alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equipment Costs: 

Sand Filters 

 

 

This telephone contact report supports EPA’s development of purchased equipment cost equations for sand 

filters by documenting EPA's communication with a vendor regarding purchase costs for continuous backwash 

gravity sand filters used in the Steam Electric cost model. 
Project No.: 0172.08.029.044 DISTRIBUTION 

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: Steam/Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Outgoing Call

Date: 03/18/2011 Time: 11:00 am EST 

Company Name: Siemens 

 

Contact Name: Miguel Gutierrez 

Phone No : (229)-227-8778 

Name: Rekha Hareendran ETI Professionals, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT: Vendor cost request for continuous backwash gravity sand filters for a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment 

system. 

 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

On Friday, March 18, 2011 at 11:00 am I contacted Mr. Miguel Gutierrez. I explained to Mr. Gutierrez that we 

are working on conceptual level costing of a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system to treat FGD 

(flue gas desulfurization) wastewater from steam electric power plants, and as a part of this project we 

are trying to collect cost information on different components or units of a chemical precipitation system. 

I told Mr. Gutierrez that we are interested in continuous backwash gravity sand filters for flows ranging from 

30,000 gpd to 1,000,000 gpd (20 to 700 gpm). I requested information such as purchase cost, cost for ancillary 

equipments and power consumption (if applicable). Mr. Gutierrez indicated that he would like to have 

information on the expected solids content with the flow rates provided by us. 

Mr. Gutierrez agreed to send information on tank units as well as concrete basins, and he will also list the 

assumptions (for solids content) made for the cost estimate. Mr. Gutierrez indicated that it could take him a 

week to gather the requested information. I followed up with an email to Mr. Gutierrez with all the information 

provided during this call.
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 800.76 Prohibited services; restricted services. ( a ) *Prohibited services.* No agency shall perform any inspection function or provide any inspection service on the basis of unofficial standards, procedures, factors, or criteria if the agency is designated or authorized to perform the service or provide the service on an official basis under the Act. No agency shall perform official and unofficial weighing on the same mode of conveyance at the same facility.
( b ) *Restricted services* — ( 1 ) *Not standardized grain.* When an inspection or weighing service is requested on a sample or a lot of grain which does not meet the requirements for grain as set forth in the Official U.S. Standards for Grain, a certificate showing the words “Not Standardized Grain” shall be issued according to the instructions.
( 2 ) *Grain screening.* The inspection or weighing of grain screenings may be obtained from an agency or field office according to the instructions.
[50 FR 45393, Oct. 31, 1985, as amended at 60 FR 65235, Dec. 19, 1995; 63 FR 45677, Aug. 27, 1998]
# 701.707 Signatory authority.

Unless otherwise specified in the FAR or AIDAR section under which the D&F is issued, the contracting officer is the signing official. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 701.7—Determinations and Findings
#### In the Matter of Charles L. Gurney, II, et al., Appellants, v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Buffalo, Respondent, and Children’s Hospital of Buffalo, Intervenor-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment

insofar as appealed from unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In affirming we recognize as does the hospital that further action by the Common Council is required to remove the restrictions on some of the areas which the hospital plans to use for parking purposes and that such action must be completed before construction begins. This does not invalidate the variance properly granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a 10-story hospital. A plan for adequate parking for such structure has been presented after the completion of a study by experts of the traffic and parking problem authorized by the Common Council and approved by the Board of Parking and the Board of Safety, all of which was considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (Appeal from certain parts of judgment of Erie Special Term dismissing part of petition.) Present — Del Vecchio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32  INDIE GROWERS ASSOCIATION   Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002   In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 3, of Indie Growers Association (the Company) for the year ended March 31, 2015 (the Report), I, Robert Coleridge, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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.   November 23, 2015  /s/ Robert ColeridgeRobert Coleridge
Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
225.372-2 Contract clause.       Use the clause at 252.225-7043 , Antiterrorism/Force Protection Policy for Defense Contractors Outside the United States, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that require performance or travel outside the United States, except for contracts with—          (a)  Foreign governments;          (b)  Representatives of foreign governments; or          (c)  Foreign corporations wholly owned by foreign governments.    **Parent topic:** 225.372 Antiterrorism/force protection.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

