source: Background Document for Proposed Revisions 

to 310 CMR 7.24(6), Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel (The Stage II Vapor Recovery

Program); pg. 6).

2. The average gasoline throughput at these facilities is 500,000 gallons / yr. (Source: 

pg. 7 of the reference cited in assumption 1.)

3. PV-vents reduce emissions by 90%. (Source: July 19, 2000 letter from Region 1 to 

CT-DEP)

4. Breathing losses (VOC emissions) from tanks without PV vents = 1 lb VOC per 1,000 

gallons of throughput. (Source: EPA’s AP 42, Table 5.2-7) 

Calculation:

(390 stations add PV-Vents) * (500,000 gallons / station) = 195,000,000 gallons of gas 

newly subject to this requirement.

195,000,000 gallons * 1 lb VOC / 1,000 gallons of throughput = 195,000 lbs of 

uncontrolled VOC emissions.

195,000 lbs uncontrolled emissions * 0.9 (90% control efficiency) = 175,500 lbs VOC 

controlled (87.7 tons / yr emission reduction).

Data and Assumptions for salvage yard calculation:

1. Number of registered motor vehicles in Massachusetts = 5,333,915. (Source: US 

DOT; Federal Highway Administration; Highway Statistics Series; State Motor Vehicle 

Registrations – 2010; Table MV-1; December, 2011).

2. National average vehicle scrappage rate = 4.3%. (Source: National Automobile 

Dealers Association; State of the Industry Report, 2011, pg. 16)

3. 5 gallons of gas recovered per scrapped vehicle (my assumption)
4. Uncontrolled filling of storage tank: 11.5 lbs VOC / 1,000 gallons (Source: Table 5.27 

of AP-42)

5. Uncontrolled vehicle refueling: 11.0 lbs VOC / 1,000 gallons (Source: Table 5.27 of 

AP-42)

6. Breathing loss (VOC emissions) from tanks without PV vents = 1 lb VOC per 1,000 

gallons of throughput. (Source: EPA’s AP 42, Table 5.2-7)

Calculation:

(5,333,915 MA vehicles) * (0.043 scrappage rate) = 229,358 vehicles scrapped 

(229,358 vehicles scrapped) * (5 gallons gas/vehicle) = 1,146,790 gallons of gas 

recovered at scrap yards.

(1,146,790 gallons gas) * (23.5 lbs VOC / 1,000 gallons (combined emission rate)) = 

26,950 lbs VOC emitted (13.5 tons/year)

Comparison: the PV vent requirement being added to the Massachusetts Stage 2 

regulation will reduce VOC emissions by approximately 88 tons per year, whereas 

exempting salvage yards will increase VOC emissions by approximately 14 tons/year.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThe Effectiveness of a NiCrY-Coating on a Powder Metallurgy Disk SuperalloyProtective ductile coatings could be necessary to mitigate oxidation and corrosion attack on superalloy disks in some turbine engine applications. However, the effects of coatings on fatigue life of the disk during service are an important concern. The objective of this study was to investigate how such a coating could perform after varied post-coating processing. Cylindrical gage fatigue specimens of powder metallurgy-processed disk superalloy LSHR were coated with a NiCrY coating, shot peened, preparation treated, exposed, and then subjected to fatigue at high temperature. The effects of varied shot peening, preparation treatment, and exposures on fatigue life with and without the coating were compared. Each of these variables and several of their interactions significantly influenced fatigue life.Document ID20180002562Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsGabb, Timothy P.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Miller, Robert A.*(Vantage Partners, LLC Cleveland, OH, United States)*Nesbitt, James A.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Draper, Susan L.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Rogers, Richard B.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Telesman, Jack*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH, United States)*Date AcquiredApril 27, 2018Publication DateApril 1, 2018Subject CategoryChemistry And Materials (General)Report/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN54306NASA/TM-2018- 219885E-19507Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 081876.02.03.04.02.01CONTRACT_GRANT: NNC12BA01BDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordsductile coatingssuperalloyshot peeningAvailable DownloadsNameType20180002562.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 200.310 Amount of penalties and assessments. ( a ) Penalties. 2 The DHA may impose a penalty of not more than $100,522 for each offer, payment, solicitation, or receipt of remuneration that is subject to a determination under § 200.300. 2 The penalty amounts in this section are updated annually, as adjusted in accordance with the Federal Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-140), as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (section 701 of Pub. L. 114-74). Annually adjusted amounts are published at 32 CFR part 269. The maximum penalty amount is based on the most recent statutory adjustment included in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and includes the cost of living multiplier for 2019, based on the CPI-U for the month of October 2018, not seasonally adjusted, is 1.02522, as indicated in OMB Memorandum M-19-04.
( b ) *Assessments.* The DHA may impose an assessment of not more than 3 times the total remuneration offered, paid, solicited, or received that is subject to a determination under § 200.300. Calculation of the total remuneration for purposes of an assessment shall be without regard to whether a portion of such remuneration was offered, paid, solicited, or received for a lawful purpose.
§ 150.23 Motions. ( a ) *Content.* All motions, unless made during the course of a hearing, shall state with particularity the relief sought and the grounds therefor. Motions, pleading, and other papers desired to be filed with the Court may be combined in the same document, with the heading indicating, for example “MOTION TO FILE (SUPPLEMENTAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS) (CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION) (SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING)”; or “ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS AND MOTION TO FILE ATTACHED REPORT OF MEDICAL BOARD”.
( b ) *Motions to attach documents.* If a party desires to attach a statement of a person to the record for consideration by the Court on any matter, such statement shall be made either as an affidavit or as an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. All documents containing language other than English shall have, attached, a certified English translation.
( c ) *Opposition.* Any opposition to a motion shall be filed within 7 days after receipt by the opposing party of service of the motion.
( d ) *Leave to file.* Any pleading not authorized or required by this part, shall be accompanied by a motion for leave to file such pleading.
( e ) *Oral argument.* Oral argument shall not normally be permitted on motions.
#### In the Matter of Virginia Nolte, Appellant, v. Robert E. Herman, as State Rent Administrator, Respondent, and Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Intervenor-Respondent.

