alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Comments regarding docket no. EPA-Fic2-oAR-2013-0602

By: Jessica Jones jj.jessicajones@gmail.com
Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan.
I strongly support the EPA's effort to limit industrial carbon pollution from all power plants. The new proposed standard to limit greenhouse gases from existing power plants is an important step in the fight against climate change.
I believe that climate change is the greatest challenge of our time. International and national scientific studies have repeatedly shown that carbon pollution contributes directly to climate change and the threats that it brings to our communities. Power plants are currently the largest source of carbon pollution, emitting 40% of carbon emissions in the United States. These emissions are the chief cause of climate change in our country.
I'm not a mom, politician or industry specialist. I am however an aunt, a runner and a citizen. I believe that it is our moral obligation to put people before polluters and put an end to the unlimited dumping of carbon pollution into our air. To me this means a safer environment for my nieces and nephews, cleaner air to breathe while running and an important step to preserving our most important commodity, our planet.
This new clean air standard will protect public health, fight climate change, and create jobs through innovation in cleaner, energy technology. The regulation as written, will give flexibility to states to formulate their own plans to meet the goals set by the EPA. This means that the many states and local communities that have already taken action on climate change, will continue to have the resources to move forward. This new federal safeguard will set commonsense limits on carbon pollution, inspire investment in infrastructure to protect communities from the climate change impacts they are already experiencing, and spur the kind of innovation that will power America with clean energy in the 21st century. Thenew safeguards will also give states flexibility to implement plans that increase

efficiency, improve resiliency and remove carbon pollution from our air.
Reducing the amount of carbon pollution from power plants is a life-saving measure that will protect our children, our nation and the world from the devastating effects of climate change. Limits on carbon pollution should match the limits currently placed on mercury, arsenic, and soot.
The standards proposed by the EPA are aggressive and ambitious. I commend the EPA for taking the necessary steps to limit carbon pollution from both new and existing sources. I stand by you in support of this regulation and your plan to maintain an affordable, reliable energy system, while cutting pollution and protecting our health and environment.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today.

EPA—HQ—OAR-2013-0602 Jones, p. 2
204.1202 Solicitation provision and contract clause. When using the provision at FAR 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications— ( 1 ) Use the provision with 252.204-7007, Alternate A, Annual Representations and Certifications; and
( 2 ) When the provision at FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management, is included in the solicitation, do not include separately in the solicitation the following provisions, which are included in DFARS 252.204-7007: ( i ) 252.204-7016, Covered Defense Telecommunications Equipment or Services—Representation.
( ii ) 252.209-7002, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by a Foreign Government.
( iii ) 252.216-7008, Economic Price Adjustment—Wage Rates or Material Prices Controlled by a Foreign Government—Representation.
( iv ) 252.225-7000, Buy American—Balance of Payments Program Certificate.
( v ) 252.225-7020, Trade Agreements Certificate.
( vi ) 252.225-7031, Secondary Arab Boycott of Israel.
( vii ) 252.225-7035, Buy American—Free Trade Agreements—Balance of Payments Program Certificate.
( viii ) 252.225-7042, Authorization to Perform.
( ix ) 252.225-7049, Prohibition on Acquisition of Certain Foreign Commercial Satellite Services—Representations.
( x ) 252.225-7050, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by the Government of a Country that is a State Sponsor of Terrorism.
( xi ) 252.226-7002, Representation for Demonstration Project for Contractors Employing Persons with Disabilities.
( xii ) 252.229-7012, Tax Exemptions (Italy)—Representation.
( xiii ) 252.229-7013, Tax Exemptions (Spain)—Representation.
( xiv ) 252.232-7015, Performance-Based Payments—Representation.
( xv ) 252.247-7022, Representation of Extent of Transportation by Sea.
[76 FR 58141, Sept. 20, 2011, as amended at 77 FR 19129, Mar. 30, 2012; 77 FR 35879, June 15, 2012; 78 FR 37983, June 25, 2013; 78 FR 40043, July 3, 2013; 79 FR 45664, Aug. 5, 2014; 79 FR 51264, Aug. 28, 2014; 79 FR 73489, Dec. 11, 2014; 80 FR 5000, Jan. 29, 2015; 83 FR 24888, May 30, 2018; 83 FR 66071, Dec. 21, 2018; 84 FR 30947, June 28, 2019; 84 FR 72236, 72559, Dec. 31, 2019; 85 FR 19687, Apr. 8, 2020; 85 FR 74611, Nov. 23, 2020]
Exhibit 31.2

