alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 205.172 Hearings. ( a ) The DOE in its discretion may direct that a hearing be convened on its own initiative or upon request by a person, when it appears that such hearing will materially advance the proceedings. The determination as to who may attend a hearing convened under this subpart shall be in the discretion of DOE, but a hearing will usually not be open to the public. Where the hearing involves a matter arising under part 213, the Director of Oil Imports shall be notified as to its time and place, in order that he or his representative may present views as to the issue or issues involved.
( b ) A hearing may only be requested in connection with an application for an exception or an appeal. Such request may be by the applicant, appellant, or any other person who might be aggrieved by the DOE action sought. The request shall be in writing and shall include a specific showing as to why such hearing will materially advance the proceeding. The request shall be addressed to the DOE office that is considering the application for an exception or the appeal.
( c ) The DOE will designate an agency official to conduct the hearing, and will specify the time and place for the hearing.
( d ) A hearing may only be convened after actual notice of the time, place, and nature of the hearing is provided both to the applicant or appellant and to any other person readily identifiable by the DOE as one who will be aggrieved by the DOE action involved. The notice shall include, as appropriate: ( 1 ) A statement that such person may participate in the hearing; or
( 2 ) A statement that such person may request a separate conference or hearing regarding the application or appeal.
( e ) When a hearing is convened in accordance with this section, each person may present views as to the issue or issues involved. Documentary evidence may be presented at the hearing, but will be treated as if submitted in the regular course of the proceedings. A transcript of the hearing will not usually be prepared. However, the DOE in its discretion may have a verbatim transcript prepared.
( f ) The official conducting the hearing may administer oaths and affirmations, rule on the presentation of information, receive relevant information, dispose of procedural requests, determine the format of the hearing, and otherwise regulate the course of the hearing.
( g ) Because a hearing is solely for the exchange of views incident to a proceeding, there will be no formal reports or findings unless the DOE in its discretion determines that such would be advisable.
[39 FR 35489, Oct. 1, 1974, as amended at 40 FR 36557, Aug. 21, 1975]
Summary of Process Vents:

Recalculated MACT Floor Limits

2/25/2014

2 of 3

Summary of Calculated Process Vent Limits

MACT Floors for PVC Only Facilities MACT Floors for PVC Co

Determined Using Only Shintech Freeport Data Determined Using Only W

Pollutant Floor Component

New 

Source 

UPL

New Source 

Average Pollutant

Vinyl Chloride 99% UPL 0.00500 Vinyl Chloride

ppmvd @ 3% O2 3xDL 0.5523 ppmvd @ 3% O2

MACT Floor1

0.56 0.0050

HCl 99% UPL 0.421 HCl

ppmvd @ 3% O2 3xDL 5.01E-02 ppmvd @ 3% O2

MACT Floor1

0.43 0.12

CDD/CDF TEQ 99% UPL 0.03575 CDD/CDF TEQ

ng/dscm @ 3% 02 3xDL 3.74E-02 ng/dscm @ 3% 02

MACT Floor1

0.0380 0.012

TOHAP 99% UPL 0.217 TOHAP

ppmvd @ 3% O2 3xDL 5.42E+00 ppmvd @ 3% O2

MACT Floor1

5.50 0.22

[1] - MACT Floors rounded UP - two significant figures [1] - MACT Floors rounded UP 

VI Summary Table 13

PVC-Only

Process Vent

Vinyl Chloride, 

ppmv 0.56

Shintech 

Freeport 3X DL 0.6(1)

Dioxin, ng/dscm 0.038

Formosa 

Delaware 3X DL 0.038

Total Hydrocarbon, 

ppmv as C3 7

Shintech 

Freeport 99.0% UPL 7

Total Organic HAP, 

ppmv 5.5

Shintech 

Freeport 3X DL 5.5

Final Rule New Source

 Determination Basis

VI Proposed New Source Dete

Basis

Organic HAP & Hydrocarbon 

Limits Only
#### Linda C. Indiere, Respondent, v. Virginia A. Strickroth et al., Appellants.

a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 5, 1968, which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to set aside a jury verdict in defendants’ favor and (2) ordered a new trial. Order reversed, without costs, and jury verdict reinstated. In our opinion, there was not such a clear preponderance of evidence in plaintiff’s favor as would warrant setting aside, as contrary to the weight of the evidence, the jury’s verdict in defendants’ favor. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Benjamin, Martuseello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00245-CR

IN RE Theron PETERSON

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 30, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of the trial 

court’s failure to rule on his pro se motion for speedy trial. However, counsel has been 

appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court for which he is 

currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Robinson 

v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions 

filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See

Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CR-10830C, styled State of Texas v. Theron Peterson, pending in 

the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen presiding. 
04-11-00245-CR

- 2 -

declining to rule on relator’s pro se motion filed in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial 

court. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R.

APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
SUBCHAPTER H - CLAUSES AND FORMS

PART 2852 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

PARTS 2853-2899 [RESERVED]

PART 2852 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

2852.000 Scope of part.

Subpart 2852.1 - Instructions for Using Provisions and Clauses

2852.102 Incorporating provisions and clauses.

Subpart 2852.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses

2852.200 Scope of subpart.

2852.201-70 Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).

2852.203-70 General Non-Disclosure Agreement.

2852.203-71 Intelligence Related Non-Disclosure Agreement.

2852.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions, Commercial Items (FAR Deviation).

2852.222-70 Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking.

2852.223-70 Unsafe Conditions Due to the Presence of Hazardous Material.

2852.233-70 Protests Filed Directly with the Department of Justice.

PARTS 2853-2899 [RESERVED]
exv4w8






Exhibit 4.8




SCHEDULE III to

Credit Agreement




BORROWERS; DENOMINATION CURRENCIES; CURRENCY SUBLIMITS;

MAXIMUM SUBLIMITS; LOCAL FRONTING LENDERS




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Local Fronting Lender	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	and	 	Denomination	 	Currency	 	Maximum	 	Name of Borrower and
	Local Lending Office	 	Currency	 	Sublimit	 	Sublimit	 	Address for Notices
	Citibank, N.A. 

2 Park Street Level
26 

Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 

Australia 

Attn: Glenn Ross

	 	Australian Dollars
	 	US $0
	 	US $1,000,000
	 	Revlon Australia Pty Limited 

12 Julius Avenue 

North Ryde, Sydney NSW 2113 

Australia
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Citibank International Plc -
Paris 

Loans Processing Unit


2nd Floor 

4 Harbour Exchange 

Isle of Dogs 

London E14 9GE 

United Kingdom 

Attn: Asif Mahmood Butt

	 	Euros
	 	US $1,200,000
	 	US $3,000,000
	 	Européenne de Produits de 

Beauté, S.A.S 

64-70 rue du Ranelagh 

75016 Paris, France
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Citibank, N.A. 

49/F, Citibank Tower 

Citibank Plaza 

3 Garden Road, 

Central Hong Kong 

Attn: Julia Pang

	 	Hong Kong

Dollars
	 	US $100,000
	 	US $1,000,000
	 	Revlon (Hong Kong) Limited 

3rd Floor, Eton Tower 

3 Hysan Avenue 

Causeway Bay 

Hong Kong
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Citibank, N.A. 

Foro Buonaparte, 16 

Milano 20121, Italy 

Attn: Elena Codecasa

	 	Euros
	 	US $0
	 	US $3,000,000
	 	Revlon S.p.A. 

Via Piazzale dell’Industria, N.
46 

00144 

Rome, Italy
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Citibank, N.A. 

UK Loans Processing Unit


2nd Floor 

4 Harbour Exchange 

Isle of Dogs 

London E14 9GE 

United Kingdom 

Attn: Asif Mahmood Butt

	 	Pounds

Sterling
	 	US $3,400,000
	 	US $10,000,000
	 	Revlon International Corporation (UK

Branch) 

Highgate Studios 

73-85 Highgate Road 

London NW5 1TL, England
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TOTAL

	 	 	 	US $4,700,000	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	AGGREGATE CURRENCY SUBLIMIT

	 	 	 	US $30,000,000	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	REMAINING AGGREGATE 
CURRENCY
SUBLIMIT

	 	 	 	US $25,300,000
§ 600.306 Metric system of measurement. ( a ) The Metric Conversion Act of 1975, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 205) and implemented by Executive Order 12770, states that: ( 1 ) The metric system is the preferred measurement system for U.S. trade and commerce.
( 2 ) The metric system of measurement will be used, to the extent economically feasible, in Federal agencies' procurements, grants, and other business-related activities.
( 3 ) Metric implementation is not required if such use is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms.
( b ) Recipients are encouraged to use the metric system to the maximum extent practicable in measurement-sensitive activities and in measurement-sensitive outputs resulting from DOE funded programs.
#### § 73.71 [Reserved]
# Subpart 1228.1—Bonds and Other Financial Protections

**Parent topic:**PART 1228—BONDS AND INSURANCE

## 1228.106 Administration.

## 1228.106-470 Contract clause-notification of payment bond protection.

The contracting officer must insert the clause at 1252.228–74, Notification of Payment Bond Protection, in solicitations and contracts when payment bonds are required.   