Order, entered on February 16, 1962, unanimously affirmed, with $20' costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
§ 1903.17 Soliciting, vending, and debt collection. Commercial or political soliciting, vending of all kinds, displaying or distributing commercial advertising, collecting private debts or soliciting alms on any Agency installation is prohibited. This does not apply to: ( a ) National or local drives for funds for welfare, health, or other purposes as authorized by 5 CFR parts 110 and 950 and sponsored or approved by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, or by his or her designee.
( b ) Personal notices posted on authorized bulletin boards and in compliance with Central Intelligence Agency internal guidance governing the use of such authorized bulletin boards advertising to sell or rent property of Central Intelligence Agency employees, their immediate families, or other persons with proper authorization.
[63 FR 44786, Aug. 21, 1998, as amended at 88 FR 20763, Apr. 7, 2023]
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 Quarterly Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Noble, Chairman/Director and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                               
|-------------------------------
|/s/ David J. Noble             
|David J. Noble                 
|Chairman/Director              
|And Principal Executive Officer
|                               
|August 16, 2007                
|Date
#### In the Matter of William Hirscher, v. Robert E. Herman as State Rent Administrator.

Motion for leave to reargue and for resettlement denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Duckwall-Alco Stores, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended July 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned 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.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and will be retained by Duckwall-ALCO Stores, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 Date:  September 26, 2011
 By: __/s/ Wayne S. Peterson_________
 Wayne S. Peterson
 SVP – Chief Financial Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Distributionand ages of Magellanic Cepheids**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:SI 1.12/2:16
Item Number:0909-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:001057238
 
May 15, 2018
Exhibit 5.1
                                                                     -----------



                [Letterhead of Robertson Stromberg Pedersen LLP]

March 25, 2004

Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
500-122 1st Ave S
Saskatoon SK S7K 7G3



Ladies and Gentlemen:

         We have acted as counsel to Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc.
(the "Company") with respect to the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-8
(the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
in conjunction with the registration, under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by the Company of an aggregate of 4,000,000 shares of its common stock
(the "Shares") issuable upon exercise of stock options granted under the stock
option plans of the Company (collectively, the "Plans").

         In connection with this opinion letter, we have examined the originals
or copies certified or otherwise identified to our satisfaction of the
Registration Statement and such other records, documents, certificates,
agreements, or other instruments and have made such other inquiries, all as we
deemed necessary to enable us to render the opinions expressed below.

         Based on the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the Shares have been
duly and validly authorized for issuance and, when issued in accordance with the
terms of the Plan, will be validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

         We consent to the inclusion of this opinion as part of the Registration
Statement and to the reference to our firm therein. In giving this consent, we
do not admit that we come within the category of persons whose consent is
required under Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules
promulgated thereunder.

