alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The information contained i n this file set includes reference material supplied by NMED.

File List: Basin Dry Fork Incremental NOx Cost.pdf Boiler Construction Dates.pdf Coal Creek BART Costs.pdf Cost Cichanowi ca SCR & FGD UARG 6 - 07.pdf Cost Effectiveness Thresholds Ak, MI, FL 2002.pdf Cost NOx 10000 - 12000 Various Heaters LA - 0123 Baton Rouge.pdf Cost NOx 10909 NV - 0038 Ivanpah.pdf Cost NOx 11185 MN - 0052 GreatRiver Lakefield.pdf Cost NOx 11325 OH - 0255 AEP Waterf ord.pdf Cost NOx 13375 NV - 0035 Tracy Substation.pdf Cost NOx 14111 AR - 0100 Lion Oil.pdf Cost NOx 5800 MT - 0019 Continental SilverBow.pdf Cost NOx 6116 WI - 0228 WPS Weston.pdf Cost NOx 6700 FL - 0261 ArvahHopkins.pdf Cost NOx 8122 OH - 0253Dayton PowerAndLight.pd f Cost NOx 8575 MI - 0371 CarltonFarms Landfill.pdf Cost NOx 8700 MS - 0071 Holcim.pdf Cost NOx 9478 AZ - 0047 Wellton Mohawk.pdf DUBENETZKY LETTER.PDF ENV_ENFORCEMENT - #1671029 - v1 - Minnkota_ - _BACT_Cost_ - _Nucor_CD.pdf EPA Comments on Draft MRYS NOx BACT Determination 5 - 10 - 10.pdf EPA Cost Tool - Unit 1.pdf EPA Cost Tool - Unit 2.pdfEPA Cost Tool - Units 3 & 4.pdf

ERG Cost Analysis.pdf FCPP SCR Retrofit Costs for Units 4 - 5.pdf FL email.pdf GORE LETTER.PDF Gascoyne Permit Application.pdf HODANBOSI LETTER.PDF How baseline emissions calc - 1.txt How baseline emissions calc.txt Low - dust and Tail - end Catlyst Design Specification.pdf Minnkota Cost SCR Keystone $13196 per ton.pdf Mountain Cement.pdf OWEN LETTER.PDF Oak Creek SCR H ot Side v. Cold Side Letter PSC 8 - 24 - 07.pdf Oak Creek Units 5 - 8 Appx. C Revised Costs 8 - 20 - 07.pdf Oak Creek Units 5 - 8 Revised Drawings 8 - 24 - 07.pdf Other BACT Analyses 1.pdf Other BACT Analyses 2.pdf PNM Response to NPS Questions (7.25.07).pdf SCR Retrofits translates into Broad Costs PowerEng.pdf South Heart Permit Application.pdf URLs and Links to Technical Documents.doc Wygen 2 NOx Cost Effectiveness.pdf Wygen II Black Hills Engineering Analysis Complete 4 - 24 - 02.pdf
#### § 160.37 Prior marks to be removed.

Any marking appearing on a container to be used for naval stores, relating to the kind, classification, grade, certification, or method of inspection of naval stores shall be removed by the user whenever such marking does not in all respects describe the kind, classification, grade, certification, and method of inspection of the naval stores to be placed therein.
#### BROWN, Respondent, v. ZIFF, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 24, 1906.)

Action by Doria Brown against Pauline Ziff.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00269-CV

JAMES REEDOM, Appellant

V.

5950 BOCA RATON LP D/B/A 

MADISON PARK (WOODSTOCK), 

Appellee

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2018-004416-1)

August 26, 2019

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant James Reedom shall pay all of the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
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 Report of Castle Arch Real Estate Investment Company, L.L.C. a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) I, Kirby D. Cochran, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:  a. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  b. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Kirby D. Cochran Kirby D. Cochran, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Dated August 19, 2009
#### In re J. N. HEGEMAN & CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 25, 1906.)

In the matter of 3. N. Hegeman & Co.

No opinion. Motion for leave to go to Court of Appeals and for stay granted; questions to be certified on settlement of order. Settle order on notice.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1467.12 The WRPO development. ( a ) The development of the WRPO will be made through the local NRCS representative, in consultation with the State Technical Committee, with consideration of site-specific technical input from FWS and the Conservation District.
( b ) The WRPO will specify the manner in which the enrolled land shall be restored, protected, enhanced, maintained, and managed to accomplish the goals of the program. The WRPO will be developed to ensure that cost-effective restoration and maximization of wildlife benefits and wetland functions and values will result. Specifically, the WRPO will consider and address, to the extent practicable, the on-site alternations and the off-site watershed conditions that adversely impact the hydrology and associated wildlife and wetland functions and values. NRCS will review, revise, and supplement the WRPO as needed throughout the duration of the enrollment to ensure that program goals are fully and effectively achieved.
[74 FR 2328, Jan. 15, 2009, as amended at 74 FR 26285, June 2, 2009]
#### In the Matter of Samuel Lemkin, an Attorney.

