alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 63

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 63.141 Scope.

As used in this part, *quality assurance* comprises all those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that the geologic repository and its structures, systems, or components will perform satisfactorily in service. Quality assurance includes quality control, which comprises those quality assurance actions related to the physical characteristics of a material, structure, component, or system that provide a means to control the quality of the material, structure, component, or system to predetermined requirements.
###### Editorial Note on Part 63

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 63.151 General requirements.

Operations of systems and components that have been identified as important to safety in the Safety Analysis Report and in the license must be performed only by trained and certified personnel or by personnel under the direct visual supervision of an individual with training and certification in such operation. Supervisory personnel who direct operations that are important to safety must also be certified in such operations.
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION
      OF OFFICERS


OF
      SIONIX
      CORPORATION


PURSUANT
      TO 18 USC § 1350










Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) each of the
      undersigned officers of Sionix Corporation (the “Company”) does hereby certify,
      to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(a)  The
      quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 of the
      Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(b) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)  Information
      contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:
      February 20, 2008




/s/Richard
      H.
      Papalian


Richard
      H. Papalian


Chief
      Executive Officer








Dated:
      February 20, 2008





/s/
      Robert E.
      McCray


Robert
      E.
      McCray


Chief
      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000             DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                               553459                       0
<SECURITIES>                              0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                       0
<INVENTORY>                               0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0                       0
<PP&E>                             13748448                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                      8342152                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      6019480                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0                       0
<BONDS>                                   0                       0
<COMMON>                                  0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                       0
<PREFERRED>                               0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        6019480                       0
<SALES>                             1401739                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    1405304                       0
<CGS>                                     0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      410898                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  410898                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<CHANGES>                                 0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                         410898                       0
<EPS-BASIC>                             0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0                       0


</TABLE>
p.1 

OAR Box 1490 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

33) IV-C-6 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 8/4/2008 11:51:46 AM Sheet 33 of 273 
P.2 

A-94-52 

IV-C-6 

Keith Barnett To: Michael Blankestyn <Michael.Blankestyn@rmtinc.com> 

CC* 

js^ 11/19/2001 08:11 AM Sub j ect : Re: Reinforced Plastic Composites Production MACT® 

There is no provision in the proposed rule concerning facilities that use high HAP reins to eliminate gel 

coat. Except for this facility, I don't know of anyone else doing this. 

The rule was proposed on August 2. The comment period closed October 1, though it was informally 

extended until November 1. 

We are reviewing the comments received and will be making appropriate revisions to the rule. The final 

rule will be published about 1 year from proposal. 

Keith W. Barnett 

US/EPA OAQPS, ESD/GROUP C504-05 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

919-541-5605 

bamett.keith@epa.gov 

Michael Blankestyn <Michael.Blankestyn@rmtinc.com> 

Michael Blankestyn 

<I-Ak**hael.Blankestyn 

@rmtih<tcom> 

11/15/2001 03^4 PM 

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

cc: 

Subject: Reinforced Plastic Composites Produp Jn MACT 

Keith, 

I don't know if you remember me, b\3>fesI^Bf>oke with you a couple of times a few 

months ago about the Reinforced Piastres MACT. I work for a consulting firm 

and one of our clients will be aff^ted rJj-xthis MACT. They have a high 

styrene (non-corrosion resistantr content r*es*siji so that they do not have to 

use gel coat on all their part>S. This causes th^m to be above MACT limits, 

but their overall emissions/are low because they ab*!.11 do a lot of 

gel-coating. 

The last time I had spoken with you, you told me that thereXduring the MACT 

development, a facility that uses high content styrene resin to eliminate the 

gel coat operation wasn't considered. Is this still the case? Also, do you 

know what the jKtatus of this MACT is? When is the proposed final is^ling date? 

Thank you £6r your time. I can be reached through email or at (614) 793-0026. 

If I donAx talk to you in the next couple of days, have a nice holiday. 