                                          Yours truly,

                                          /s/ Robertson Stromberg Pedersen LLP
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Robertson Stromberg Pedersen LLP


<PAGE>


                      [Letterhead of Deloitte & Touche LLP]



                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

POTASH CORPORATION OF SAXKATCHEWAN INC.

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports
dated February 6, 2004, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Potash
Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.


                                                 /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
                                                 ----------------------
                                                 Chartered Accountants

                                                 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
                                                 March 25, 2004
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6002** 

THOMAS N. TWEH , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

ROBERT GREENE; CAPTAIN PAYNE; SERGEANT JEFFERS; SERGEANT TATE; DOCTOR DADGAR; ANTHONY STURGESS; DOCTOR DAVARIS; P.A. D. STANSBURY; DEPUTY SHERIFF GREEN; DEPUTY SHERIFF SANGCO; CORPORAL MUHAMMAD , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv
- 02360

- GLR )

Submitted : May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Thomas N. Tweh, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Roger L. Wolfe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Thomas N. Tweh seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his m otion for appointment of counsel. This court
may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (200 6 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,
28 U.S.C. § 1292 (200 6 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The

order Tweh seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Miller v.
Simmons , 814 F.2d 962 , 967 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdict ion. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 955.10 Information collection.

The information collection requirements in this part were approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3507 and assigned clearance number 1029-0083. This information is needed to meet the requirements of sections 504, 515, 516, 710 and 719 of Pub. L. 95-87, and will be used by OSM in the certification of blasters. The obligation to respond is mandatory.
Exhibit
23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We have issued our report
dated March 9, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule included in the Annual Report of CyberOptics Corporation on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2010. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statements of CyberOptics
Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-136500 effective August10, 2006, File
No. 333-115973 effective May 28, 2004, File No. 333-103310 effective February
19, 2003, File No. 333-85321 effective August 16, 1999, File No. 333-51200
effective December 4, 2000, File No. 33-50510 effective August 5, 1992 , and
File No. 333-153015 effective August 14, 2008) and Form S-3 (File No.
333-166802 effective May 13, 2010) .

Grant Thornton LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 9, 2011



---
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43305

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBIN J. BELDEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 397

Filed: February 22, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonner County. Hon. Barbara A. Buchanan, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Paul R. Panther, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Robin J. Belden pled guilty to felony driving under the 

influence. I.C. § 18-8004(1)(a). At sentencing, Belden requested probation, with an underlying 

unified sentence of three years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year. The district 

court followed Belden’s recommendation and sentenced Belden to a unified term of three years, 

with a minimum period of confinement of one year. The district court suspended the sentence 

and placed Belden on probation. Belden filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court 

denied. Belden appeals.
2

Mindful that Belden received the sentence he asked for and that he did not include any 

new or additional information with his Rule 35 motion, Belden asserts that the district court erred 

in denying his Rule 35 motion. The doctrine of invited error applies to estop a party from 

asserting an error when his or her own conduct induces the commission of the error. State v. 

Atkinson, 124 Idaho 816, 819, 864 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct. App. 1993). One may not complain of 

errors one has consented to or acquiesced in. State v. Caudill, 109 Idaho 222, 226, 706 P.2d 456, 

460 (1985); State v. Lee, 131 Idaho 600, 605, 961 P.2d 1203, 1208 (Ct. App. 1998). In short, 

invited errors are not reversible. State v. Gittins, 129 Idaho 54, 58, 921 P.2d 754, 758 (Ct. App. 

1996). This doctrine applies to sentencing decisions as well as rulings made during trial. State v. 

Griffith, 110 Idaho 613, 614, 716 P.2d 1385, 1386 (Ct. App. 1986). 

Therefore, because Belden received the sentence he requested, Belden may not complain 

that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Belden’s 

Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------
 
 
                  [COOPERS & LYBRAND LETTERHEAD APPEARS HERE]
 
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
Board of Directors
Greene County Bancshares, Inc.
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Greene County Bancshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (File no. 333-08609) of our report
dated January 27, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements
of Greene County Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for each
of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1996, which report is
included in this Form 10-K.
 
                                            /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
Knoxville, Tennessee
March 27, 1997
#### John J. Creegan, Respondent, v. James C. Jenkins et al., Appellants.

Motion by appellants to stay the trial, pending determination of the appeals, granted on condition that appellants perfect the appeals and be ready to argue or submit them at the January 1961 Term. The appeals are ordered on the calendar for said term. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.