                        CERTIFICATION OF CFO PURSUANT TO

                    SECTION 302 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Mark F. Spiro, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Calprop Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure control and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's second fiscal quarter) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

August 24, 2004

/s/ Mark F. Spiro
----------------------------------------
Mark F. Spiro
Vice President/Secretary/Treasurer
(Chief Financial and Accounting Officer)
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

WILFORD GARNER, IV , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 1598

[ August 16, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Michael C. Heisey

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2005

- CF

- 560

- A

.
Wilford Garner, IV, Raiford, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

G ERBER , C.J., M AY and F ORST , JJ., concur

.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
218.270 Head of contracting activity determinations. The term “head of the agency” is replaced with “head of the contracting activity,” as defined in FAR 2.101, in the following locations: ( a ) FAR 2.101: definition of “simplified acquisition threshold.”
( b ) FAR 12.102(f).
( c ) FAR 13.201(g).
( d ) FAR 13.500(c)(1).
( e ) FAR 18.2.
[74 FR 2407, Jan. 15, 2009. Redesignated at 76 FR 44281, July 25, 2011; 82 FR 61480, Dec. 28, 2017. Redesignated and amended at 83 FR 24890, May 30, 2018]
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We have issued our report dated December 14, 2001, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
Alpha Technologies Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended October 28, 2001.
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration Statements of Alpha Technologies Group, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No.
33-11627, effective January 29, 1987, File No. 33-17359, effective September 28,
1987, File No. 33-20706, effective March 17, 1988, File No. 33-29636, effective
June 30, 1989, File No. 33-48663, effective June 23, 1992, File No. 333-03001,
effective April 30, 1996 and File No. 333-61708, effective May 25, 2001) and on
Form S-3 (File No. 333-10311, effective August 16, 1996).

                                          /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

GRANT THORNTON LLP
Houston, Texas
February 11, 2002
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications

Table 9. Growth of juvenile chinook salmon over a 40-day period in 1990 and an 84-day period in 1991.

* Significantly different than juvenile salmon from their respective reference hatchery (p less than or equal to 0.05). 

Table of Contents
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Iowa Department of EducationGrimes State Office Building400 East 14th StreetDes Moines, IA 50319-0146Phone: (515) 281-5294Fax: (515) 242-5988Website: http://educateiowa.gov

### State Higher Education Agency

Iowa College Student Aid Commission475 SW Fifth Street, Suite DDes Moines, IA 50319Phone: (515) 725-3400Toll-Free: (877) 272-4456Fax: (515) 725-3401Website: https://www.iowacollegeaid.gov/

### Special Education Agency

Bureau of Learner Strategies and SupportsIowa Department of EducationGrimes State Office Building400 East 14th StreetDes Moines, IA 50319-0146Phone: (515) 281-5294Fax: (515) 242-5988Website: https://educateiowa.gov/pk-12/special-education

### State Adult Education Agency

Iowa Department of EducationDivision of Community Colleges and Workforce Preparation400 East 14th Street Des Moines, IA 50319-0146 Phone: (515) 281-3640 Fax: (515) 281-6544 Website: https://educateiowa.gov/adult-career-comm-college/adult-education-and-literacy/high-school-equivalency-diploma-hsed-program

Back to state map
#### Georgenia McCarthy et al., Respondents, v Douglas Thomas Bellamy et al., Appellants.

[834 NYS2d 800]—

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered March 13, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order insofar as appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted in its entirety and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Georgenia McCarthy (plaintiff) in a motor vehicle accident on July 29, 2000 when her vehicle collided with a vehicle owned by one defendant and operated by the other. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the motor vehicle accident, plaintiff sustained, inter alia, injuries to her cervical spine.