-Mik<?r Blankestyn 

RMT, Inc.
PGI Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

PGI Part 234 - MAJOR SYSTEMACQUISITION

PGI Part 235 - RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING

PGI Part 236 - CONSTRUCTIONAND ARCHITECT — ENGINEER CONTRACTS

PGI Part 237 - SERVICE CONTRACTING

PGI Part 239 - ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

PGI Part 241 - ACQUISITIONOF UTILITY SERVICES

Parent topic: PGI Subchapter F - SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF CONTRACTING
###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 2.303 Docket.

The Secretary shall maintain a docket for each proceeding conducted under this part, commencing with either the initial notice of hearing, notice of proposed action, order, request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene, as appropriate. The Secretary shall maintain all files and records of proceedings, including transcripts and video recordings of testimony, exhibits, and all papers, correspondence, decisions and orders filed or issued. All documents, records, and exhibits filed in any proceeding must be filed with the Secretary as described in §§ 2.302 and 2.304.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-2 Wood Respiration DataThe BOREAS TE-2 team collected several data sets in support of its efforts to characterize and interpret information on the respiration of the foliage, roots, and wood of boreal vegetation. This data set contains measurements of wood respiration conducted in the NSA during the growing season of 1994. The data are stored in tabular ASCII files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010004251Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRyan, Michael G.*(Forest Service Fort Collins, CO United States)*Lavigne, Michael*(Forestry Canada Fredericton, New Brunswick Canada)*Hall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Papagno, Andrea*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2000-209891/VOL129Rept-2000-03136-0/VOL129NAS 1.15:209891/VOL129Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010004251.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re The Good Shepherd Hospital, Inc.

No. 06

- 18

- 00115

- CV Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Justice Carter *, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess

, participating. * Justice Carter, Retired, Sitting by Assignm e nt.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator’s petition for writ of
mandamus should be conditionally granted. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to
comply.

RENDERED MARCH 6, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTIC E

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.8

     

    
 

    AMENDMENT
      NO. 2 TO THE

     

    ALLTEL
      CORPORATION

     

    SUPPLEMENTAL
      MEDICAL EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT

     

    Effective
      as of July 1, 2006, the Alltel Corporation Supplemental Medical Expense
      Reimbursement Plan is amended to add a new Article VII at the end thereof to
      provide as follows: 

     

    "ARTICLE
      VII

     

    SPECIAL
      PARTICIPATION RULES

     

    Pursuant
      to the Employee Benefits Agreement by and between Alltel Corporation and Alltel
      Holding Corp. dated as of December 8, 2005, as amended, effective as of July
      1,
      2006, the individuals listed on Exhibit A shall cease to be Covered Employees
      of
      the Plan (each a "Transferred Participant"). Any expense for medical care
      incurred by a Transferred Participant, his spouse or Dependent prior to July
      1,
      2006 shall be reimbursable under the Plan in accordance with the terms of the
      Plan. Each Transferred Participant shall have no further right to a benefit
      under the Plan for expenses for medical care incurred by the Participant, his
      spouse or Dependent on or after July 1, 2006." 

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed on this 16th day of July,
      2006. 

     

    


    ALLTEL
      CORPORATION 

    


    


    


    By:
      /s/ Scott T. Ford                

    Name: 
      Scott T. Ford

    Title:   
      President and Chief Executive Officer

    


     


    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


     

     

    


    
      	
               EXHIBIT
                A

            
	 	 
	
               TRANSFERRED
                PARTICIPANTS

            
	 	 