Motion for reinstatement granted only to the extent of referring the matter to the Committee on Character and Fitness for the First Judicial Department for a report as to whether respondent possesses the character and general fitness to practice law as an attorney and counselor at law in the State of New York and holding determination of the motion in abeyance pending receipt of the aforesaid report. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Markewich and Lupiano, JJ.
Opinion issued October 13, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 15 - 00786 - CR

——————————— IN RE DERRICK LEE THOMAS , Relator

O riginal Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Derrick Lee Thomas , has filed a “ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for Bond Reduction ,” contending that he is being unlawfully confined and restrained and the required bail is excessive. 1 Relator seeks issuance of a writ of

1 Relator’s petition identifies the underlying cause as Derrick Lee Thomas v. The State of Texas , cause number 1386629 , in the 262nd District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Denise Bradley, presiding. This Court’s records reflect that a jury found relator guilty of the felony offense of possession of a control led substance, namely cocaine, weighing less than one gram , and t he trial2

habeas corpus and an order discharging him from custody , or a reduction in the amount of the bond
. This Court does not have “original habeas corpus jurisdiction of a bail issue” in a criminal case. Ortiz v. State , 299 S.W.3d 930, 932 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2009, no pet.) (citing T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(d) ( Vernon 2004) ; Ex parte Enriquez , 2 S.W.3d 362, 363 & n.1 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1999, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)) ; see Ex parte Barnes , No. 03

- 13

- 00429

- CV, 2 013 WL 3723333, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin July 12, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction application for writ of habeas corpus seeking release or reduction in appeal bond when relator was convicted of felony offense of aggra vated assault )
. I n criminal matters , o ur habeas corpus jurisdiction is appellate only, and we do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction. Ex p arte Denby, 627 S.W.2d 4 35, 435 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1981, orig. proceeding) ; s ee also Chavez v. State, 132 S.W.3d 509, 510 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (citing T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 22.221 ( Vernon 2004)) ( “ A court of appeals does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in felony cases. ” ) Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

court assessed his punishment at confinement for five years. See Thomas v. State , No. 01

- 14

- 00332

- CR, 2015 WL 5076292, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2015, no. pet. h.).3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Brown. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2( b).
#### § 1740.45 Advance of funds.

RUS loan and grant advances are made at the request of the Awardee according to the procedures stipulated in the Award Documents. All non-RUS funds, to include matching funds and cash provided in lieu of RUS loan funds, must be expended first, followed by loan funds and then grant funds, except for RUS-approved pre-application expenses. RUS may modify this requirement in the Federal Register or applicable funding opportunity notice. Grant funds, if any, will be used for eligible preapplication expenses only on the first advance request. Applications that do not account for such advance procedures in the pro forma five-year forecast may be rejected.
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 the Annual  Report of Research Frontiers
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph M. Harary,
President, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify,  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), as applicable, 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/ Joseph M. Harary
Joseph M. Harary
President, Treasurer
and Principal Accounting Officer
March 12, 2004
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD HAYWARD, 

No. 06-55392 Petitioner-Appellant,

D.C. No.

v.  CV-05-07239-

JOHN MARSHALL, California Men’s GAF(CT)

Colony East, ORDER Respondent-Appellee. 

Filed May 16, 2008

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: 

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it

is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit

Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

5923
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson Reuters/West.
§ 1710.406 Eligible activities and investments. ( a ) *General.* Eligible program activities and investments: ( 1 ) Shall be designed to improve energy efficiency and/or reduce peak demand on the customer side of the meter;
( 2 ) Shall be Cost effective in the aggregate after giving effect to all activities and investments contemplated in the approved EE Program; and
( 3 ) May apply to all Consumer classes.
( b ) *Eligible activities and investments.* Eligible program activities and investments may include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) Energy efficiency and conservation measures where assets financed at an Ultimate Recipient premises can be characterized as an integral part of the real property that would typically transfer with the title under applicable state law. Where applicable, it is anticipated that the loan obligation would also be expected to transfer with ownership of the metered account serving that property.
( 2 ) Renewable Energy Systems, including — ( i ) On or Off Grid Renewable energy systems;
( ii ) Fuel cells;
( 3 ) Demand side management (DSM) investments including Smart Grid Investments;
( 4 ) Energy audits;
( 5 ) Utility Energy Services Contracts;
( 6 ) Consumer education and outreach programs;
( 7 ) Power factor correction equipment on the Ultimate Recipient side of the meter;
( 8 ) Re-lamping to more energy efficient lighting; and
( 9 ) Fuel Switching as in: ( i ) The replacement of existing fuel consuming equipment using a particular fuel with more efficient fuel consuming equipment that uses another fuel but which does not increase direct greenhouse gas emissions; or
( ii ) The installation of non-electric fuel consuming equipment to facilitate management of electric system peak loads. Fuel switching to fossil or biomass fueled electric generating equipment is expressly excluded.
( 10 ) Other activities and investments as approved by RUS as part of the EE Program such as, but not limited to, pre-retrofit improvements.
( c ) *Intermediary lending.* EE Program loan funds may be used for direct re-lending to Ultimate Recipients where the requirements of § 1710.405(b) are met.
( d ) *Performance standards.* Borrowers are required to use Energy Star qualified equipment where applicable or meet or exceed efficiency requirements designated by the Federal Energy Management Program.
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 Nova Natural Resources Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Shawn Leon, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge 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 at the dates and for the periods shown in such report.  Date: April 17, 2011 By: /s/ Shawn Leon Shawn Leon, President And Chief Executive Officer
#### § 15f.26 May I seek judicial review of the final determination?

