alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In Reply AIR-3Refer To: SAC 12-0 1

Shane Young

Facility Manager

Sierra Pacific Industries-Anderson Division

19758 Riverside Avenue

Anderson. CA 96007

Subject: Final Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for Sierra Pacific IndustriesAnderson Division, PSD Permit No. SAC 12-01

Dear Mr. Young:

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 is hereby issuing and providing

you with notice of our final permit decision granting, in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), as

amended (42 U.S.C 7401 et seq.), a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the Sierra

Pacific Industries-Anderson Division (SPI or SPI-Anderson) facility. The permit authorizes theconstruction and operation of a new 31 megawatt biomass and natural gas-fired cogeneration unit andauxiliary equipment at the SPI-Anderson facility in Anderson, California.

EPA Region 9 previously issued a decision on this permit application on February 19, 2013. After

petitions for review ofthat decision were filed with EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB or

Board), the EAB remanded the permit to EPA Region 9 in part and directed EPA Region 9 to reopen the

permit proceedings to hold a public hearing, issue a final permit decision and respond to any new

comments received during the hearing. See In re Sierra Pactjic Industries (Anderson Processing

Facility), PSD Appeal Nos. 13-01 to 13-04, slip op. at 67 (EAB July 18, 2013).

We have since revised the PSD permit by including GHG emission limits and related requirements. We

have also taken this opportunity to revise certain other conditions (primarily related to monitoring,

performance testing, and recordkeeping) in the PSD permit to address minor technical issues we

identified since February 2013. On November 8, 2013, we published notifications regarding the

opportunity for public comment and we held a public hearing on December 10, 2013. We accepted

public comments on the proposed PSD permit from November 8, 2013 until January 10, 2014.

During the public comment period, EPA received written and oral comments regarding the proposed

PSD permitting action for the project. EPA has carefully reviewed each of the comments submitted and,

after consideration ofthe expressed views of all commenters, the pertinent Federal statutes and

regulations, and additional material relevant to the application and contained in our Administrative

Record, EPA has made a decision in accordance with 40 CFR 52.21 to issue a final PSD permit to SPI.

Printed on Recycled Paper
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Shaheerab Kelly of the s Region 9Air Permits Office at (415) 947-4156.

Director, Air Division

Enclosures

cc: Tony Jaegel, Sierra Pacific Industries — Anderson Division

Eric Albright, ENVIRON International Corporation

Ross Bell, Shasta County Air Quality Management District

John Waidrop, Shasta County Air Quality Management DistrictRobert Fletcher, California Air Resources Board

2
#### Ronnie Greenfield et al., Respondents, v Philles Records, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[803 NYS2d 548]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered June 30, 2004, after a nonjury trial on the issue of damages, which, to the extent appealed from, held that, in calculating royalties to plaintiffs for sales of phonorecords, defendants (1) may not deduct foreign VAT taxes charged; (2) with respect to phonorecords sold by Bertelsmann Music Group Entertainment, may not account to plaintiffs based upon the prices reported by Bertelsmann Music Group when accounting to defendants; and (3) may not deduct packaging costs based upon what defendants are charged by their licensees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

To the extent any ambiguity might be deemed to exist as to *215the parties’ 1963 agreement regarding the calculation of taxes, the trial court properly construed it against the drafter *(Jacobson v Sassower,*66 NY2d 991, 993 [1985]) as requiring that taxes not be taken into consideration when determining, for the purpose of computing royalties due plaintiffs under the agreement, the net retail price for replacement records. Indeed, no provision of the agreement specifically authorizes a reduction in the subject net price in consideration of taxes levied in connection with record sales. Nor did the court err in holding that plaintiffs’ estimates of actual packaging costs and retail list prices were to be used in computing the net retail replacement record cost, since those estimates were supported by the most probative and persuasive evidence of actual costs and prices. Although defendants contend that the net retail list price calculation should be performed using the packaging and price figures recited in their agreements with third parties, plaintiffs are not bound by those agreements, and the figures recited in those agreements, which were negotiated in a complex transactional context, were not shown to accurately reflect the actual costs and prices at issue.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Gehl
Company's consolidated balance sheet at September 26, 1998 and consolidated
statements of income for the nine month period ended September 26, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                            4925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    86867
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                      28630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                125881
<PP&E>                                           74888
<DEPRECIATION>                                   40787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  183322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            53738
<BONDS>                                          33309<F2>
<COMMON>                                           640
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       90235
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    183322
<SALES>                                         199971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                199971
<CGS>                                           145111
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   145111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3352
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  18499 
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6567
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              11932
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     11932
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.88<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.79
<FN>
<F1>Company presents receivables on a net basis in compliance with Article 10
of Regulation S-X.
<F2>Includes all non-current portion of debt obligations.
<F3>The EPS under the "EPS-Primary" tag represents Basic Earnings Per Share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 3.2
                                                                     -----------