	 Bartlett, David	 Paton, Steve
	 Bonnar, Robert	 Patton, John
	 Bradley, Susan	 Powell, Daniel A. 
	 Brock, Todd	 Rhoda, Michael
	 Carr, Eleanor	 Richey, Gregg
	 Case, Thomas	 Roberts, James
	 Clancy, Jr. Robert G.	 Rowell, Stephen
	 Crane, Richard	 Schueneman, Frank
	 Decker, Darren	 Slagle, Jerry
	 Eichler, John	 Stahlsmith, Richard
	 Fisher, Henry	 Steely, Donald
	 Fletcher, John	 Stofka, David
	 Franks, Tommy	 Strand, James W.
	 Frantz, Francis	 Taylor, Allison
	 Fritz, David	 Thomas, Bruce
	 Fulbright, John	 Urschel, Alan
	 Gardner, Jeff	 Wagner, R. Dale
	 Greene, Eugene	 Weaver, Jerry
	 Griech, Frederick	 Weeter, Tommy
	 Gunti, Ray	 Weston, Florence
	 Heft, Frederick	 White, Jr. James L. 
	 Johnson, John	 Whittington, Brent
	 Johnson, Wayne	 Wiley, Charles
	 Lee, George	 Wirtz, Harold
	 Moore, William	 Zwald, Wayne
	 Paglusch, Keith	 


    

     

    

      
        
          
          

        

        
          2
§ 609.11 Transaction costs. ( a ) Upon making a determination to engage independent consultants or outside counsel with respect to an Application, DOE will proceed to evaluate and process such Application only following execution by an Applicant or Project Sponsor, as appropriate, of an agreement satisfactory to DOE to pay the Transaction Costs charged by the independent consultants and outside legal counsel. Each Applicant, Borrower, or Project Sponsor, as applicable, shall be responsible for the payment of Transaction Costs associated with DOE's independent consultants and outside legal counsel in connection with an Application, Conditional Commitment, or Loan Guarantee Agreement, as applicable. Appropriate provisions regarding payment of such Transaction Costs shall also be included in each Term Sheet and Loan Guarantee Agreement or, upon a determination by DOE, in other appropriate agreements.
( b ) Notwithstanding payment by Applicant, Borrower, or Project Sponsor, all services rendered by an independent consultant or outside legal counsel to DOE in connection with an Application, Conditional Commitment, or Loan Guarantee Agreement shall be solely for the benefit of DOE (and such other creditors as DOE may agree in writing). DOE may require, in its discretion, the payment of an advance retainer to such independent consultants or outside legal counsel as security for the collection of the fees and expenses charged by the independent consultants and outside legal counsel. In the event an Applicant, Borrower, or Project Sponsor fails to comply with the provisions of such payment agreement, DOE in its discretion, may stop work on or terminate an Application, a Conditional Commitment, or a Loan Guarantee Agreement, or may take such other remedial measures in its discretion as it deems appropriate.
( c ) DOE shall not be financially liable under any circumstances to any independent consultant or outside counsel for services rendered in connection with an Application, Conditional Commitment, or Loan Guarantee Agreement except to the extent DOE has previously entered into an express written agreement to pay for such services.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State v. Dowdy , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4789.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -4789
T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLANT , v . D OWDY , A PPELLEE . [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as State v. Dowdy , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4789.] Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of State v. Harper and State
v. Henderson

. (No. 2019-1430―Submitted August 5, 2020―Decided October 8, 2020 .)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 107844, 2019-Ohio-3570.

_________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authori ty of State v. Harper , __ Ohio St.3d __, 2020-Ohio-2913, __ N.E.3d __, and State v.
Henderson , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2020-Ohio-4784, ___ N.E.3d ___.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Katherine Elizabeth Mullin and Frank Romeo Zeleznikar, Assistan t Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellant. Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and John T. M artin, Assistant Public Defender, f or appellee, Shaun E. Dowdy. Dave Yost, Attorney General, Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor Gen eral, and Zachery P. Keller, Deputy Solicitor General, urging reversal fo r amicus curiae, Attorney General Dave Yost.

_________________
Exhibit 99.2


                            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  Quarterly  Report  of The  Topps  Company,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,
Catherine K. Jessup,  Vice President and Chief Financial 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; 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/ Catherine K. Jessup




                                            Catherine K. Jessup
                                              Vice President -
                                          Chief Financial Officer





January 14, 2003
#### Patricia Del Pozo, Appellant, v Impressive Homes, Inc., Respondent.