Defendants moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and Supreme Court granted the motion only in part. We conclude that the court should have granted defendants’ motion in its entirety. “[E]ven where there is objective medical proof [of a serious injury], when additional contributory factors interrupt the chain of causation between the accident and claimed injury—such as a gap in treatment, an intervening medical problem or a preexisting condition—summary dismissal of the *1167complaint may be appropriate” *(Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 572 [2005]). Here, the record establishes that in 1999 plaintiff complained of left-sided neck pain that had persisted for three months, resulting in an X ray showing “minimal spondylosis” and “possible minor cervical degenerative disease.” Plaintiffs’ failure to acknowledge or address that preexisting condition in opposition to the motion renders the opinion of plaintiffs’ expert “speculative” *(Moore v Sarwar,*29 AD3d 752, 753 [2006]; *see Style v Joseph,*32 AD3d 212, 214-215 [2006]; *Jimenez v Rojas,*26 AD3d 256, 257 [2006]; *Clark v Perry,*21 AD3d 1373 [2005]; *Montgomery v Pena,*19 AD3d 288, 289-290 [2005]).

We likewise agree with defendants that plaintiffs’ failure to explain a 15-month gap in plaintiffs treatment renders summary judgment dismissing the complaint appropriate *(see Black v Regalado,*36 AD3d 437 [2007]; *Park v Champagne,*34 AD3d 274, 276 [2006]; *Caracci v Miller,*34 AD3d 515 [2006]; *see generally Pommells,*4 NY3d at 574). Present—Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.
#### Gillick W. Perry, an Infant, by Lillian O’Grady, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Appellants, v. Marano Tauro, Defendant, and Corino Tauro, Respondent.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injury, medical expenses and loss of services, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 3, 1963, which denied their application to eliminate from the typewritten transcript of the stenographic minutes of the trial certain medical testimony upon the ground that such testimony is not material to their appeal to this court from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 13, 1961, dismissing the complaint after a jury trial. Order affirmed, without costs. In denying this motion to settle an abridged typewritten transcript of the stenographic trial minutes, the trial court did so on the ground that, in the absence of the parties’ consent, the court was without power under rule 5525 of the CPLR to settle any transcript which failed to include the *“*entire transcript ” of the stenographic minutes of the trial. We are in accord with such interpretation of the rule. The settlement of the *typewritten*transcript here is not to be confused with the settlement of the *printed*record on appeal under the former Civil Practice Act. That act, as supplemented by the Rules of Civil Practice, did empower the Trial Judge to settle an abridged record. Indeed, the act and the rules required the parties to present to him for settlement a ease or record which contained only the proceedings upon the trial which would be “ material to the questions to be raised upon the appeal and no more; ” and he was required to settle the record “ accordingly ” (Rules Civ. Prac., rules 232, 234; Civ. Prac. Act, § 576; *Boylan*v. *Southern Pacific Co., 253*App. Div. 195). The same abridgement of the *printed*record to be submitted to the appellate court can now be achieved much more effectively by utilizing fairly and properly the appendix method (CPLR 5528).' However, the *typewritten*transcript, which is now required to be settled and filed (CPLR 5525), was never intended to displace the appendix or to be used as a substitute for the appendix (cf. *E. P. Reynolds, Inc.*v. *Eager Elec. Co.,*21 A D 2d 306). It is primarily because a complete typewritten transcript settled by the trial court is available, that an appellant is authorized, without further settlement or court approval, to submit the appeal on a printed (or otherwise reproduced) appendix •“ containing only such parts of the record *805on appeal as are necessary to consider the questions involved, including those parts the appellant reasonably assumes will be relied upon by the respondent” (CPLR 5528, subd. [a], par. 5). Thus, while the typewritten transcript and the printed appendix are related, each serves a distinctly different purpose (cf. *E.*P. *Reynolds, Inc.*v. *Nager Elec. Co., supra).*(For companion appeal, see *Perry*v. *Tauro,*21 A D 2d 804.) Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST )

COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE )

POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT )

DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2003, )

MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL INC. )

TRUST 2003-NC8, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2607

)

ALITA A. ABELL, CAPITAL ONE BANK )

(USA), N.A., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST )

TO CAPITAL ONE BANK, CRESANDRA )

WILLIAMS, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Alita Abell ("Abell"), the mortgagor co-defendant in this mortgage foreclosure action, has

filed her Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") to the Complaint brought by Deutsche Bank

National Trust Company as Trustee. Because that responsive pleading is problematic in a

number of respects, this Court sua sponte strikes that pleading, but with leave granted to file a

corrected version.