                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                                  DYNAGEN, INC.

         It is hereby certified that:

         1. The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the "Corporation")
is DynaGen, Inc.

         2. The Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is
hereby amended by deleting the first paragraph of Paragraph 4 thereunder and
inserting in its place the following paragraph:

                           4. The total number of shares of stock which the
                  corporation shall have authority to issue is 135,000,000
                  shares, consisting of 125,000,000 shares of common stock,
                  having a par value of $0.01 per share (the "Common Stock"),
                  and 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, having a par value
                  of $0.01 per share (the "Preferred Stock").

         3. The amendment to the Restated Certificate of Incorporation herein
certified has been duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, DynaGen, Inc. has caused this certificate to be
signed by C. Robert Cusick, its President, thereto duly authorized, this 31st
day of May, 2000.


                                                 DYNAGEN, INC.


                                                 By: /s/ C. Robert Cusick
                                                     --------------------
                                                     C. Robert Cusick
                                                     President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         493,384
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  219,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (54,364)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      18,064,300
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,293,619)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,553,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          459,614
<BONDS>                                     10,020,204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,073,198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,553,016
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,031,874
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,757,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             176,735
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 90,521
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             90,521
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    90,521
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
# T HE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 3RD DISTRICT COURT OF ANDERSON CO UNTY, GREETING:
Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 14th
day of October, 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

BRENDA BREWER, DEANN A M EADOR, PENNY ADAMS

AND SABRA CURRY , Appellant s

NO. 12

- 14

- 00155

- CV; Trial Court No. 3

- 41083

Opinion by Greg Neeley, Justice.

LOWE’ S HOME CENTERS

, INC., Appellee

was determin ed; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is th erefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that all costs of this appeal are hereby adjudged against the

A ppellant s
, BRENDA BREWER, DEANN A MEAD OR, PENNY ADAMS AND SABRA CURRY, for which executi on may issue, and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it du ly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 28 th day of Dece mber, 2015.

PAM ESTES , CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
www.gpo.gov

### §477. Incorporation of Indian tribes; charter; ratification by election

The Secretary of the Interior may, upon petition by any tribe, issue a charter of incorporation to such tribe: *Provided*, That such charter shall not become operative until ratified by the governing body of such tribe. Such charter may convey to the incorporated tribe the power to purchase, take by gift, or bequest, or otherwise, own, hold, manage, operate, and dispose of property of every description, real and personal, including the power to purchase restricted Indian lands and to issue in exchange therefor interests in corporate property, and such further powers as may be incidental to the conduct of corporate business, not inconsistent with law; but no authority shall be granted to sell, mortgage, or lease for a period exceeding twenty-five years any trust or restricted lands included in the limits of the reservation. Any charter so issued shall not be revoked or surrendered except by Act of Congress.

(June 18, 1934, ch. 576, §17, 48 Stat. 988; Pub. L. 101–301, §3(c), May 24, 1990, 104 Stat. 207.)

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–301 substituted “by any tribe” for “by at least one-third of the adult Indians”, “by the governing body of such tribe” for “at a special election by a majority vote of the adult Indians living on the reservation”, and “twenty-five years any trust or restricted lands” for “ten years any of the land”.

#### Cross References

Right-of-way grant, consent of tribal officials, see section 324 of this title.