[816 NYS2d 123]

*622In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property or, alternatively, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated July 13, 2005, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1).

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff, Patricia Del Pozo (hereinafter the buyer), entered into a contract of sale to purchase real property from the defendant, Impressive Homes, Inc. (hereinafter the seller). Under the terms of the contract, the buyer was to obtain a mortgage commitment within a certain period of time, and the seller was to construct a three-family home on the property. However, the buyer failed to obtain the commitment and the seller never commenced construction. Subsequently, the seller returned the buyer’s down payment and informed her that it was cancelling the contract. Thereafter the buyer commenced this action seeking specific performance of the contract. The seller then moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to, inter alia, CPLR 3211 (a) (1) (“defense is founded upon documentary evidence”). The Supreme Court decided that “the terms of the [contract’s] mortgage contingency clause were unambiguous, they were for the benefit of both the seller and the purchaser, and defendant properly executed [sic] its right to cancel the contract.”

Even assuming that the mortgage contingency clause was unambiguous *(see e.g. Ting v Dean,*156 AD2d 358 [1989]), in order for a complaint to be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the evidence submitted must “resolve[ ] all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively dispose of the plaintiffs claim” *(Berger v Temple Beth-El of Great Neck,*303 AD2d 346, 347 [2003]; *see also Allstate Ins. Co. v Raguzin,*12 AD3d 468 [2004]; *Tougher Indus. v Northern Westchester Joint Water Works,*304 AD2d 822 [2003]). Here there are factual issues which remain *(see Del Pozo v Impressive Homes, Inc.,*29 AD3d 620 [2006] [decided herewith]), and thus dismissal on a “documentary evidence” basis was unwarranted *(see generally Kistela v Ahlers,*22 AD3d 641 [2005]; *Poquott Dev. Corp. v Johnson,*104 AD2d 442 [1984]). Crane, J.P., Mastro, Skelos and Lifson, JJ, concur.
§ 503.35 Inability to obtain adequate capital. ( a ) *Eligibility.* Section 212(a)(1)(D) of the Act provides for a permanent exemption due to inability to obtain adequate capital. To qualify, a petitioner must certify that: ( 1 ) Despite good faith efforts the petitioner will be unable to comply with the applicable prohibitions imposed by the Act because the additional capital required for an alternate fuel-capable unit beyond that required for the proposed unit cannot be raised;
( 2 ) The additional capital cannot be raised: ( i ) Due to specific restrictions (e.g., convenants on existing bonds) which constrain management's ability to raise debt or equity capital;
( ii ) Without a substantial dilution of shareholder equity;
( iii ) Without an unreasonably adverse affect on the utility's credit rating; or
( iv ) In the case of non-investor-owned public utilities, without jeopardizing the utility's ability to recover its capital investment, through tariffs, without unreasonably adverse economic effect on its service area (such as adverse impacts on local industry or undue hardship to ratepayers).
( 3 ) No alternative power supply exists, as required under § 503.8 of these regulations;
( 4 ) Use of mixtures is not feasible, as required under § 503.9 of these regulations; and
( 5 ) Alternative sites are not available, as required under § 503.11 of these regulations.
( b ) *Evidence required in support of a petition.* A petition must include the following evidence in order to make the demonstration required by this section: ( 1 ) Duly executed certifications required under paragraph (a) of this section;
( 2 ) Exhibits containing the basis for the certifications required under paragraph (a) of this section (including those factual and analytical materials deemed by the petitioner to be sufficient to support the granting of this exemption);
( 3 ) Environmental impact analysis, as required under § 503.13 of these regulations; and
( 4 ) Fuels search, as required under § 503.14 of these regulations.
[46 FR 59903, Dec. 7, 1981, as amended at 47 FR 15315, Apr. 9, 1982; 54 FR 52895, Dec. 22, 1989]