alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p. 1


# OAR Box 1828 Prepped byOllie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 132 ) ll-K - (B)-12 2 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:52 AM Sheet 132 of 325

# ENERG YAND ENVIRONMENTA

L ANALYSIS, IN

C jf t Q O H 7
Jul y 21,\198 3
i 

### II-K-(B)-12 2 Mr . Rober t Shor t Economi c Analysi s Branc h" U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Mai l Drop-1 2 Researc hTriangl e Park , NC 2771 1 Subject : EP AContrac t No . 68-02-5564 , Wor k Assignmen t # 8 Dea r Robert : A s I note d i n mylette r o f Jul y15 , 1983 , ther e ar e relativel yfe wne w coal-fire d industria l boiler s selectin g scrubber s i n recen t IFCA MBas e Cas e projections . Onl yabou t 10-1 5 percen t o f ne wcoal-fire d industria l boiler s les s tha n 25 0 MMBtu/h r selecte d scrubber s i n th e Bas e Cas e i n th e Marc h198 3 o r Jul y8 , 198 3 projections . Boiler s tha t selec t scrub
ber s wit hP M emission s contro l capabilit y(e.g. , lime spraydryin g i n th e Jul y8 , 198 3 projection s o r th e dua l alkali/singl e mechanica l col
lecto r systemi n th e Marc h198 3 se t o f IFCA Mprojections ) i n th e Bas e Cas e wil l no t b e subjec t t o a cos t increas e unde r th e propose d PM NSPS . I n th e Jul y8 , 198 3 Bas e Cas e IFCA Mprojections , onl yfou r ne wcoal
fire d industria l boiler s les s tha n 25 0 MMBtu/h r chos e t o scruba bitu
minou s coa l typ e (whic hwa s th e cheapes t coa l typ e i n al l fiv e cases ) wit ha lim e spraydryin g FG D systema s oppose d t o selectin g a mor e expensiv e complianc e coa l typ e wit ha sid e streamseparator . Scrubbin g wa s no t selecte d fo r an ybituminou s coa l boile r whic hcoul d us e a singl e o r dua l mechanica l collector . Th e attache d tabl e summarize s th e cos t difference s fo r eac ho f thes e fou r boilers . I f scrubbin g wa s no t permitte d i n th e Bas e Case , th e firs t tw o boiler s i n th e attache d tabl e Woul d no t hav e selecte d th e complianc e coa l type . Natura l ga s woul d hav e bee n chose n fo r th e firs t boile r and residua l fue l oi l woul d hav e bee n chose n fo r th e second boiler . Pleas e cal l m e i f yo u hav e an yquestions . Sincerely ,
Ti mHoga n fj TH:m k 

### Attachmen t cc : AlWeh

e

Economic s / Engineerin gP. 3

COMPARISONOF COMPLIANC E STRATEGIE S FOR NE WINDUSTRIAL COAL-FIRE D BOILERS a

Siz e (MMBtu/hr ) 

### 12 5 12 5 17 5 17 5 Capacit y

utilizatio n rat e (% ) 