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 396b, 473, 473a, 478–1, 713b, 2108 of this title.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 23

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with

respect to the right to life.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. VOLKMER introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States with respect to the right to life.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

8 States:
2

HJ 23 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. With respect to the right to life, the

3 word ‘person’ as used in this article and in the fifth and

4 fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of

5 the United States applies to all human beings irrespective

6 of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, in7 cluding their unborn offspring at every state of their bio8 logical development.

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of

10 life by any person: Provided, however, That nothing in this

11 article shall prohibit a law permitting only those medical

12 procedures required to prevent the death of the mother.

13 ‘‘SECTION 3. The Congress and the several States

14 shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate

15 legislation.

16 ‘‘SECTION 4. This article shall be inoperative unless

17 it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Con18 stitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

19 States, within ten years of the date of its submission to

20 the States by the Congress.’’.

Æ
39749.

#### F. N. ROBERTS CORPORATION v. TOM O’RYAN ADVERTISING COMPANY.

Decided September 24, 1962.

*Jack K. Bohler,*for plaintiff in error.

*Gerstein & Carter, Edwin F. Hunt,*contra.

Eberhardt, Judge.

Where the plaintiff sues on an unambiguous, written contract and makes out a prima facie case on the contract and the amount of damages due, and where the defendant’s defense is based solely on alleged parol representations made by plaintiff’s salesman prior to the time the contract was signed and the defendant admitted signing the contract and was aware of the contract provisions, *Held:*

1. The parol evidence offered by defendant seeking to vary the terms of the contract was properly excluded. *'Code*§ 38-501.

2. Special ground 4 of the amended motion for new trial is not argued and is therefore considered abandoned. *Code*§ 6-1308.

3. A verdict was properly directed for the plaintiff. *Code Ann.*§ 110-104.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Carlisle, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          65,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,403,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,731,000
<PP&E>                                       2,766,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,665,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,070,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,644,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0 
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,610,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,495,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,070,000
<SALES>                                      6,269,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,269,000
<CGS>                                        6,044,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,044,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             199,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,516,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,516,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,516,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.77)
        

</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- ) ) The Boeing Company ) ) Under Contract No. DAAH23-03-D-O 162 ) APPEARANCE FORTHE APPELLANT:

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 58976

David Z. Bodenheimer, Esq.

Crowell & Moring LLP Washington, DC Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney LTC Gregg A. Engler, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL The dispute which is the subject ofthe appeal having been settled, the appeal is hereby dismissed with prejudice subject to reinstatement only in the event the settlement is not consummated. Any request to reinstate the subject appeal must be filed within 90 days ofthe date ofthis Order. Dated: 9 December 2014

Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals I certify that the foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals in ASBCA No. 58976, Appeal ofThe Boeing Company, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, Armed Services Board ofContract Appeals
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrew M. Pratt, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 778]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), entered October 6, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to GPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence following his conviction of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree, without a hearing.

In satisfaction of a multiple-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced to a prison term of seven years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. On appeal, this Court affirmed defendant’s conviction (303 AD2d 843 [2003], *lv denied*99 NY2d 657 [2003]). Subsequently, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside his sentence, arguing that the imposition of a period of postrelease supervision was unauthorized and *illegal*because the crime to which he pleaded guilty was committed prior to September 1, 1998, the effective date of Penal Law § 70.45. County Court denied the motion without a hearing, prompting this appeal. *771Initially, given defendant’s opportunity to challenge the legality of his sentence on his direct appeal and the availability of the facts and information relevant to this issue at that time, County Court’s denial of defendant’s motion was not improper (see *People v O’Hanlon,*13 AD3d 718, 719 [2004]). Additionally, we discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of defendant’s motion without a hearing. Defendant failed to submit any evidence other than his own affidavit in support of his claim that the conduct to which he pleaded guilty occurred prior to September 1, 1998, rather than during “Summer, 1998”—which could include dates subsequent to September 1, 1998—as alleged in the indictment. More importantly, the circumstances surrounding the case, as evidenced in the People’s submissions, indicate that such conduct did indeed occur in September 1998 *(see*CPL 440.30 [4] [d]; *People v Sayles,*17 AD3d 924, 924-925 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 794 [2005]).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.