alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/21/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection

SUMMARY: 

Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection on August 20, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants 

was proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Beverly Banister/EPA R4

Gregg Worley/EPA R4

Jeaneanne Gettle/EPA R4

Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

Keith Goff/EPA R4

Todd Rinck/EPA R4

EPA OAR OAQPS and OAP Staff

External Stakeholders

Paula Cobb/Florida DEP

Other DEP staff

ATTACHMENT
Advance Questions for Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with the Florida DEP on 8/20/14

1. Rate to mass goal. Can you provide more insight into how this works (e.g., how to calculate the 

“business as usual” case)?

2. IPM Modeling. Various questions about the modeling runs. For example, are all the files on the 

website? What were the underlying NEEDS (and other) data used in the IPM modeling? (This 

issue can be followed-up by a staff-to-staff in-depth discussion.)

3. Non-affected units. How can states include such units toward showing compliance (or can 

they)? How do you incorporate non-affected units into the state plan if they only become 

affected after the State Plan is submitted? Would such units affect the state’s goal?

4. Need more information on developing emissions projections (both for compliance and for 

developing rate-to-mass calculations).

5. When mistakes are found in state-specific data used to calculate the goal, how should that 

information be communicated to EPA (in addition to being submitted to the docket)?

6. “Capacity”. The proposal seems to use multiple approaches to establishing “capacity” for units 

in a state (i.e., nameplate vs other types of capacity). Was that intentional and, if so, why?

7. Dispatch to NGCC. Did EPA consider limitations in infrastructure when establishing this number 

for goal setting? For example, did EPA consider issues such as gas transport limitations and 

limitations in grid transmission?

8. Renewable Energy. Can a state include alternate energy sources in compliance when the 

alternative energy may not be considered renewable energy (e.g., can you count waste-toenergy projects toward compliance)? Also, how would biomass be treated?

9. What constraints are there in using nuclear up-rates in showing compliance? For example, if an 

up-rate occurred in 2012, can that count towards showing compliance?
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000812076
<NAME>                        TOPPS
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-26-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Aug-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Nov-27-1999
<CASH>                                          61,093
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,489
<INVENTORY>                                     16,959
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               141,858
<PP&E>                                          14,850
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 211,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           81,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           477
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   211,016
<SALES>                                        110,777
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,558
<CGS>                                           52,222
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    63
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    67
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 163
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,169
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,239
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,930
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,930
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46



</TABLE>
# L_2023173EN.01003901.xml

| 6.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 173/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 173/39

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 137/2020

of 25 September 2020

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement [2023/1396]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/158 of 5 February 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/799 for the purpose of on-board weighing equipment (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/158 of 5 February 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/799 for the purpose of on-board weighing equipment (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 21bb (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/799) of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘- | 32020 R 0158: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/158 of 5 February 2020 (OJ L 34, 6.2.2020, p. 20).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘-

32020 R 0158: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/158 of 5 February 2020 (OJ L 34, 6.2.2020, p. 20).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/158 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 26 September 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 25 September 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 34, 6.2.2020, p. 20.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
gss_ex10-14.htm


    
      
        

      

    

     

    NSF/ANSI
STANDARD 18

    Manual
Food and Beverage Dispensing Equipment

     

      
        

      

    

    


    K-TEC

    


    1206
SOUTH 1680 WEST

    OREM, UT
84058

    801-222-0888

    


    Facility : OREM,
UT

    


    COMPONENTS:

    


    Flow
Sensor for Blender Dispenser

        S01-307

    


    "Megablender"
Automatic Blender

        MB1

        MB2

    


    Automatic
Dispenser

        D-4

        D-8

    


    Self-Serve
Blender-Dispenser

        S01A
#### § 745.121 [Reserved]
#### §§ 611.208-611.209 [Reserved]
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 34 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 34 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 34 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 34 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 34 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00790-WC Document 34 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 6 of 6
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.33 Amendment of construction authorization. ( a ) An application for amendment of a construction authorization must be filed with the Commission that fully describes any desired changes and follows, as far as applicable, the content requirements prescribed in § 63.21.
( b ) In determining whether an amendment of a construction authorization will be approved, the Commission will be guided by the considerations that govern the issuance of the initial construction authorization, to the extent applicable.
THC MACT FLOOR ANALYSES

Company Location Kiln Average Kiln Type In-line raw millSuwannee Branford, FL Kiln 5.68 preheater/calciner yesHolcim Trident Kiln #1 5.69 wet noTXI Midlothian Kiln 5 5.83 preheater/calciner yesHolcim Mason City Kiln #3 10.90 long dry noHolcim Mason City Kiln #2 11.07 long dry noTitan Pennsuco Kiln 12.81 preheater/calciner yesTitan Roanoke, VA Kiln 5 12.93 preheater/calciner yesHolcim Theodore, AL Kiln #1 23.74 preheater/calciner yesHolcim Portland, CO Kiln #4 44.97 preheater/calciner yesHolcim Dundee