### 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 s .

complianc e coa l typ e (lbS O /MMBtu ) 0.8 0 0.9 5 2.1 0 2.8 5 Differenc e i n

(198 2 $/MMBtu ) 0.7 6 0.4 2 0.4 9 0.3 5 

### af t er-taxNP V (00 0 $1982 ) 

### 54 1 29 9 48 8 34 9
Bas e Case . Lowexces s ai r o n al l ne windustria l boilers . Consisten t wit hIFCA

Mprojection s date d Jul y8 , 1983 . Cos t o f SO „ complianc e coa l typ e les s cos t o f scrubbing th e cheapes t coa l i n th e regio n (witha t leas t 5 0 percen t S0 2 removal) , including boiler , pollutio n contro l equipmen t an d fue l expenses .
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMarshall Engineering Thermosphere Model, Version MET-2007The region of the Earth's atmosphere between about 90 and 500 km altitude is known as the thermosphere, while the region above about 500 km is known as the exosphere. For space vehicle operations, the neutral atmosphere in these regions is significant. Even at its low density, it produces torques and drags on vehicles and affects orbital lifetimes. The thermosphere density above 100 km altitude also modulates the flux of trapped radiation and orbital debris. Atomic oxygen at orbital altitudes is important because it can erode and chemically change exposed vehicle surfaces.Document ID20170005172Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsSuggs, R. J.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Suggs, R. M.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredJune 5, 2017Publication DateApril 1, 2017Subject CategoryGeophysicsNumerical AnalysisReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-2017-218238M-1430Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20170005172.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
§ 1.6044-5 Statements to recipients of patronage dividends. ( a ) *Requirement.* A person required to make an information return under section 6044(a)(1) and § 1.6044-2 must furnish a statement to each recipient whose identifying number is required to be shown on the related information return for patronage dividends paid.
( b ) *Form, manner, and time for providing statements to recipients.* The statement required by paragraph (a) of this section must be either the official Form 1099 prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service for the respective calendar year or an acceptable substitute statement. The rules under § 1.6042-4 (relating to statements with respect to dividends) apply comparably in determining the form of an acceptable substitute statement permitted by this section. Those rules also apply for purposes of determining the manner of and time for providing the Form 1099 or its acceptable substitute to a recipient under this section. However, each Form 1099 or acceptable substitute statement required by this section must be furnished on or before January 31 of the following year, but no statement may be furnished before the final payment has been made for the calendar year. For a statement required to be furnished after December 31, 2008, the February 15 due date under section 6045 applies to the statement if the statement is furnished in a consolidated reporting statement under section 6045. *See* §§ 1.6045-1(k)(3), 1.6045-2(d)(2), 1.6045-3(e)(2), 1.6045-4(m)(3), and 1.6045-5(a)(3)(ii). An IRS truncated taxpayer identifying number (TTIN) may be used as the identifying number of the recipient in lieu of the identifying number appearing on the corresponding information return filed with the Internal Revenue Service. For provisions relating to the use of TTINs, see § 301.6109-4 of this chapter (Procedure and Administration Regulations).
( c ) *Cross-reference to penalty.* For provisions relating to the penalty provided for failure to furnish timely a correct payee statement required under section 6044(e), see § 301.6722-1 of this chapter (Procedure and Administration Regulations). See § 301.6724-1 of this chapter for the waiver of a penalty if the failure is due to reasonable cause and is not due to willful neglect.
( d ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is effective for payee statements due after December 31, 1995, without regard to extensions. The amendments to paragraph (b) are effective for payee statements due after December 31, 2014. For payee statements due before January 1, 2015, § 1.6044-5(b) (as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised April 2013) shall apply.
[T.D. 8637, 60 FR 66111, Dec. 21, 1995, as amended by T.D. 8734, 62 FR 53476, Oct. 14, 1997; T.D. 9504, 75 FR 64090, Oct. 18, 2010; T.D. 9675, 79 FR 41129, July 15, 2014]
39734.

#### BRAMLETT v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

Decided October 8, 1962.

*D. L. Lomenick, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. Cecil Palmour, Solicitor,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

We need not consider whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in holding the defendant in contempt of court based on the facts adduced at the hearing held thereon since we think this case is controlled by the decision of this court in *Collins v. State of Ga.,*32 Ga. App. 450 (123 SE 723), in which Judge Broyles said: “Where one indicted for a bailable *732offense has been arrested and has given bond for his appearance at the next term of the court, and fails to appear at that term, his bond can be forfeited, and he can be re-arrested on a new warrant; . . . but there is no law in this State authorizing his punishment for contempt of court for failing and refusing to appear in accordance with the terms of the bond.”

It is assumed that the defendant was under bond, this being a bailable offense, and that his appearance in court on June 25, 1962, did not of itself discharge his surety. See *Alexander v. Slear,*177 Ga. 101 (169 SE 304). Therefore, when he failed to appear upon the call of his case at the postponed time, the same remedies were available to the court as would have been upon his failure to appear in the first instance.