## 1228.106-6 Furnishing information.

(c) When furnishing a copy of a payment bond and contract in accordance with FAR 28.106–6(b), the requirement for a copy of the contract may be satisfied by furnishing a pdf of the contract's first pages which show the contract number and date, the contractor's name and signature, the contracting officer's signature, and the description of the contract work. The contracting officer furnishing the copies shall place the statement “Certified to be a true and correct copy” followed by his/her signature, title and name of the Operating Administration using an authenticated electronic signature. The fee for furnishing the requested certified copies shall be determined in accordance with the DOT Freedom of Information Act regulation, 49 CFR part 7, and 1224.203.   

## 1228.106-70 Execution and administration of bonds.

(a) The contracting officer shall notify the surety within 30 days of the contractor's failure to perform in accordance with the terms of the contract. 

(b) When a partnership is a principal on a bond, the names of all the members of the firm shall be listed in the bond following the name of the firm, and the phrase “a partnership composed of.” If a principal is a corporation, the state of incorporation must also appear on the bond. 

(c) Performance or payment bond(s), other than an annual bond, shall not predate the contract to which it pertains. 

(d) Bonds may be filed with the original contract to which they apply, or all bonds can be separately maintained and reviewed quarterly for validity. If separately maintained, each contract file shall cross-reference the applicable bonds.   

## 1228.106-71 Performance and payment bonds for certain contracts.

## 1228.106-7100 Waiver.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of Transportation by the Bond statute at 40 U.S.C. chapter 31, subchapter III, Bonds (historically known as the Miller Act), the requirements of 40 U.S.C. 3131 *et seq.* are waived, to the extent authorized in accordance with 40 U.S.C. 3134(b).   

## 1228.106-7101 Exception.

A performance and payment bond for the contracts described under 1228.106–7100 may be advantageous in view of unusual circumstances arising in connection with such contracts. Requests for the authority to include the requirement for either a performance or payment bond, or both in the contracts described under 1228.106–7100 shall be submitted by the contracting officer to the HCA, before a solicitation is issued.
§ 7.17 Reports required for advisory committees. ( a ) The Commission shall furnish a report on the activities of NRC advisory committees annually to the Committee Management Secretariat on a fiscal year basis. The report must contain information regarding NRC advisory committees consistent with instructions provided by the Committee Management Secretariat. A copy of the report shall be made available at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov ,* at the NRC Public Document Room, or both. The information provided by the Commission regarding its advisory committees is contained in the Committee Management Secretariat's report which is available on its Web site, *http://www.gsa.gov/committeemanagement .*
( b ) Any NRC advisory committee holding closed or partially closed meetings shall issue a report, at least annually, setting forth a summary of its activities consistent with the policy of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), as implemented by 10 CFR 9.104. A copy of the report shall be made available at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov ,* at the NRC Public Document Room, or both.
( c ) Subject to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and implementing NRC regulations (10 CFR part 9, subpart A), eight copies of each report made by an advisory committee, including any report on closed meetings pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, and, where appropriate, background papers prepared by consultants, shall be filed for public inspection and use with the Library of Congress, Anglo-American Acquisitions Division, Government Documents Section, Federal Advisory Committee Desk, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20540-4172.
[67 FR 79842, Dec. 31, 2002]
#### § 733.4 Research misconduct requirements.

DOE intends to apply the research misconduct policy set forth in 65 FR 76260-76264 by including appropriate research misconduct requirements in contracts and financial assistance awards that make contractors and financial recipients primarily responsible for implementing the policy in dealing with allegations of research misconduct in connection with the proposal, performance or review of research for DOE .
###### Editorial Note on Part 70

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

#### § 70.56 Tests.

Each licensee shall perform, or permit the Commission to perform, such tests as the Commission deems appropriate or necessary for the administration of the regulations in this part, including tests of (a) special nuclear material, (b) facilities wherein special nuclear material is utilized, produced or stored, (c) radiation detection and monitoring instruments, and (d) other equipment and devices used in connection with the production, utilization or storage of special nuclear material.

[21 FR 764, Feb. 3, 1956. Redesignated at 25 FR 1607, Feb. 25, 1960, and 25 FR 12730, Dec. 13, 1960]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arturo Bolta, Also Known as Joseph A. Bolta, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings, County, rendered November 15, 1979, upon resentence. Judgment affirmed. We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious grounds which could be raised on this appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; cf. *People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606.) Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
PGI 233.170 Briefing requirement for

protested acquisitions valued at $1 billion or

more.

In the event of a protest of a competitively awarded Major Defense Acquisition Program or of an

acquisition of services valued at $1 billion or more, the agency concerned shall provide a briefing to

the Principal Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting, within 10 days of the filing of the protest.

