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

From: Bahner, Mark A.

Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 1:13 PM

To: Mike Palazzolo (Michael.Palazzolo@alcoa.com)

Cc: Boyd.Rochelle@epamail.epa.gov; Putney.David@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: Alumax Mt. Holly picture file (.jpg) and Google Earth (.kmz) file

Attachments: AlumaxOfSouthCarolina_RevisedJan2011.kmz; CategoryHAPs_NEI41217

_RevisedJan2011.xls; ReleasePoint_NEI41217_revisedJan2011

_RoofVentsAsAreaSource.xls

Hi Mike,

When we meet on Monday, it would probably be good for your people to have these three files. They were sent to 

Rochelle by Henk Van Der Meyden on January 13, 2011. Y’all obviously already have them, but I wanted to make sure 

that nothing has been altered from what y’all sent on January 13th. 

One is a .kmz file with “bad points” on it (similar to that that second .jpg file I sent earlier today that was identified as

“FYI_only”).

A few explanations/caveats:

1) The blue points are from the file: ReleasePoint_NEI41217_revisedJan2011_RoofVentsAsAreaSource.xls

2) The red points are from the file: CategoryHAPs_NEI41217_RevisedJan2011.xls

A caveat is that the points often overlap, so that the point appears to be one color, but may have the other color hidden 

underneath. For example, if you turn off the layer that shows the blue points, many of those same points will then 

appear red. (But not all, because they don’t all overlap.)

Hopefully, everything will become clear on Monday.

Best wishes,

Mark

Mark A. Bahner 

RTI, International 

P.O. Box 12194, 3040 Cornwallis Road 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194 

Phone: (919) 541-6016 

Fax: (919) 541-7155 

Email: bahner@rti.org 

Internet: http://www.rti.org
#### 1652.243-70 Changes—Negotiated benefits contracts.

As prescribed in section 1643.205-70, the following clause shall be inserted in all FEHBP contracts.

# Changes—Negotiated Benefits Contracts (JAN 1998)

(a) The Contracting Officer may at any time, by written order, and without notice to the sureties, if any, make changes within the general scope of this contract in any one or more of the following:

(1) Description of services to be performed.

(2) Time of performance (i.e., hours of the day, days of the week, etc.).

(3) Place of performance of the services.

(b) If any such change causes an increase or decrease in the cost of, or the time required for, performance of any part of the work under this contract, whether or not changed by the order, the Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price, the delivery schedule, or both, and shall modify the contract.

(c) The Carrier must assert its right to an adjustment under this clause within 30 days from the date of receipt of the written order. However, if the Contracting Officer decides that the facts justify it, the Contracting Officer may receive and act upon a proposal submitted before final payment of the contract.

(d) Failure to agree to any adjustment shall be a dispute under the Disputes clause. However, nothing in this clause shall excuse the Carrier from proceeding with the contract as changed.

(End of clause)

[62 FR 47578, Sept. 10, 1997]
J-S42027-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

JAY YUNIK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellant 

v.

MICHAEL OVERMYER, 

 Appellee No. 135 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Order Entered December 30, 2013 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County 

Criminal Division at No.: CP-20-MD-0000534-2013 

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J. FILED: AUGUST 25, 2014 

 Jay Yunik appeals from an order denying his habeas corpus motion 

filed against Michael Overmyer, superintendent of the State Correctional 

Facility at Forest, where Yunik is presently serving his sentence of 54-180 

months’ imprisonment for rape. We affirm.

 Having examined the record, the briefs of the parties, and the 

applicable law, and the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable 

John Spataro of the Court of Common Pleas of Crawford County, we 

conclude that Judge Spataro’s opinion accurately disposes of Yunik’s claim 

that he has “a constitutional right to petition the government for grievances 

against it.” Accordingly, we adopt his opinion as our own. See Trial Court 

Opinion (noting that Yunik was sentenced to imprisonment for rape and has 

filed 4 PCRA petitions, none of which were successful; PCRA subsumes the 
J-S24029-14