Under such conditions, the principles set forth in the above-quoted decision would govern, making it error for the court to hold the defendant in contempt of court for his failure to appear at the time set for trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17

- 15771

Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17

- cr

- 20373

- KMW

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus

CAMILO TROCHEZ,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(August 16, 2018)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR

, MARTIN and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-15771 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Page: 1 of 22 Michael Mirer , appointed counsel for Camilo Trochez , has moved to

withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Our independent

review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of

the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals

no arguable iss ues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and

Trochez’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 17-15771 Date Filed: 08/16/2018 Page: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.2

            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER'S SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I, Mark B. Cox, Chief Financial Officer of Giant Industries, Inc. ("Giant"),
do hereby certify that: (a) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Giant for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") to which this
certification is being furnished as an exhibit fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and (b) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Giant.

Giant Industries, Inc.


By:  /s/ MARK B. COX
-----------------------------
Name:   Mark B. Cox
Title:  Chief Financial Officer

Date:   November 12, 2003.
#### LIMPERT BROTHERS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

Nos. 85-3587, 86-3018.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Sept. 5, 1986.

Before ALDISERT, Chief Judge, SEITZ, ADAMS, GIBBONS, WEIS, HIGGIN-BOTHAM, SLOVITER, BECKER, STA-PLETON and MANSMANN, Circuit Judges.

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

The petition for rehearing filed by petitioner in the above entitled case having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.

Statement of Circuit Judge WEIS Sur

Petition for Rehearing.

I have remonstrated on numerous occasions against issuance of bargaining orders by the Board because they deprive employees of their right to select a bargaining representative through a secret ballot. *See e.g. NLRB v. Keystone Pretzel Bakery, Inc.,*696 F.2d 257, 266 (3d Cir.1982); *Electrical Products Div. of Midland-Ross Corp. v. NLRB,*617 F.2d 977, 989 (3d Cir.1980). However, my views do not command a majority of the members of this court, and my role as an appellate judge requires that I abide by the precedent set by the court.

*334The arguments made by the employer in his petition for rehearing on the credibility of various witnesses are strong indeed, but our review of the evidence is severely limited by statute. In appeals from the Board we must affirm its findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. We are not free to reweigh the evidence nor are we permitted to decide a case as we might have had we conducted the original hearing.

Because of the limitations imposed by precedent and the restricted scope permitted by statute, I join in the order denying panel rehearing.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 10962 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 8:14

- cr - 00469

- RAL

- MAP

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ALBERT JOSEPH SCIPIONE,
Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

___________ _____________ (June 12, 2020) Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, GRANT and LUCK , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 20-10962 Date Filed: 06/12/2020 Page: 1 of 22 Attorney Lynn Bailey, appointed counsel for Albert Scipione in this direct criminal appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation of Scipio ne , supported by a brief prepared under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent
examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED , and Scipione ’s revocation of supervised release and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

Case: 20-10962 Date Filed: 06/12/2020 Page: 2 of 2
#### Marilyn WILSON; Marilyn Wilson, as Guardian of Lori Dee Wilson, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Blanche Kallstrom, Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-35362.

D.C. No. CV-94-488-HRH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 5, 1999.

Order Certifying Question Filed Sept. 14, 1999.

Submission Vacated June 28, 2000.

Resubmitted for Decision June 3, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

Before HUG, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

ORDER *

Blanche Kallstrom would have a viable claim against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) only if Alaska law recognizes that a person who inflicts injury on another as an “unwitting *859instrument” of a negligent party has a claim against that negligent party for the negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NIED”). *See Wilson v. United States,*190 F.3d 959 (9th Cir.1999). Because Alaska law did not provide an answer to this question, we certified it to the Alaska Supreme Court. *Id.*

That court has now held, in response to the certified question:

> We hold that a claim of NIED in the absence of physical injury is not available to a plaintiff solely because she or he is made the unwitting instrument of death or serious injury to another through the negligence of the defendant.