Kiln #1 and Kiln #2 Combined 748.15 wet no
§ 850.13 Compliance. ( a ) The responsible employer must conduct activities in compliance with its CBDPP.
( b ) The responsible employer must achieve compliance with all elements of its CBDPP no later than January 7, 2002.
( c ) With respect to a particular beryllium activity, the contractor in charge of the activity is responsible for complying with this part. If no contractor is responsible for a beryllium activity, DOE must ensure implementation of, and compliance with, this part.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.47 Facility information and verification. ( a ) In response to a written request by the Commission, each applicant for a construction authorization or license and each recipient of a construction authorization or a license shall submit facility information, as described in § 75.10 of this chapter, on IAEA Design Information Questionnaire forms and site information on DOC/NRC Form AP-A and associated forms;
( b ) As required by the Additional Protocol, applicants and licensees specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall submit location information described in § 75.11 of this chapter on DOC/NRC Form AP-1 and associated forms;
( c ) Shall permit verification thereof by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and take other action as necessary to implement the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement, as described in Part 75 of this chapter.
[73 FR 78606, Dec. 23, 2008, as amended at 85 FR 65663, Oct. 16, 2020]
## ELECTRONIC RECORD 

# 154¥-/V

COA# 03-12-00466-CR Lester Ray Guy v. The State of 

### STYLE: Texas COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED 

### OFFENSE: 19.03 COUNTY: Travis TRIAL COURT: 331st District Court DATE: 10/22/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: D-l-DC-10-302548



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS STYLE: LesterRay Guy v. The State ofTexas 

# MPSt-U^NT^S Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# s DATE: n.5" JUDGE: CCA#: 

# l5M-/¥ CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
# EUR-Lex - 31985D0482 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31985D0482

**85/482/EEC: Commission Decision of 18 October 1985 concerning the implementation by Italy of certain measures to adapt capacity in the fisheries sector pursuant to Council Directive 83/515/EEC (Only the Italian text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 287 , 29/10/1985 P. 0031 - 0031 *

*****

COMMISSION DECISION

of 18 October 1985

concerning the implementation by Italy of certain measures to adapt capacity in the fisheries sector pursuant to Council Directive 83/515/EEC

(Only the Italian text is authentic)

(85/482/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 83/515/EEC of 4 October 1983 concerning certain measures to adjust capacity in the fisheries sector (1), and in particular Article 7 (1) thereof,

Whereas Italy intends to introduce a system of financial aids for measures involving the permanent reduction of production capacities, in the fisheries sector; whereas, on 21 April 1984 and 14 June 1985, it communicated the information concerning this scheme required under Article 6 of Directive 83/515/EEC;

Whereas in accordance with Article 7 of the said Directive, the Commission has considered whether, having regard to the requirements of the Directive and to the other structural measures existing or planned in the fisheries sector, the measures contemplated fulfil the conditions for a financial contribution from the Community;

Whereas this Decision relates solely to aid granted under Article 5 of the said Directive;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Fisheries Structures,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The measures which Italy intends to take to implement a financial aids scheme for measures involving the permanent reduction of production capacity in the fisheries sector fulfil the conditions for a financial contribution from the Community.

Article 2

This Decision shall not apply to national aid referred to in Article 12 of Directive 83/515/EEC.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.

Done at Brussels, 18 October 1985.

For the Commission

Frans ANDRIESSEN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No L 290, 22. 10. 1983, p. 15.
H. Res. 485

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

October 25, 2005.

Whereas the Governors and Attorneys General of the States, 

the National Family Partnership, Parent Teacher Associations, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and more 

than 100 other organizations throughout the United 

States annually cosponsor Red Ribbon Week during the 

week of October 23 through October 31; 

Whereas a purpose of the Red Ribbon Campaign is to commemorate the service of Enrique ‘‘Kiki’’ Camarena, a 

Drug Enforcement Administration special agent who died 

in the line of duty in 1985 while engaged in the battle 

against illicit drugs; 

Whereas the Red Ribbon Campaign is nationally recognized 

and is in its twentieth year of celebration, helping to preserve Special Agent Camarena’s memory and further the 

cause for which he gave his life; 

Whereas the objective of Red Ribbon Week is to promote 

drug-free communities through drug prevention efforts, 

education, parental involvement, and community wide 

support; 

Whereas drug and alcohol abuse contributes to domestic violence and sexual assaults, and places the lives of children 

at risk; 
2

•HRES 485 EH 

Whereas drug abuse is one of the major challenges our Nation faces in securing a safe and healthy future for our 

families and children; 

Whereas emerging drug threats, such as the growing epidemic of methamphetamine abuse, jeopardize the 

progress made against illegal drug abuse; and 

Whereas parents, youth, schools, businesses, law enforcement 

agencies, religious institutions, service organizations, senior citizens, medical and military personnel, sports teams, 

and individuals throughout the United States demonstrate their commitment to drug-free, healthy lifestyles 

by wearing and displaying red ribbons during this 

weeklong celebration: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) supports the goals of Red Ribbon Week; 

(2) encourages children and teens to choose to live 

a drug-free life; and 

(3) encourages all people of the United States to 

promote drug-free communities and to participate in 

drug prevention activities to show support for healthy, 

productive, drug-free lifestyles.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### § 62.4 Interpretations.

Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretation of the meaning of the regulations in this part by any officer or employee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be considered binding on the Commission.
NO. 12-17-00223-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOHN RUSSELL SOMMER, JR., 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, John Russell Sommer, Jr., filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is 

signed by Appellant and his counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal.

Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered December 21, 2017.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 21, 2017

NO. 12-17-00223-CR

JOHN RUSSELL SOMMER, JR.,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court 

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 63634)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Average annual pay by state andindustry [electronic resource].**
 
1992 | 1993| 1994 | 1995| 1996 | 1997| 1998 | 1999
2000 | 2001
 
SuDoc Number:L 2.120/2-3:
Item Number:0769-P (online)
CGP systemNumber:000562534
 
November 26, 2018
2007-1839.

#### State ex rel. White v. Billings.

Clermont App. No. CA200609072, 2007-Ohio-4356. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for a stay of the judgments of the court of appeals and trial court pending resolution of his appeal before this court,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is granted conditioned upon appellant maintaining the $5,000 bond posted with the Clermont County Common Pleas Clerk of court on September 13, 2006, in ease No. 2005 CVH 01328, and further conditioned upon appellant complying with all the conditions imposed by said bond.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

C. KAUI JOCHANAN AMSTERDAM,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-15672

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00525-DAEBMK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2014** 

Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 

C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment on the pleadings in his action arising from the Office of Hawaiian

Affairs’ (“OHA”) failure to provide him funds from a public trust created by the

FILED

MAR 18 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Hawaii Admission Act (“§ 5(f) trust”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079,

1081 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on

Amsterdam’s breach of trust claim because Amsterdam failed to allege facts

showing that defendants breached the terms of the § 5(f) trust by not providing him

with trust funds. See Day v. Apoliona, 616 F.3d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2010) (OHA

trustees, although limited to spending § 5(f) trust funds for enumerated trust

purposes, “have broad discretion to decide how to serve those purposes”).

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on

Amsterdam’s equal protection claim because Amsterdam failed to allege facts

showing that defendants intentionally discriminated against him based on his

membership in a protected class, or that defendants intentionally treated him

differently than other similarly situated individuals without a rational basis. See

Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003) (requirements for

equal protection claim); see also N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478,

486 (9th Cir. 2008) (requirements for “class of one” equal protection claim).

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on

Amsterdam’s free speech claim because Amsterdam failed to allege facts showing

2 12-15672
that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by not providing Amsterdam

funds to travel to Washington D.C. to meet with congressional representatives. See

Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 546 (1983)

(government is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying). 

AFFIRMED.

3 12-15672
§ 76.64 Denial of certificate or compliance plan. ( a ) The Director may deny an application for a certificate of compliance or not approve a compliance plan upon a written finding that the application is in noncompliance with one or more of the Commission's requirements for the plant, or that the compliance plan is inadequate to protect the public health and safety or the common defense and security.
( b ) The Director shall publish notice of the decision in the Federal Register.
( c ) Before a denial of an application for a certificate of compliance, the Director shall advise the Corporation and the Department in writing of any areas of noncompliance with the Commission's regulations and offer the Department or the Corporation an opportunity to submit a proposed compliance plan prepared by the Department regarding the identified areas of noncompliance. The Director shall take this action even if the Department or the Corporation has previously submitted a proposed compliance plan addressing in whole or in part the identified areas of noncompliance.
( d ) The Corporation, or any person whose interest may be affected, may file a petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, requesting review of the Director's decision. This petition for review must be filed with the Commission not later than 30 days after publication of the Federal Register notice. Any person described in this paragraph may file a response to any petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, within 15 days after the filing of the petition for review. If the Commission does not issue a decision or take other appropriate action within 90 days after the publication of the Federal Register notice, the Director's decision remains in effect. The Commission may adopt, by order, further procedures that, in its judgment, would serve the purpose of review of the Director's decision.
( e ) The Commission may adopt, modify, or set aside the findings, conclusions, conditions, or terms in the Director's decision and will state the basis of its action in writing.
[59 FR 48960, Sept. 23, 1994, as amended at 64 FR 44650, Aug. 17, 1999]