- 2 - 

claims Yunik wishes to pursue in his habeas corpus petition, viz., illegal 

police interrogation, invalid affidavit of probable cause, concealment of 

exculpatory evidence, illegal arrest, denial of right to counsel at various 

stages of case, ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction, unlawfully induced guilty plea, lack of factual basis for guilty 

plea; none of Yunik’s claims are timely under the PCRA’s one year statute of 

limitations; Yunik fails to plead or prove any exceptions to the one year 

statute of limitations; Yunik not prejudiced by the absence of a 20 day notice 

of intent to dismiss his petition under Pa.R.Crim.P. 907, since court 

entertained his motion for reconsideration after denying his original habeas 

corpus motion; Yunik waived objection to the absence of a 20 day notice by 

failing to include this objection in his statement of matters complained of on 

appeal). 

 Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 8/25/2014
### §908. Limitations on use of assistance

(a) Subject to subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the Secretary may allow a recipient of a grant, loan, or loan guarantee under this subchapter to set aside not more than 10 percent of the amount so received to provide retail broadband service.

(b) A recipient who sets aside funds under subsection (a) of this section may use the funds only in an area that is not being provided with the minimum acceptable level of broadband service established under section 950bb(e) of this title, unless the recipient meets the requirements of section 950bb(d) of this title.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of any borrower to finance or deploy services authorized under this chapter.

(d) The Secretary shall not provide funding under subsection (a) if the funding would result in competitive harm to any grant, loan, or loan guarantee referred to in subsection (a).

(May 20, 1936, ch. 432, title I, §8, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6210(b), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4744.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 908, acts May 20, 1936, ch. 432, title I, §8, 49 Stat. 1366; Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 776, §2, 63 Stat. 948; Oct. 13, 1994, Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §235(a)(4), 108 Stat. 3221, related to transfer of functions of Rural Electrification Administration created by Executive Order No. 7037, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–127, title VII, §776, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1150.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

                - P-12
                - Carrera Universitaria
                - Educación Para Adultos
                - Derechos Civiles
                - Educación Especial
                - Noticias

----

Bajo la Parte B de la ley IDEA (Acta para la Educación de los  Individuos con Discapacidades), cada estado y sus agencias públicas deben  asegurar que una educación pública, apropiada y gratuita (FAPE por sus siglas  en inglés) se haga disponible a todo estudiante con discapacidades específicas  dentro de los rangos de edad establecidos y que los derechos y las protecciones  de la Parte B sean extendidos a estudiantes elegibles y a sus padres.

Ley de Educación para Individuos con Discapacidades (IDEA)

El Centro de Información y Recursos para Padres

Preparación para la educación  postsecundaria 

Sección 504: Ayudas y servicios auxiliares para estudiantes [**PDF,** 158KB]

El Consorcio  para la Resolución Apropiada de Disputas (CADRE)

Vea más información en españolCentro de Recursos de InformaciónTeléfono 1-800-872-5327 o 202-401-2000Correo electrónico

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
1401.301-70 Definitions. ( a ) “Implement,” as used in this subpart, means coverage that expands upon or specifically indicates the manner of compliance with related higher level coverage.
( b ) “Supplement,” as used in this subpart, means material for which there is no counterpart in higher-level coverage.
#### CAMPO, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Annie Campo against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company.

A. Ofner, for appellant. N. L. Keach, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event, unless plaintiff stipulates to reduce judgment as entered to the sum of $687.27, in which case, judgment as so modified and the order appealed from are affirmed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report
of Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 2,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Krish A. Prabhu, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s Krish A. Prabhu

Krish A. Prabhu
Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 12, 2004

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,020
<SECURITIES>                                    21,480
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,881
<INVENTORY>                                      8,003
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                55,495
<PP&E>                                          17,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,138
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,847
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,689
<SALES>                                         73,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                73,468
<CGS>                                           19,073
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,442
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,584
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,516
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2

Eastern Division

Sourcebooks, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:11−cv−07738

Honorable Amy J. St. Eve

Anita Clenney

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, December 12, 2011:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Susan E. Cox: Status hearing set for 12/19/11 at

9:45 a.m. Mailed notice(vkd, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:11-cv-07738 Document #: 17 Filed: 12/12/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:122
#### 1371.121 Insurance requirements.