*Kallstrom v. United States,*43 P.3d 162 (Alaska 2002). Whether Kallstrom has a viable claim under the FTCA is governed by Alaska law. *See Wilson,*190 F.3d at 960. Because the Alaska Supreme Court has now determined that an “unwitting instrument” plaintiff has no claim for NIED, the district court’s order dismissing her claim is

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 265 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 265

    To express the sense of the Senate concerning district council 
             elections in Hong Kong on September 18, 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 21 (legislative day, September 12), 1994

   Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. DeConcini) submitted the following 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    To express the sense of the Senate concerning district council 
             elections in Hong Kong on September 18, 1994.

Whereas the United States strongly supports the development of effective, 
        functioning democratic institutions worldwide;
Whereas the government of Hong Kong successfully conducted its first District 
        Board elections on September 18th;
Whereas voter registration for the September 18th district council elections in 
        Hong Kong was higher than ever before;
Whereas the number of candidates running for District Board positions is higher 
        than in any previous election in Hong Kong's history;
Whereas Hong Kong has recently taken bold strides to increase democracy and 
        expand the rule of law;
Whereas the rule of law is essential to the effective functioning of a market 
        economy;
Whereas Hong Kong currently is one of the world's leading market economies;
Whereas recent electoral reforms in Hong Kong are consistent with the Joint 
        Declaration and the Basic Law for Hong Kong;
Whereas Hong Kong is an important friend and trading partner of the United 
        States;
Whereas the people of the United States and Hong Kong have long maintained 
        close, friendly ties;
Whereas the stability of Hong Kong and the continuance of its special status are 
        of great importance to the United States;
Whereas, to be effective, the rule of law must be firmly based upon the consent 
        of those it governs; and
Whereas one of the most effective methods to protect against corruption is to 
        ensure a government that is accountable to those it governs: Now, 
        therefore be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate:
            (1) Free and fair elections are an essential component of a 
        stable, democratic government in Hong Kong that is free from 
        corruption.
            (2) The people of Hong Kong should be congratulated for the 
        recent success of the District Board elections and for the 
        progress of democratic reforms that support the rule of law in 
        Hong Kong.
            (3) The United States should make every effort to support 
        the progress of democratic reforms in Hong Kong and to 
        encourage all parties to protect these gains as the 1997 
        transition approaches.
                                 <all>
```
fl^» t-. 

fl fl 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 5 

77 WEST JACKSO N BOULEVARD 

CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590 

I5 20f REPLY TO TH E ATTENTION O F 

WN-16J 

Susan Sylvester, Director 

Bureau of Water Quality 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

101 South Webster Street 

Post Office Box 7921 

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 

Dear Mrs. Sylvester: 

This letter provides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's final determination on your 

September 25, 2012 request to extend the date by which Wisconsin can certify EPA's 2013 

Vessel General Permit (VGP) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) § 401. Under the CWA and 

§ 401 certification regulations, a period of up to one year may be granted for a State to respond to 

a request for certification if unusual circumstances exist. 

EPA believes that requirements under State law do represent unusual circumstances when they 

mandate specific actions that must be conducted before certification can be provided. Your letter 

indicated a schedule for a contested case hearing that would extend through January 18, 2013. 

EPA is unable to grant an extension to that date as EPA expects to issue the VGP in 

November 2012 to comply with a settlement agreement. However, EPA grants an extension to 

November 30, 2012 which would allow for summary judgment to be provided under the 

contested case schedule. 

If by November 30, 2012, Wisconsin has not acted upon the certification request, Wisconsin will 

have waived its right to certify according to CWA § 401(a)(1) and EPA will issue the permit for 

discharges to Wisconsin waters (40 C.F.R. § 124.53). I encourage Wisconsin to certify the VGP 

at the earliest date possible. 

Thank you for your cooperation on this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me or 

your staff may contact Sean Ramach at (312) 886-5284. 

Sincerely, 

Tinka G. Hyde 

Director, Water Division 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (50% Postconsumer)