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

Tong, Stanley

From: Bruce Springsteen <BSprings@placer.ca.gov>

Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:22 AM

To: Tong, Stanley

Cc: John Finnell; Todd Nishikawa; Molly J Johnson

Subject: RE: PCAPCD Neg Decs - Q: Kracon Aircraft

Stan: 

We visited Kracon yesterday. They do, and plan to continue to, paint aircraft. Well-kept records showed for calendar 

year 2013: 

Total VOC emissions: 440.5 lb 

Total gallons: coatings -- 66 gal; stripper -- 229 gal 

Bruce 

From: Tong, Stanley [mailto:Tong.Stanley@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 9:48 AM 

To: Bruce Springsteen 

Subject: PCAPCD Neg Decs - Q: Kracon Aircraft 

Bruce, 

I’m spot checking the neg decs. 

I didn’t see this company in CARB’s emissions database for PCAPCD: 

Kracon Aircraft Refinishing 1406 Flightline Dr. Lincoln, CA 

http://www.kracon.com/our.htm 

If they still paint aircraft, do they emit >25 tpy? 

Thanks. 

Stan 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Stanley Tong 

US EPA Region IX 

Air Division - Rules Office (AIR 4) 

75 Hawthorne St. 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

tong.stanley@epa.gov

415 947 4122 (w) 

415 947 3579 (f)
U.S. National Advisory Committee (NAC)

2012-2014 Membership Roster

BRIAN HOUSEAL, CHAIR

Executive Director

Adirondack Council

Elizabethtown, New York

Jorge Chapa, Ph.D.

Professor

Institute of Government and Public Affairs

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Urbana, Illinois 

Mary Carter

Executive Director

Women’s Intercultural Center

Anthony, New Mexico 

Abbas Ghassemi, Ph.D.

Executive Director

Institute for Energy and Environment

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, New Mexico

Mary L. Klein

President and CEO

NatureServe

Arlington, Virginia 

Carolyn L. Green

Manager Partner

EnerGreen Capital Management, LLC

Radnor, Pennsylvania 

Michael J. Robinson

Vice President

Sustainability and Global Regulatory Affairs

General Motors Company

Detroit, Michigan 

Ivonne Santiago, Ph.D.

Professor

College of Engineering

University of Texas at El Paso

El Paso, Texas 

Timothy A. Bent

Director

Environmental Affairs

Bridgestone America

Nashville, Tennessee

Michael K. Dorsey, Ph.D.

Visiting Professor 

College of the Environment

Wesleyan University

Middletown, Connecticut

Raymond Lozano

Director

Racial Justice and Cultural Collaboration

New Detroit

Detroit, Michigan 

David L. Markell, J.D.

Steven M. Goldstein Professor

College of Law

Florida State University

Tallahassee, Florida 

Cecilia R. Martinez, Ph.D. 

Director

Center for Energy and Environmental Policy

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Anna Romero-Lizana

Director

International Business Development

World Trade Center

St. Louis, Missouri 

Gail Small

Executive Director

Native Action

Lame Deer, Montana
# C_2006144EN.01000101.xml

| 20.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 144/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 144/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 June 2006

(2006/C 144/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2591 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 145,43 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4547 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68175 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2809 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5573 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 94,43 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8555 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5750 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,515 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 275,47 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0640 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,5248 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,64 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 38,130 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,0215 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7060 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4130 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7783 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0426 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0114 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 210,31 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,7196 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,0751 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2600 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 810,36 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,619 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 67,085 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,0450 |
| THB | Thai baht | 48,435 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2591

JPY

Japanese yen

145,43

DKK

Danish krone

7,4547

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68175

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2809

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5573

ISK

Iceland króna

94,43

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8555

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5750

CZK

Czech koruna

28,515

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

275,47

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0640

RON

Romanian leu

3,5248

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,64

SKK

Slovak koruna

38,130

TRY

Turkish lira

2,0215

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7060

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4130

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7783

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0426

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0114

KRW

South Korean won

1 210,31

ZAR

South African rand

8,7196

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,0751

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2600

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 810,36

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,619

PHP

Philippine peso

67,085

RUB

Russian rouble

34,0450

THB

Thai baht

48,435

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 
33-57868 and No. 33-60883 on Form S-3 and No. 33-73020 on Form S-8 of Tide West 
Oil Company, of our report dated February 26, 1996 (which report expresses an 
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to the 1993 
change in the method of accounting for income taxes) appearing in this Annual 
Report on Form 10-K of Tide West Oil Company for the year ended December 31, 
1995.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 25,1996
Docket Number FAA-2013-0216

 Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

Transport Canada Gordanko Jeremic

(613) 952-4379

11 /5/12 No Objections

Bombardier

Aerospace

Chester Liburski

855-5001 Ext28482

11 /5/12 No Objections

Regional Airline

Association

Scott Foose

202-367-1170

Foose@raa.org

11 /5/12 No Objections
###### Editorial Note on Subpart R of Part 405

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart R of part 405 appear at 79 FR 55031, Aug. 22, 2014.

#### § 405.1851 Conduct of Board hearing.

The Board hearing shall be open to the parties, to representatives of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and to such other persons as the Board deems necessary and proper. The Board shall inquire fully into all of the matters at issue and shall receive into evidence the testimony of witnesses and any documents which are relevant and material to such matters. If the Board believes that there is relevant and material evidence available which has not been presented at the hearing, it may at any time prior to the issuing of the notice of the decision, reconvene the hearing for the receipt of such evidence. The order in which the evidence and the allegations shall be presented and the conduct of the hearing shall be at the discretion of the Board.

[39 FR 34515, Sept. 26, 1974, as amended at 85 FR 59019, Sept. 18, 2020]
§ 415.152 Definitions. As used in this subpart— *Approved graduate medical education (GME) program* means one of the following: ( 1 ) A residency program approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, by the American Osteopathic Association, by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association, or by the Council on Podiatric Medical Education of the American Podiatric Medical Association.
( 2 ) A program otherwise recognized as an “approved medical residency program” under § 413.75(b) of this chapter.
*Direct medical and surgical services* means services to individual beneficiaries that are either personally furnished by a physician or furnished by a resident under the supervision of a physician in a teaching hospital making the cost election described in §§ 415.160 through 415.162.
*Nonprovider setting* means a setting other than a hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health agency, or comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility in which residents furnish services. These include, but are not limited to, family practice or multispecialty clinics and physician offices.
*Resident* means one of the following: ( 1 ) An individual who participates in an approved GME program, including programs in osteopathy, dentistry, and podiatry.
( 2 ) A physician who is not in an approved GME program, but who is authorized to practice only in a hospital, for example, individuals with temporary or restricted licenses, or unlicensed graduates of foreign medical schools. For purposes of this subpart, the term *resident* is synonymous with the terms *intern* and *fellow.*
*Teaching hospital* means a hospital engaged in an approved GME residency program in medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, or podiatry.
*Teaching physician* means a physician (other than another resident) who involves residents in the care of his or her patients.
*Teaching setting* means any provider, hospital-based provider, or nonprovider settings in which Medicare payment for the services of residents is made under the direct GME payment provisions of §§ 413.75 through 413.83, or on a reasonable-cost basis under the provisions of § 409.26 or § 409.40(f) for resident services furnished in skilled nursing facilities or home health agencies, respectively.
[60 FR 63178, Dec. 8, 1995, as amended at 61 FR 59554, Nov. 22, 1996; 63 FR 26359, May 12, 1998; 70 FR 47490, Aug. 12, 2005; 74 FR 44001, Aug. 27, 2009; 75 FR 50418, Aug. 16, 2010]
#### Melvin KOENIG, Appellant, v. WATSCO, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 74-733.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 23, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ABDU RIVERA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 398 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ABDU RIVERA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 399 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ABDU RIVERA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 400 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v. :

:

:

:

:

: No. 401 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court[ 398 EAL 2020, 399 EAL 2020, 400 EAL 2020, 401 EAL 2020 and 402 EAL 2020 ]

