alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: "Rick Moore" <rmoore@aal-inc.com> 

 

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

Date: 07/09/2010 03:34 PM 

 

Subjec Information Collection Request for the Secondary Aluminum 

t: Production Source Category 

 

Dear Ms. Boyd:

We have been asked to provide analytical support in the way of sample analysis and data 

report preparation in response to the “Information Collection Request for the Secondary 

Aluminum Production Source Category”.

On review of the May 27, 2010 information request letter and the Enclosure 1, I have a 

few questions that need your clarification pertaining to the baghouse dust analysis portion 

of this request:

1. Do you have an Excel report format for the baghouse dust data?

2. In Table 2.2 a) is EPA Method 6020 (ICP/MS) the only method

allowed for Hg analysis? While Hg can be analyzed by ICP/MS it is not the generally 

preferred method.

b) Is the sample preparation method EPA Method 3051 (Microwave

Digestion) the only sample preparation method allowed or would other sample 

preparation methods be permitted (for example those that use a Parr bomb) or other 

digestion techniques?

3. Concerning Hexavalent Cr analysis is EPA Method 218.6 the only acceptable method 

for this analysis? I have concerns that the method has been developed for aqueous 

matrices and that chlorides and

 other metals species can cause analytical problems for this ion

chromatographic method. What is the desired Reporting Limit in the

solid material?

Your prompt assistance with these questions would be appreciated. If you need to 

discuss them further I will be available either by phone or by email at the address below.

Thank you,

Rick Moore

President

American Analytical Laboratories, Inc.

840 South Main Street

Akron OH 44311

rmoore@aal-inc.com

ph: 330-535-1300

fax: 330-535-7246
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         1,451,508
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    363,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                      16,000
<INVENTORY>                                    2,536,667
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,715,372
<PP&E>                                         4,149,975
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,810,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,598,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            200,776
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                           6,146
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,914,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,598,875
<SALES>                                        2,604,585
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,604,585
<CGS>                                            691,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    691,923
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,865,945
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 6,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   46,717
<INCOME-TAX>                                      18,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               28,717
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      28,717
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.00



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Owl Rock Capital Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

 

1) the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as applicable of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

2) the information contained in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Date: February 27, 2019 |   | By:    | /s/ Craig W. Packer |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|                    |   |   | Craig W. Packer          |
|                    |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  |
**Officer’s Certificate**

 

 

Pursuant to the requirements ofthe applicable Servicing Agreement for the transactions listed on Schedule Ihereto, for which Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation, as Master Servicer, and Berkeley Point Capital LLC, as Servicer,the undersigned, Ellen D. Miller, as Managing Director and Head of Servicing ofBerkeley Point Capital LLC, hereby certifies subject to any limitations listedon Schedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, solely in her capacity as anofficer and not in her individual capacity, as follows:

 

1. A review of the activitiesof the Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “ReportingPeriod”) and of its performance under the Agreement has been made undermy supervision; and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 22nd day of February, 2017.

 

 

Berkeley Point Capital LLC

 

 

/s/ Ellen D. Miller

Ellen D. Miller

Managing Director, Head ofServicing

**Schedule I**

 

 

Multifamily Pass-ThroughCertificates, Berkeley Point Capital LLC as ***Sub-Servicer***:

 

Series 2009-K4

Series 2010-K5

Series 2011-K10

Series 2011-K12

Series 2012-K709

Series 2012-KF01

Series 2013-K24

Series 2013-KF02

Series 2014-KF03

Series 2014-K503

Series 2014-KF06

Series 2015-KF07

Series 2015-KF08

Series 2015-KF09

Series 2015-KF10

Series 2015-KF12

Series 2016-KF13

Series 2016-KF16

Series 2016-KSW1

Series 2016-KF18

Series 2016-KF26

 

 

Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC as ***Primary Servicer***:

 

COMM 2014-CCRE17 MortgageTrust

COMM 2014-CCRE19 MortgageTrust

GS Mortgage Securities Trust2014-GC24

COMM 2014-UBS4 Mortgage Trust

COMM 2015-CCRE23 MortgageTrust

COMM 2015-CCRE27 MortgageTrust

GS Mortgage Securities Trust2015-GC30

COMM 2015-HULA

COMM 2015-LC19 Mortgage Trust

COMM 2015-LC21 Mortgage Trust

GS Mortgage Securities Trust2015-GS1

CCRESG 2016 HEAT MortgageTrust

Citigroup 2016-C3 MortgageTrust

CFCRE 2016-C7 Mortgage Trust
P
. 04/ 05 GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ENV I RONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 

### PUERTO RICO 

## VERDE Office of the Executivo Director

April 29, 2010
Mrs. Judith Bnck Regiona!Adrninistrator US Envirorunentl! Prottttion Agency 290 Broadway, 26'" Floor New York, NY 10007-1866 

### RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE THE HORMIGAS GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION SITE IN CAGUAS, PUERTO RICO ON THE NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST Dear Mrs
. Enck: After reviewing all ti, e available infonnation reg.rding the Honnigas Groundwater Contamination Site located in the Municipality of Cagwts, the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB), on behalf of the Govemor of Puerto Rico, is concurring with the decision made by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to include this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). Our 

### concurrence in 

### this case is 

### made to 

### ensure an appropriate action to protect the surrounding population and na!U1-.! resources from the risk posed 

### by this site, due to 

### the contamination oftlle groundwater. 

### By including 

### this site on the NPL, the USEPA 

### will have the lead in the investigation and remediation of the gtoundwater in this area, as 

### well as implementing a sttong community involvement plan. PREQB is committed to jointly porticip.te in this long-term process for the prese(Vation of our communities' health and welfare
. Our goal is to assist the USEPA in their effort to define, contain, and dean up the contamination by implementing remedial actions in wruch the treatment permanently and significantly reduces 

### the volume, TOxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances , pollutants, and contaminants as defined in Section 121 of CERCLA, as amended 

### by SARA.
Cn..z A . MalO$ EnvlfQnmtntsl Agencle3 8ldg.. San**o= ~** **ndlJ:;lri~ 1**  P:irtc 1375 Ponca de Le6n Me" SIn Juan. PR OCl92S·26Q<t P
.O
. Ba:t 11488. S;)n Juan, PR 00910 Tel. 787·767·8181 Fax 187.76S-01S0 P. 04 r1AY -13-2010 09: 57f1AY -13-21211121 1121: 1121 l'R£QB NPl. COOC\lnenee 3/2.9/2010 Horrnigu Sill! rase 2

If you 

### need furcher 

### .ssis
..nce, please 

### contact Mr Genara Toues of my 

### Superfund s .. ff at (787) 766-2823. Sincerely yours,

C ECIid Y. Vilkps-Hctu!qut:2, PRP.QB**GC"~fO rorr~**  u6n, PRP.QB

TOTAL P.05 MAY - 13- 201121 1219:57 P.05
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7541
NICHOLAS J. QUEEN, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus
EDWARD B RENNAN; JOSEPH J. CURRAN, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CA-95-859-WMN) Submitted: February 6, 1996 Decided: February 16, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nicholas J. Queen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kathryn L. Grill, SMITH,SOMERVILLE & CASE, Baltimore, Maryland; Jefferson McClure Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Queen v. Brennan , No. CA-95-859-WMN (D. Md. Aug. 22, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,423
<SECURITIES>                                    43,720
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,568
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,791
<INVENTORY>                                      1,883
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,661
<PP&E>                                          16,676
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,485
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,933
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,913
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,906
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,933
<SALES>                                         31,827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,827
<CGS>                                            7,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,001
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,363
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,638
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .34
        

</TABLE>
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors andshareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the"Company"), a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loanoutsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial taxservice provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and forthe year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii)and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Companyperformed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activitiesperformed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Ourprocedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors thatmay have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the periodcovered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which theCompany served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas TX 75201-2997*

*T: 214-746-6500, F:214-712-6660,*www.pwc.com
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5231]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. [thinsp]225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board 
has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and 
permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these 
activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than March 26, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior 
Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-
1521:
    1. Bryn Mawr Bank Corporation, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania; to retain 
ownership of The Bryn Mawr Trust Company of Delaware, Wilmington, 
Delaware, and thereby engage in operating a nondepository trust 
company, pursuant to section 225.28(b)(5) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 8, 2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-5231 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-7541

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT J. MERRITT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR95-167-S, CA-98-321-S, CA-97-3672-S)

Submitted: March 9, 2000 Decided: March 15, 2000

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert J. Merritt, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen O’Connell Gavin,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* To the extent Merritt seeks to appeal the district court’s

denial of his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), entered on March 16, 1999, we find that such appeal also is untimely.

2

PER CURIAM:

Robert J. Merritt seeks to appeal the district court’s final

sentencing judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Merritt’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district

court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App.

P. 4(b)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and

jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 30, 1995. Merritt’s notice of appeal was filed on October 25,

1999. Because Merritt failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.* We deny Merritt’s motion for transcript at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02691

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 02691\02691_Checklist_101910_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02691\02691_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02691\02691_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02691\02691_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02691\02691_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02691\02691_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02691\02691_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02691\02691_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02691\02691_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

02691\Certification Statement_ 02691.pdf Plant certification statement

02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 6.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A5-2 MAP-1.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A5-2 MAP-2.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A5-2 Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_D3-1 Block Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1158 KA 14-00258 PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TAKIEME JACKSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (EVAN HANNAY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony F. Aloi, J.), rendered January 6, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree (four counts).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of four counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [b]), defendant contends only that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. We reject that contention. We note, however, that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted on January 6, 2013, and it must therefore be amended to reflect that he was convicted on January 6, 2014 ( see People v Saxton , 32 AD3d 1286, 1286-1287).

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court