BARBARA M. JEFFERS and )

JOAN K. CRAIG, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action Number:

) CV 3:06CV685-CSC

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD OF )

EDUCATION and CHARLES )

NACRELLI, )

)

Defendants. )

)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW the undersigned, Matthew C. Williams, of the law firm of ESTES,

SANDERS & WILLIAMS. LLC, and hereby gives notice of his appearance as counsel of record

for the Defendant, Charles Nacrelli, in the above-styled cause of action.

/s/ Matthew C. Williams 

Matthew C. Williams (WIL260)

ASB-4771-L61M

Attorney for Defendant, Charles Nacrelli

OF COUNSEL:

ESTES, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, LLC

3800 Colonnade Parkway, Suite 330

Birmingham, Alabama 35242

(205) 949-5500

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 15 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 1

st day of June, 2007, I electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of

such filing to the following:

William Don Eddins, Esq.

Attorney at law

337 magnolia Avenue, Suite #3

Auburn, Alabama 36830-3133

doneddins@charter.net

Attorney for Plaintiffs.

Barbara M. Jeffers and Joan K. Craig

Sydney S, Smith, Esq.

Smith & Smith

1503 Broad Street

Phenix City, Alabama 36867

ssmith1503@bellsouth.net

Attorney for Defendant,

Russell County Board of Education

/s/ Matthew C. Williams 

OF COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 15 Filed 06/01/2007 Page 2 of 2
Subpart 1313.1 - Procedures

Parent topic: PART 1313 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

1313.106 Soliciting competition, evaluation of quotations or

offers, award and documentation.

1313.106-2-70 Evaluation of solicitations.

All solicitations using simplified acquisition procedures in FAR Part 13 must include provision

1352.213-70, Evaluation Utilizing Simplified Acquisition Procedures, or similar language setting out

evaluation criteria.
Order entered November 8, 2018 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01064-CV 

SM ARCHITECTS, PLLC AND ROGER STEPHENS, Appellants 

V. 

AMX VETERAN SPECIALTY SERVICES, LLC, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-11230 

ORDER 

Before us is appellee’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The same issues and 

arguments presented in appellee’s motion were presented in the briefs on appeal and addressed in 

this Court’s opinion issued this same date. Because the issues presented in the motion were 

resolved in the appeal, appellee’s motion is DENIED AS MOOT. 

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

 JUSTICE
Exhibit 31

CERTIFICATIONS

I, John Olinski, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of IndyMac MBS, Inc. (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole,
do 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. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in
this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
the servicing agreement; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company and Integra Bank Corporation.

Date: March 25, 2007


/s/ John Olinski
-----------------------
John Olinski
Chief Executive Officer
Pacific Northwest National LaboratorySkip to Main ContentU.S. Department of Energy
        - PNNL Home
        - About
        - Research
        - Publications
        - Jobs
        - News
        - Contacts

# Issue Archive

        - Volume 7, Issue 2
        - Volume 7, Issue 1
        - Volume 6, Issue 6
        - Volume 6, Issue 5
        - Volume 6, Issue 4
        - Volume 6, Issue 3
        - Volume 6, Issue 2
        - Volume 6, Issue 1
        - Volume 5, Issue 5
        - Volume 5, Issue 4
        - Volume 5, Issue 3
        - Volume 5, Issue 2
        - Volume 5, Issue 1
        - Volume 4, Issue 4
        - Volume 4, Issue 5
        - Volume 4, Issue 4
        - Volume 4, Issue 3
        - Volume 3, Issue 2
        - Volume 3, Issue 1
        - Volume 2, Issue 8
        - Volume 2, Issue 7
        - Volume 2, Issue 6
        - Volume 2, Issue 5
        - Volume 2, Issue 4
        - Volume 2, Issue 3
        - Volume 2, Issue 2
        - Volume 2, Issue 1
        - Volume 1, Issue 4
        - Volume 1, Issue 3
        - Volume 1, Issue 2
        - Volume 1, Issue 1

