alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
RE: EGU MACT -- Questions on floor data 

 12/14/2011 03:50 PM 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

 

To: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Hi Bill, 

 I didn't send the file -- it's a reference to the area source sheet you 

provided us. The file I referred to my have had a different name than 

the one you sent to us. 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:35 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Re: EGU MACT -- Questions on floor data 

Cortney -- 

I'm catching up on my docketing and cannot find where we sent you a file 

with the date noted below (11302011). Is it possible this is a file that 

we sent you earlier and you have re-dated? 

Thanks. 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

Bill Maxwell 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450 

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 12/13/2011 10:35 AM 

Subject: EGU MACT -- Questions on floor data 

Hi Bob, 
Thanks for sending data over for us to look at recently. 

A couple issues --- it does not seem as if we are looking at the total 

set of data. 

It also may be that that area source calculations are off. 

 (1) The number of area sources (boilers) in the most recent EPA 

 spreadsheet (Area source_baseline_emissions_estimates...) is 141 at 

 76 facilities. 

 Ø The number of area sources (boilers) in the old EPA dataset 

 (Basline_Emissions_Estimates_11302011) we were working on had 263 

 boilers at 141 facilities. 

 Ø The fact that 141 is showing up in both data sets for different 

 things could indicate that there may be a mistake. Can you 

 confirm the number of potential area sources and facilities? That 

 could have substantial implications for yesterday’s discussion 

 Our calculation of the Major floor without area sources shows that 

 the standard could change. 

 (2) The data we are using to look at the floor calculations 

 seems to be lacking data. For example, on the 

 (coal_acid_gases_floor analysis_111811) the plant Logan is in the 

 floor with 6 observations, but it is unclear if there are other 

 observations that are not included. In the main sheet 

 “AcidGas_coal” there don’t seem to be those 6 observations -- -the 

 min is there, but not the others. 

Lastly, regarding the floor calcs --- it seems like the floor is being 

calculated by looking at the ave of the mins from the top 12; rather than 

the average of the obs from the top 12; or the average of the max from 

the top 12. Is there a particular methodology that has to be followed? 

Or perhaps since we are missing some of the data, it is not possible to 

replicate the calculations. Would it be possible to get a complete data 

set for examining the floor calculations? 

Regards, 

Cortney
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsECLSS Universal Waste Management System (UWMS) Metal Materials Compatibility Study- Electrochemical and Crevice Corrosion EvaluationElectrochemical and crevice corrosion laboratory test results are presented for three noble metal candidates with possible application on the Universal Waste Management System (UWMS) in support of the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) aboard the International Space Station (ISS). The three metal candidates, which included Inconel 625, Hastelloy C276 and Titanium 6Al-4V, were evaluated in two solutions representative of the acidic pretreatment formulations utilized during processing of waste liquids within the ECLSS. Final test results and data analysis indicated that the passive layer on all three metals provides excellent corrosion protection in both solutions under standard test conditions.Document ID20170005171Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsLee, R. E.*(Jacobs Engineering and Science Services and Skills Augmentation Group (ESSSA) Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredJune 5, 2017Publication DateMay 1, 2017Subject CategoryMan/System Technology And Life SupportReport/Patent NumberNASA/CR-2017-218240M-1432Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNM12AA41CDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20170005171.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
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-3211

_____________________________

DARRELL L. WASHINGTON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Dixie County.

Wesley R. Douglas, Judge.

May 29, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Darrell L. Washington, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### John J. Rinello *v.*Rocco R. P. Perna, Trustee, et al.

*Joseph M. Kaye,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Boceo B. P. Perna,*for the appellant (named defendant).

Argued April 7

decided April 7, 1964

The motion by the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted.
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 176

To designate the Federal building located at 300 4th Street, Northeast,

in the District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Daniel Webster Senate Page Residence’’, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 24 (legislative day, NOVEMBER 2), 1993

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

To designate the Federal building located at 300 4th Street,

Northeast, in the District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Daniel

Webster Senate Page Residence’’, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DANIEL WEBSTER SENATE

3 PAGE RESIDENCE.

4 The Federal building located at 300 4th Street,

5 Northeast, in the District of Columbia, shall be known and

6 designated as the ‘‘Daniel Webster Senate Page Resi7 dence’’.

Æ
#### Brown *v.*Shirley Hill Coal Company.

[No. 21,404.

Filed November 3, 1909.]

*Appeal.*— Jurisdiction.—Damages.—Jurisdiction, of an appeal, in an action for damages for personal injuries wherein defendant obtained a judgment upon demurrer, is in the Appellate Court.