Section 741 provides that you have at least 180 days after a final determination denying your eligible complaint under these rules to seek judicial review in the United States Court of Federal Claims or a United States District Court of competent jurisdiction.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6479** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MARLON EUGENE HASTY, a/k/a Fish , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence
. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. ( 4:09

- cr - 00855

- TLW

- 5 ; 4:13

- cv - 00270

- TLW )

Submitted : May 29, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marlon Eugene Hasty , Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence , South Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions ar e not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Marlon Eugene Hasty seeks to appeal the district court’s order s dismissing as time

- barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not is sue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the distr ict court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hasty has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabil ity and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument w ould not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connection with this AnnualReport of GreeneStone Healthcare Corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, asfiled with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Shawn E. Leon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify to the best of  my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

 

Date: April 14, 2016

GreeneStone Healthcare Corporation

 

by:/s/ *Shawn E. Leon*

Shawn E. Leon

Chief Financial Officer
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 Blue Dolphin  Energy  Company (the
"Company")  on Form  10-KSB/A-1  for the period  ended  December  31,  2003 (the
"Report"),  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof,  I, Michael J. Jacobson,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         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.



 /s/Michael J. Jacobson
-------------------------------
Michael J. Jacobson
President and Chief Executive Officer



April 28, 2004
(April 30, 1980)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel., Joseph Pata, Appellant, v Raymond Lindemann, as Sheriff of the County of Rockland, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County, dated January 17, 1980, which, after a hearing, denied the application. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Petitioner and four others were indicted by the Grand Jury of Broward County, Florida, on charges of racketeering, loansharking, and conspiracy in violation of various Florida criminal statutes. Said crimes allegedly were committed during and throughout the period of December 1, 1977 to August 31, 1978. Petitioner was arrested in New York on August 28, 1979 on a charge that he was a fugitive from justice from Florida. At the hearing held before the County Court of Rockland County, respondent made out a prima facie case that the petitioner was in the State of Florida during the period alleged in the indictment. It then became necessary for the petitioner to establish that he, in fact, was not in the demanding State (Florida) during said period of time (see *People ex rel. Higley v Millspaw,*281 NY 441, 447; *People ex rel. Torre v Warden, House of Detention for Men, Dept, of Correction,*35 AD2d 530, 531; *People ex rel. Drake v Oslwyn,*51 AD2d 240). Reviewing the testimony in the record, it is plain that the petitioner has failed to account for one third of the period covered by the indictment. Although several witnesses testified as to the petitioner’s continued presence in New York during the first six months referred to in the indictment, not one witness (including the petitioner’s wife) could remember or say with certainty where the petitioner was during June, July or August of 1978. Citing the case of *People ex rel. Friedman v Commissioner of N. Y. City Dept, of Correction*(66 AD2d 689), petitioner argues on this appeal that it was not necessary to prove his absence from the State of Florida as to every day covered in the indictment. Moreover, he claims that if such a burden is foisted upon him, it would certainly violate his rights to fundamental due process of law. Contrary to petitioner’s argument, the *Friedman*case is limited by its very language to crimes which involve a single criminal act where the indictment nevertheless covers a broad span of time. In the instant case, the indictment charges crimes of a continuing nature which did, allegedly, take place throughout the entire period covered by the indictment. Hence, it was incumbent upon *655the petitioner to prove his absence from the demanding State throughout the entire period. We have examined petitioner’s other arguments and have found them to be without merit. Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
May 19, 2008
To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of Chang G. Park, CPA consents to the inclusion of
our report of May 15, 2008 on the reviewed condensed consolidated
financial statements of Cal Alta Auto Glass, Inc. and Subsidiary
as of March 31,2008 in any filings that are necessary now or in
the near future with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Chang G. Park
____________________________
Chang G. Park, CPA
Chang G. Park, CPA, Ph. D.

 371 E STREET  CHULA VISTA  CALIFORNIA 91910-2615
 TELEPHONE (858)722-5953  FAX (858) 761-0341  FAX (858) 764-5480
 E-MAIL changgpark@gmail.com
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

 

**FORM 10-K**

 

þ**ANNUAL REPORT UNDER SECTION13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

For the fiscal year ended: **December31, 2014**

 

or

 

o**TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

For the transition period from __________to __________

 

Commission file number: **000-15078**