## Community & Regional Outreach

      - **Home**

## Pacific Northwest Technology Today *eNewsletter*

      - Current Issue
      - Issue Archive
      - Subscribe/Unsubscribe
      - Inquiries

## Speakers and Seminars

      - Community Science & Technology Seminar Series
      - Laboratory Director's Distinguished Lecture Series 
      - Speakers Bureau
      - Upcoming Events
      - Events Archive

## Battelle Outreach at PNNL

      - Team Battelle
      - Corporate Contributions

## Staff and Retirees

      - Life@PNNL

## Additional Information

### Search this Site

### Contact

**Megan Neer**Editormegan.neer@pnl.gov(509) 375-6871

**Karen Blasdel***Manager, Community and Regional Outreach*karen.blasdel@pnl.gov(509) 375-5901

Security & PrivacySite IndexContact PNNL
Last Update: May 2016Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-10562

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:11-cv-00102-JRH-WLB; 1:09-cr-00171-JRH-WLB-1

JEREMY ALFONZIE JONES, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 13, 2014)

Case: 12-10562 Date Filed: 11/13/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before TJOFLAT and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and SCOLA,∗ District 

Judge.

PER CURIAM: 

On October 14, 2014, the United States Department of Justice issued a

memorandum to all federal prosecutors regarding the enforcement of appeal 

waivers in which defendants waive claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on 

direct appeal and/or collateral attack. See Memorandum from James M. Cole, 

Deputy Attorney General, to All Federal Prosecutors (Oct. 14, 2014), available at

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/DOJ_Ineffective_Assistance_Counsel.pdf (“For 

cases in which a defendant’s ineffective assistance claim would be barred by a 

previously executed waiver, prosecutors should decline to enforce the waiver when 

defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance resulting in prejudice or when the 

defendant’s ineffective assistance claim raises a serious debatable issue that a court 

should resolve.”). In light of this new policy, and in response to our directive 

asking the United States Attorney to address its impact on the instant case, the 

Government has withdrawn its reliance on Jeremey Jones’s collateral-attack 

waiver. 

 

∗ Honorable Robert N. Scola, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District 

of Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 12-10562 Date Filed: 11/13/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

As a result, the judgment of the District Court is VACATED and the case is 

REMANDED to the District Court with the instruction to afford Jones an 

evidentiary hearing on his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.

VACATED and REMANDED, with instruction. 

Case: 12-10562 Date Filed: 11/13/2014 Page: 3 of 3
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
HERIBIERTO RODRIGUEZ, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1376 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed December 19, 2018. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7557
JAMIL NABA VIRGINIA-EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD V. LAWRENCE, Detective; ARLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, District Judge. (CA-95-61-2) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jamil Naba Virginia-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court assessed a filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom , 650 F.2d 521 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny leave to proceed informa pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 14-14-01025-CR

 14-14-01026-CR

 14-14-01027-CR

In the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 

Houston, Texas

CARLOS GALLEGOS-PIEDRA

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

Appellant’s Second Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Brief

Respectfully Submitted by:

Joseph Kyle Verret

THE LAW OFFICE OF KYLE VERRET, PLLC

Counsel for Appellant

TBN: 240429432

11200 Broadway, Suite 2743

Pearland, Texas 77584

Phone: 281-764-7071

Fax: 281-764-7071 Submitted:

Email: kyle@verretlaw.com March 23, 2015

ACCEPTED

14-14-01025-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/23/2015 3:17:05 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/23/2015 3:17:05 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
No. 14-14-01025-CR

 14-14-01026-CR

 14-14-01027-CR

In the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, 

Houston, Texas

CARLOS GALLEGOS-PIEDRA

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

Appellant’s Second Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Brief

Comes now, Appellant, by and through his undersigned counsel, in the 

above styled cause and moves this Honorable Court to extend the time for 

the filing of Appellant's Brief. Per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

10.5(b), Appellant provides the following:

Current Deadline for Filing: March 23, 2015

Length of Extension Sought: Thirty (30) days (to April 22, 2015)

Number of Previous Extensions Granted: One.