Prom Sullivan Circuit Court; *Charles E. Henderson,*Judge.

Action by Thomas Brown against the Shirley Hill Coal Company. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

*Transferred to Appellate Court.*(Por final decision, see —, Ind! App. —.)

*George W. Buff*and *W. P. Stratton,*for appellant.

*John T. Hays*and *Will H. Hays,*for appellee.

Monks, J.

Appellant brought this action to recover damages for a personal injury, and demanded judgment for $10,000. A demurrer for want of facts was sustained to the complaint, and final judgment was rendered against the appellant for costs.

Upon the authority of *Cronin*v. *Zimmerman*(1907), 169 Ind. 75, we hold that jurisdiction of this appeal is in the Appellate Court. This appeal is therefore transferred to the Appellate Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 133 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con. Res.133
                                              Agreed to January 10, 1996

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the calendar day of Tuesday, January 9, 
1996, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, January 22, 1996, or 
until noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns on the calendar 
day of Wednesday, January 10, 1996, pursuant to a motion offered by the 
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 
noon on Monday, January 22, 1996, or until noon on the second day after 
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
EXHIBIT 99.1

Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of  NTS-Properties VII
(the  "Partnership") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002,
as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),   J.D.   Nichols,   as  Chief  Executive   Officer  of  the
Partnership,   and  Gregory  A.  Wells,  as  Chief  Financial   Officer  of  the
Partnership,  each hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  §  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to the
best of his knowledge:

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
Partnership.

/s/     J.D. Nichols

Name:     J.D. Nichols
Title:       Chief Executive Officer of NTS Capital Corporation, General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates VII, General Partner of NTS-Properties VII
Date:       November 14, 2002

/s/     Gregory A. Wells

Name:     Gregory A. Wells
Title:       Chief Financial Officer of NTS Capital Corporation, General Partner of NTS-Properties Associates VII, General Partner of NTS-Properties VII
Date:       November 14, 2002

This  certification  accompanies  the Report  pursuant  to §  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the  Partnership for purposes of
§18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



See also the certification  pursuant to Sec. 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, which is also attached to this Report.
- USGS Home
- Contact						   USGS
- Search 
USGS

- mobile menu barsUSGS Publications Warehouse
    Contact
    Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
    Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
    FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series
- USGS Publications Warehouse
- Contact
- Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
- Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series

- USGS Publications 
  Warehouse
- Explore					    
  Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
    Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
- Explore recent publications 
    by USGS							   Authors
- Browse all of Pubs Warehouse 
    by							   Publication type and year
- Documentation					    
  FAQS
    Web 
    Service Documentation
    Other 
    Resources
    Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series
- FAQS
- Web 
    Service Documentation
- Other 
    Resources
- Descriptions of US 
    Geological Survey Report							   Series
- Contact

### Glaciation in Alaska

#### Professional Paper 170-A

Tweet


#### Links

- More information: **Publisher Index Page**                          
        (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS

#### Abstract

#### Additional publication details

Accessibility
				    FOIA				    Privacy				    Policies and					   
Notices

U.S. Department of the					   Interior |				    
U.S. Geological 
Survey				   URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp170A 
                    				   Page Contact Information: Pubs 
Warehouse Contact				   Page				   Page Last Modified: February 02, 2012 
00:10:16
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER DONNELL WILLIAMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-3402

[November 8, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Steven J. Levin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2015CF000210A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Stacey Kime, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven 

Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant timely appeals his sentences for various drug 

possession charges. We agree with his assertion that the sentence 

imposed for count I exceeds the statutory maximum sentence. Thus, we 

reverse his sentence on that count only. We find the remainder of his 

arguments to be without merit or not preserved. 

The defendant pled nolo contendere to count I, possession of twenty 

grams or less of cannabis, and count II, possession of ethylone, a 

controlled substance. He was sentenced to four years in the custody of 

the Department of Corrections on each charge, which sentences were to 

be served concurrently. Williams then moved to correct a sentencing 

error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), alleging 

in pertinent part that the sentence for count I exceeded the statutory 

maximum of one year. In response, the state conceded that the sentence 

for count I should not have exceeded one year, and the trial court 

granted the motion as to this ground. However, as the state candidly 

concedes on appeal, it does not appear that an order was entered to 

actually correct the sentence on count I.
2

Possession of twenty grams or less of cannabis is a first-degree

misdemeanor. § 893.13(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (2016). A first-degree 

misdemeanor may be punished by a term of incarceration not exceeding 

one year. § 775.082(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). 