For one thing, Abell's counsel has ignored (and therefore not complied with) this District

Court's LR 10.1. There is a good reason for that provision, and counsel must comply with it

when she returns to the drawing board.

Case: 1:12-cv-02607 Document #: 14 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:74
Next, Answer ¶ 1 says that no response is required to Complaint ¶ 1. No such exception

is contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b) -- and more importantly, the allegation must

obviously be admitted rather than denied.

There are a number of places where Abell's counsel attempts to invoke the disclaimer

permitted by Rule 8(b)(5) (see Answer ¶¶ 2, 3, 5, 10(d), 10(l) and 10(n)). In every instance,

counsel has inexplicably failed to follow the clear roadmap charted by that Rule. And beyond

that, each attempted disclaimer is followed by "and therefore denies same." That is of course

oxymoronic – how can a party that asserts (presumably in good faith) that it lacks even enough

information to admit or deny an allegation (let alone to form a belief, as should have been

asserted) then proceed to deny it in compliance with Rule 11(b)?

Next, Answer ¶ 1 is not the only place that Abell's counsel has made the unwarranted

assertion that no response is required to the Complaint's allegations -- see Answer ¶¶ 7, 10(o),

10(q), 10(r) and 10(s). Counsel should take a fresh look at those allegations.

As stated at the outset, the present pleading is stricken, but with leave to file an

appropriate responsive pleading on or before July 30, 2012. It should be added that this Court

has made no effort to address the ADs, either in terms of their viability or otherwise -- that

subject will be left to plaintiff's counsel.

__________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: July 20, 2012.

- 2 -

Case: 1:12-cv-02607 Document #: 14 Filed: 07/20/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:75
#### 1509.406 Debarment.
<PAGE>

                                                        EXHIBIT 21.1



                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



The companies listed below are all of the subsidiaries of ACR Group, Inc. as of
February 28, 2001.  All of the companies are wholly-owned.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                  Name of Subsidiary                             State of Incorporation
------------------------------------------------------   ---------------------------------------
<S>                                                      <C>
                   ACR Supply, Inc.                                       Texas
                  Total Supply, Inc.                                      Texas
                 Valley Supply, Inc.                                      Texas
           Heating and Cooling Supply, Inc.                              Nevada
              Ener-Tech Industries, Inc.                                Tennessee
             Florida Cooling Supply, Inc.                                 Texas
             West Coast HVAC Supply, Inc.                                 Texas
                Lifetime Filter, Inc.                                     Texas
          Contractors Heating & Supply, Inc.                              Texas
                CAC Distributors, Inc.                                    Texas
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                   1

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                   OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                         41,601
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  234,053
<ALLOWANCES>                   11,702
<INVENTORY>                    3,122,585
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               3,783,115
<PP&E>                         2,719,228
<DEPRECIATION>                 1,503,798
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 9,170,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          2,452,852
<BONDS>                        2,834,207
<COMMON>                       290,707
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    112,136
<OTHER-SE>                     3,402,140
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   9,170,045
<SALES>                        2,306,279
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               2,306,279
<CGS>                          2,027,761
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  3,007,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               96,492
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             168,740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (797,408)
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (797,408)
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   (797,408)
<EPS-BASIC>                  (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (.03)


</TABLE>
#### 225.872-7 Industrial security for qualifying countries.

The required procedures for safeguarding classified defense information necessary for the performance of contracts awarded to qualifying country sources are in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, 32 CFR part 117 (implemented for the Army by AR 380-49; for the Navy by SECNAV Instruction 5510.1H; for the Air Force by AFI 31-601; for the Defense Information Systems Agency by DCA Instruction 240-110-8; and for the National Imagery and Mapping Agency by NIMA Instruction 5220.22).

[68 FR 15621, Mar. 31, 2003, as amended at 86 FR 3836, Jan. 15, 2021]