Basis for Extensions:

Appellant's counsel is a solo practitioner with a busy criminal and 

juvenile defense caseload, which requires regular appearances in court on 

the part of counsel.
In the thirty days since the last motion to extend time to file brief, 

Appellant has completed and filed an appellant brief in appeal number 

01-14-00895-CR, which is presently due to be filed with the First Court of 

Appeals on March 13, 2015.

The record in these causes is over 400 pages. Counsel needs additional 

time to review the record and prepare a cogent and succinct brief.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the reasons set forth above, Appellant requests that this Court 

grant this Appellant’s First Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief 

and extend the Deadline for Filing the Appellant’s Brief up to and including 

April 22, 2015. Appellant prays all other relief to which he may be entitled. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joseph Kyle Verret 

Joseph Kyle Verret

THE LAW OFFICE OF KYLE VERRET, PLLC

Counsel for Appellant

TBN: 240429432

11200 Broadway, Suite 2743

Pearland, Texas 77584

Phone: 281-764-7071

Fax: 281-764-7071

Email: kyle@verretlaw.com
Certificate of Service

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant's 

Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief was served on this 23rd 

day of March, 2015, on the Counsel for the Appellee, David Bosserman, at 

the Brazoria County Criminal District Attorney’s Office by e-service 

through electronic filing.

/s/ Joseph Kyle Verret 

Joseph Kyle Verret

TBN: 2402932
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3345 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Acetamiprid Technical. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Acetamiprid 

Technical. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ACETAMIPRID TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.03.92 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Acetamiprid Technical) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/ 

7 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 3345 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
```

[107th Congress Public Law 315]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ315.107]

[[Page 116 STAT. 2763]]

Public Law 107-315
107th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
  Approving the location of the commemorative work in the District of 
     Columbia honoring former President John Adams. <<NOTE: Dec. 2, 
                       2002 -  [H.J. Res. 117]>> 

Whereas section 8908 of title 40, United States Code, provides that the 
    location of a commemorative work in the area described as Area I 
    shall be deemed disapproved unless approved by law not later than 
    150 days after notification to Congress that the commemorative work 
    should be located in Area I;

Whereas Public Law 107-62 (115 Stat. 411) authorized the Adams Memorial 
    Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the 
    District of Columbia to honor former President John Adams and his 
    legacy; and

Whereas the Secretary of the Interior has notified Congress of her 
    determination that a memorial to former President John Adams should 
    be located in Area I: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF COMMEMORATIVE WORK.

    Congress approves the location for the commemorative work to honor 
former President John Adams and his legacy, as authorized by Public Law 
107-62 (115 Stat. 411), within Area I as described in section 8908 of 
title 40, United States Code, subject to the limitation in section 2.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION.

    The commemorative work approved in section 1 shall not be located 
within the Reserve.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF RESERVE.

    In this resolution the term ``Reserve'' means the area of The 
National Mall extending from the United States Capitol to the Lincoln 
Memorial, and from the White House to the Jefferson Memorial, as 
depicted on the map entitled ``Commemorative Areas Washington, DC and 
Environs,'' numbered 869/86501A and dated May 1, 2002.

    Approved December 2, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 117:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
            Nov. 14, considered and passed House.
            Nov. 20, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 94

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 94 appear at 61 FR 51352, Oct. 2 1996.

#### § 94.303 Analytical methods.

The analytical methods used by the USDA laboratories to perform analyses for processed poultry products are found in the latest edition of the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL, Suite 500, 481 North Frederick Avenue, Gaithersburg, MD 20877-2417.

[61 FR 51352, Oct. 2, 1996]
#### WEIZINGER v. ERIE R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 5, 1906.)

Action by Paul Weizinger against the Erie Railroad Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order~ filed.
#### § 955.10 Producer-handler.

*Producer-Handler* means a producer who handles Vidalia onions.