The briefing must outline—

(a) The basis of the protest;

(b) The agency’s position; and

(c) Any other information the agency deems relevant to the protest.

Parent topic: PGI 233.1 -PROTESTS
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 662 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that general 

appropriation bills contain a separate list of all earmarks in the accompanying report and the name of the sponsoring Member of each such 

earmark. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2006 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. AKIN, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, 

Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. CARTER, Mr. 

CHABOT, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. FORTUN ̃O, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GUTKNECHT, Mr. HENSARLING, 

Mr. HERGER, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MCKEON, 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. 

PEARCE, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. SODREL, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. 

TIAHRT, Mr. WAMP, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. WICKER, Mr. WILSON

of South Carolina, Mr. COLE of Oklahoma, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. BARRETT

of South Carolina, and Mr. KLINE) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require that general appropriation bills contain a separate list of all earmarks in the accompanying report 

and the name of the sponsoring Member of each such 

earmark. 

1 Resolved, That clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of 

2 the House of Representatives is amended by adding at the 

3 end the following new paragraph: 
2 

•HRES 662 IH 

1 ‘‘(g) Whenever a general appropriation bill is re2 ported, it shall contain a separate list of all earmarks in 

3 the accompanying report and the name of the sponsoring 

4 Member of each such earmark.’’. 

Æ
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 1841 Lower Tribunal No. CF 20

- 00 2182

- XX

_____________________________ D ONALD P AUL D IEM , Appellant ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the C ircuit Court for Polk County

. Donald G. Jacobsen , Ju dge.

J u l y 30, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED

.
S TARGEL , NARDELLA an d SMITH , JJ. , c oncur.

Jason T. Forman and Dalianett Corrales, of Law Offices of Jason T. Forman, P.A. , Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Sonia C. Lawson , Assistant Attorney General, Tampa , for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DI SPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
**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 Quarterly Report of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Louis Glazer, M.D., Ph.G, Chief Executive 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) 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 result of operations of the Company.





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




February
              13, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Louis Glazer, M.D., Ph.GLouis
              Glazer, M.D., Ph.GChief
              Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * CR. NO. 1:06mj70-DRB

 *

OSCAR MARTINEZ-RAMIREZ *

Defendants. *

MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL

COMES, James R. Cooper, Jr. who moves that this Court allow him to withdraw as

counsel for Mr. Martinez and states in support thereof as follows: 

1. Mr. Cooper meet with Mr. Rameriz this past Friday. With them were Mr. Jeffery

Lee and Mrs. Beverly Childress. The purpose of the meeting was to conduct the

preliminary Pre-Sentence Investigation.

2. Mr. Rameriz said he did not know that he was giving up his RIGHTS when he

plead guilty. He said that he did not understand that he was pleading guilty to a

conspiracy. He said that he did not understand why he plead guilty.

3. Mr. Rameriz then said he wanted a new attorney. He said that he felt the Mr.

Cooper did not adequately inform him of his rights when he plead guilty.

4. This is the second time that Mr. Rameriz has requested that he be given another

attorney. At this point Mr. Cooper no long trusts Mr. Rameriz either. When Mr.

Rameriz talks with Mr. Cooper he uses good English. When he does not like what

is going on, he acts like he cannot speak English. 

5. Mr. Rameriz wants another attorney. Mr. Cooper wishes to be relieved as counsel.

Wherefore, Mr. Cooper requests the following relief:

1. That he be relieved as counsel for Mr. Martinez. 

2. That another attorney be appointed to represent Mr. Martinez.

3. All other appropriate relief. 

Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 37 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

 

s/James R. Cooper, Jr. (COO021)

COOPER & COOPER

Attorney for Defendant

312 Scott Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

(334) 262-4887

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 29th day of January , 2007, I have served a copy of the

foregoing Motion to Withdraw as Counsel upon Ms A. Clark Morris , Asst. U.S. Attorney,

P.O. Box 197, Montgomery, Alabama 36101 and by electronic case filing, by placing a copy of

same in the United States Mail properly addressed and postage prepaid.

s/James R. Cooper, Jr. (COO021

cc:

Mr. Oscar Martinez-Ramirez

Montgomery City Jail

P. O. Drawer 159

Montgomery, Al 36105

Case 1:06-cr-00201-WHA-CSC Document 37 Filed 01/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 26

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

#### § 26.181 Purpose.

This subpart contains requirements for determining whether a donor has violated the FFD policy and for making a determination of fitness.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Booker T. Torrence

*Jon C. Blue,*assistant public defender, in support of the petition.

*John M. Massameno,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided June 20, 1984

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 1 Conn. App. 697, is granted.