Insert clause 1352.271-90, *Insurance Requirements,* in all solicitations and contracts for ship construction and ship repair.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tyler Toulon, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on appellant’s typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time is enlarged to the February Term, commencing January 30, 1961; the appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Mr. Mike Vince Supervisor Permit Section 

## MAR3 

## 2003

Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 82135 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 RE: 1993 State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal to Incorporate Revisions to Louisiana Administrative Code 33:III Chapter 5 Section 5.31(a)

- Public Notice for Minor Sources DearMr. Vince: The Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) Region 6 received a SIP submittal in 1993 which includedrevisions to LAC 33:III Chapter 5 Section 531(a)

- Public Notice. After evaluating this submittal, we have determined that section 531(a) is not consistent with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.161 of the Federal rules. 40 CFR 51.16l(a) requires opportunity for public comment and applies to all proposed decisions concerning new andmodified sources. More important, the rule does not distinguish between major andminor sources. As currently written, Louisiana's rule states: 531(A} Public Notice 1. At the discretion of the permitting authority, public notice may be provided prior to issuance of any new or revisedpermit under this Chapter. This discretionary language does not conform to the Federal regulations as Section 51.161 clearlymandates that legally**onFf"'lr("'o~hlP nrn~Poures**  must also require the State or localAgencyto provide for public comment. Thus, the current language in 531(A)isnot approvable under 40 CFR 51.161 as it allows the permitting agency discretion whether toprovide for public notice. In a letter toMr. Allyn Davis, datedDecember 12, 1996, Mr. Gus Von Bodungen (1996 letter) explained the State's rationale for not wanting to make changes to its rules. The letter discussed several proposed changes to the Federal rules, and addressed thequestion of adequate opportunity for public participation, in 40 CFR parts 51 and 70pursuant to EPA's rule proposals in the Federal Register onAugust 31, 1995. The 1996 letterurged that these proposedchanges shouldgive States broader discretion in determiningboth the coverage andpublic notice requirements for minorNew Source Review. Whilewe recognize the issues raised in the 1996 letter, the State's rules simplydo not meet the requirements of the Federal rules as they currently exist nor as proposed in 1995.**Further~** the above-referencedrule changes wereproposed over sevenyears ago andhave neverbeen finalized, and there is no indication from EPA Headquarters that theywill ever go final

.. EPA Region 6 believes thatwe shouldgo forward withprocessing the SIP submittal. We recommend the State to agree tomake changes to its rules to meet the current Federal requirements. The EPA could thengo forward with a conditional approval of the SIP. If EPA decided to finalize the 1995 rule proposals, the Statewouldbe free to make any additional changes at that time. I trust this answers the questionsposed in your December 12, 1996, letter. If you have any further questions, please call Mr. Reverdie Daron Page of my staff at (214) 655-7222.

bee: 6PD-R Staff Sincerelyyours,

Carl E. Edlund, P.E. Director Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             275
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             380
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      1,819
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             649
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               653
<LOANS>                                         22,536
<ALLOWANCE>                                        190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,473
<DEPOSITS>                                      17,026
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                658
<LONG-TERM>                                      6,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,715
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  26,473
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,293
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  202
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    38
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,533
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 551
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 900
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              633
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       57
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (267)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    585
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (193)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       (193)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (122)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.60)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.10
<LOANS-NON>                                         25
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   184
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       14
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  190
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               190
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Juan Manuel Garza, * From the 106th District Court

of Dawson County,

Trial Court No. 14

- 7402

.

Vs. No. 11

- 16

- 00134

- CR * October 13, 2016

T he State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the

appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s

opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
Title of Court Date Admitted 

California State Court 11/29/1998 

United States District Court - Northern District of California 12/07/1998 

United States Court of Appeals - Ninth Circuit 12/22/1998 

United States Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit 06/16/2000 

United States District Court - Central District of California 05/23/2003 

United States District Court - Western District of Wisconsin 01/21/2004 

United States Court of Appeals - Third Circuit 02/18/2004 

Case: 1:11-cv-09308 Document #: 188-2 Filed: 04/09/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:4651