As both the state and the trial court recognized, the court erred in 

entering Williams’ four-year sentence in excess of the statutory 

maximum. We therefore reverse and remand for resentencing on count I. 

We affirm the sentence for the remaining count.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

GROSS, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5 D 2 2

- 2295 LT Case No. 201 6

- CA

- 001945

_____________________________
N EIL A GUSTUS C UFF , Appellant,

v.

A DVENTIST H EALTH S YSTEM , S UNBELT , I NC

. D/B/A F LORIDA H OSPITAL A LTAMONTE , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the C ircuit Court for Seminole County

. Christopher Sprysenski , Judge

. Neil Agustus Cuff, Orlando
, pro se

. Correy B. Karbiener and Christopher R. Parkinson, of Moran Kidd Lyons Johnson Garcia, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

Nove mber 21, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.

L AMBERT , S OUD , and P RATT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8151 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8151

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand eligible 
             practitioners to furnish telehealth services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 2024

Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. Thompson of California, and 
    Mr. Smith of Nebraska) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to expand eligible 
             practitioners to furnish telehealth services.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANDING PRACTITIONERS ELIGIBLE TO FURNISH TELEHEALTH 
              SERVICES.

    Section 1834(m)(4)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395m(m)(4)(E)) is amended by striking ``and,'' and all that follows 
through ``shall include'' and inserting ``and includes''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

__________________________________________________________________

Cause No. DA 23-0414

IN THE MATTER OF T.K.B. and N.Z.B.,

Youths in Need of Care.

_________________________________________________________________

ORDER

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of Appellant Mother’s Motion to Consolidate, 

without objection, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DA 23-0413 and DA 23-0414 are 

consolidated into DA 23-0414 and captioned as above.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 6 2023

10/06/2023
§ 1.72-14 Exceptions from application of principles of section 72. ( a ) *Payments of interest.* If any amount is received under an agreement to pay interest on a sum or sums held by the obligor, such amount shall not be excludable from the gross income of the recipient under the provisions of section 72 to the extent that it is an actual interest payment. See section 72(j). An amount shall be considered to be held under an agreement to pay interest thereon if the amount payable after the term of the annuity (whether for a term certain or for a life or lives) is substantially equal to or larger than the aggregate amount of premiums or other consideration paid therefor. For this purpose, however, the aggregate amount of premiums or other consideration paid shall include all contributions made by an employer and not merely those to which section 72(f) applies.
( b ) *Alimony payments.* To the extent that payments made to a wife are includable in her gross income by reason of either or both section 71 and 682, they shall not be excluded from the wife's gross income under the principles of section 72 although made under a contract to which that section applies. However, section 72 shall apply in the case of amounts received under such a contract if a husband and wife are entitled to make and do make a single return jointly.
( c ) *Certain “face-amount certificates.”* The principles of section 72 do not apply to “face-amount certificates” described in section 72(1) which were issued before January 1, 1955.
( d ) *Employer plans.* The provisions of §§ 1.72-1 to 1.72-13, inclusive, shall be disregarded to the extent that they are inconsistent with the treatment of amounts received provided in section 402 (relating to the taxability of a beneficiary of an employees' trust), section 403 (relating to the taxation of employee annuities), or the regulations under either of such sections.
1 

### Ogulei, David

From: **Garnett, Kim** Sent: **Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:47 AM** To: **Ogulei, David** Subject: **FW: M29 COMPARISONS** Attachments: **Final Report RA testing of Xact.doc; Mercury Analys is 080202.doc; Method 29 Report.doc;**  **QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY 022700.doc**



### Per your request.

From: Bivins, Dan Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 3:07 PM To: Garnett, Kim Subject: FW: M29 COMPARISONS

From: John Cooper [ mailto:jacooper@cooperenvironmental.com ] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 2:33 PM To: Bivins, Dan Subject: M29 COMPARISONS



### Hi Dan, Attached are some early M29 comparison reports. I know we have lots more and I am still looking. Hop efully, this will get you started. Call if you have questions on any of this material. John

John A. Cooper, Ph. D. President Cooper Environmental Services LLC 10180 SW Nimbus Ave. Suite J6 Portland, OR 97223
#### David Chozick et al. *v.*Town Council of West Hartford et al.

Argued March 5

decided March *7,*1968

*Valentine J. Sacco,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

*Russell L. Post, Jr.,*for the appellants (defendants).

The motion by the plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County is denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 12, 2020. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 12, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0087. DIANA MCMANUS v. MICHAEL TODD MCMANUS. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 17105369