- 2

ABDU RIVERA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ABDU RIVERA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 402 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of April, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and

the Motion for Appointment of New Counsel to File Direct Appeal from Superior Court

Decision are DENIED

.
January 22, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals MARK DOUGLAS ROBISON , Appellant NO. 14 - 13 - 00682 - CR NO. 14 - 13 - 00683 - CR V. NO. 14 - 13 - 00684 - CR THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court order s the judgment AFFIRMED . We further order appellant to pay all costs expended in the appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# C_2006067EN.01003601.xml

| 18.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/36

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4112 — Cerberus/Goldman Sachs/Wittur)

(2006/C 67/18)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 February 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4112. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4112. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
### Stratigraphy and uranium content of the Chattanooga shale in northeastern Alabama, northwestern Georgia, and eastern Tennessee

By: Lynn Glover

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1087E

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (2473 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 14**                            (173 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 15**                            (210 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 16**                            (310 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 17**                            (459 pdf)                        
  - **Plate 18**                            (365 pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Thomas TEW, on behalf of himself and all other taxpayers of Dade County, Florida, Appellant, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-1666.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 4, 1980.

Tew, Critchlow, Sonberg, Traum & Fried-bauer and Thomas Tew, Miami, for appellant.

Frank A. Howard, Jr. and Madelyn P. Schere, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Tew, suing solely in his capacity as an ad valorem taxpayer, filed a complaint challenging the use of Dade County School Board funds for the public education of recently arrived “refugee” children. Because no constitutional or statutory provision expressly forbids such expenditures, we agree with the trial court which, in dismissing the cause with prejudice, held that the plaintiff-appellant did not have standing to maintain the action. *Rickman v. Whitehurst,*73 Fla. 152, 74 So. 205 (1917); *Paul v. Blake,*376 So.2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

Affirmed.
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 6D2 3

- 445 Lower Tribunal No. 2 1

- C F

- 755

_____________________________

S HANNON S I MS , Appellant

,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County

.

Bruc e Kyle , Judge.

Nove m ber 14, 2023

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED

.
WHITE, SMITH and MIZE , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins , Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and A licia M . Winterkorn , Assistant Attorne y General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
# C_2006048EN.01002701.xml

| 25.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 — Greencore Group plc v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-135/02) (1)

1

(Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant - Failure then refusal of the Commission to pay interest on the sum refunded - Action for annulment - Principle of legal certainty)

(2006/C 48/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Greencore Group plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially K. Wiedner, subsequently by P. Oliver and A. Nijenhuis, and finally by A. Nijenhuis and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Application for

annulment of the decision of 11 February 2002 by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant's request for default interest to be paid to its subsidiary Irish Sugar plc on the principal sum repaid to the latter to comply with a judgment of the Court of First Instance

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Annuls the decision of 11 February 2002, by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant's request for default interest to be paid to its subsidiary Irish Sugar plc on the principal sum repaid to the latter to comply with a judgment of the Court of First Instance; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Annuls the decision of 11 February 2002, by which the Commission refused to grant the applicant's request for default interest to be paid to its subsidiary Irish Sugar plc on the principal sum repaid to the latter to comply with a judgment of the Court of First Instance;

| 2) | Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 169 of 13. 07. 2002.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, each of
the undersigned officer(s) of Accelr8 Technology Corporation, a Colorado
corporation (the "Corporation"), does hereby certify, to such officer's
knowledge, that:


The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended April 30, 2008 (the
"Form 10-QSB") of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

Dated: June 16, 2008


/s/  Thomas V. Geimer
---------------------
Thomas V. Geimer,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2006074EN.01001002.xml

| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/10

---

Action brought on 1 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-54/06)

(2006/C 74/19)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Hottiaux and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time for transposing the directive expired on 21 July 2004. Belgium still has not adopted all the measures which come within the powers of the Flemish Region and of the Federal Government, or, in any event, has not informed the Commission of them.

---

(1)  OJ L 197 of 21.07.2001, p. 30.

1

---
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

▲ ★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/02

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 02 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL

★

■

■

■ ■

★

■

■

■

■

★

●

●

●

●

★

● ●

●

●