alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

105) ll-K-(B)-94 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

p.i 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:51 AM Sheet 105 of 325 
P.2 

TTyT. ^ 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS, INC. A-83-27 

II-K-(B)-94 

November 4, 1982 

Mr. Robert Short 

Economic Analysis Branch 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Drop-12 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

SUBJECT: Industrial Boiler.NSPS: SO- Cost Effective Ratios 

EPA Contract No. 68-02-2856 

Dear Robertr 

Enclosed are IFCAM results for alternative SO- regulatory options. 

Table 1 includes cost and emission impacts and CE ratios that were 

derived from the ninth round results of August, 1981. Table 2 shows 

coal market shares for the ninth round, and the number of new boilers 

for 1984-88 from current IFCAM outputs. The results in Table 1 incorporate a rough adjustment to the actual ninth round results to reflect 

a change in the boiler size distribution installed in IFCAM in November, 

1981. 

These tables were telecopied to you on November 3, 1982. Only one 

change was made in Table lr the "S02 baseline annualized costs" in the 

sixth column was changed to "SO. SIP annualized costs." 

If you have any questions, please give me a call. 

Respectfully yours, 

Karl F. Held 

KFHrmk 

Enclosure 

cc: Al Wehe 
TABLE 1 

INDUSTRIAL BOILER NSPS 

S02 NATIONAL EMISSION AND COST IMPACTS IN 1988 FOR SO ALTERNATIVE EMISSION REGULATION 1/ 

Boiler 

Sizes 

(MMBtu/hr) 

10-50 

50-100 

100-250 

>250 

TOTAL 

2/ SO SIP ' 

Emissions 

(10 TPY) 

99 

102 

304 

104 

609 

Emission 

90/50 

FGD 

96 

81 

75 

37 

Reductions 

1.2 

Coal 

73 

62 

54 

-

(Percent) 

2.5.,- --

Coal 

35 

28 

26 

-

SO SIP2'' 

Annualized 

-- Costs 

(10 1982 $) 

1,484 

1,400 

2,533 

1,622 

7,039 

National 

Impacts 

90/50 

FGD 

70 

85 

158 

10 

Control Costs 

(10 1982 $) 

1.2 2.5 

Coal Coal 

48 

58 

119 

-

3 

8 

27 

-

National Cost/Ton 

(1982 $/TPY) 

90/50 1.2 

FGD Coal 

740 660 

1030 920 

690 730 

260 

Removed 

2.5 

Coal 

90 

280 

340 

-

1/ Results based on ninth round IFCAM model runs, dated August 17, 1981. More recent IFCAM outputs, which incorporate 

changes in some of the model's assumptions, are not available for S0_ emission regulations. Only IFCAM runs for 

PM alternative regulations have been conducted since August, 1981. 

2/ SO SIP emissions and SO SIP annualized costs are taken from IFCAM model runs where the particular matter 

NSPS is 0.05 lbs/MMBtu for all boilers >10 MMBtu/hr. 
- I 

TABLE 2 

COAL MARKET SHARE OF INDUSTRIAL BOILER FOSSIL FUEL USE IN 1988 

Boiler Size 

(MMBtu/hr) 

10-50 

50-100 

100-250 

>250 

TOTAL 

SO,, Alternate 

S0o SIP 90/50 

61% 13% 

65% 

93% 

79% 

45% 

76% 

78% 

Emission Regul 

FGD 1.2 Coal 

37% 

48% 

77% 

79% 

at ion 

2.5 Coal 

56% 

64% 

93% 

80% 

Total 

of New 

1984 

1, 

Number 

Boilers 

-1988 

0 

584 

468 

145 

197
Order filed, September 16, 2022.

In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 22

- 00413

- CR NO. 14

- 22

- 0041 4

- CR NO. 14

- 22

- 0041 5

- CR

____________ JACOB DAVIDSON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 337th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 173198 6 , 17319 8 7, 17 31988

ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due July 18, 2022

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On August 15, 2022, this court granted the court reporter ’ s second request for extension of time to file the record until September 15, 2022. T o date, the record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record was not filed within the time prescribed in the previous request, we issue the following order.

We order Jill Bar tek , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order , with no fu rther extensions.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson.
```

[107th Congress Public Law 101]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ101.107]

[[Page 115 STAT. 973]]

Public Law 107-101
107th Congress

                            Joint Resolution

 
  Providing for the appointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer as a citizen 
           regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian 
         Institution. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2001 -  [S.J. Res. 26]>> 

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That, in accordance with 
section 5581 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 
43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 
in the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the 
expiration of the term of Dr. Homer Neal of Michigan on December 7, 
2001, is filled by the appointment of Patricia Q. Stonesifer of 
Washington. <<NOTE: Effective date.>> The appointment is for a term of 6 
years and shall take effect on December 8, 2001.

    Approved December 21, 2001.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S.J. Res. 26:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):
            Nov. 29, considered and passed Senate.
            Dec. 11, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 18b.50 Statements of position and trial briefs.

The presiding officer may require parties and amici curiae to file written statements of position prior to the beginning of a hearing. The presiding officer may also require the parties to submit trial briefs.
Order entered September 20, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00495

- CR

JEFFREY SCOTT HAZLET T, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 380

- 81088

- 2015



### O RDER

The reporter’s record has not been filed. The Court ORDERS the trial court to make

findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the report er’s record because

of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter’s record. If app ellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can

be filed.

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing t he written findings of fact,

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received,

whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
#### § 387.1 General.

This part establishes adjusted terms and rates for royalty payments in accordance with the provisions of 17 U.S.C. 111 and 801(b)(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D). Upon compliance with 17 U.S.C. 111 and the terms and rates of this part, a cable system shall be subject to a statutory license authorizing secondary transmissions of broadcast signals to the extent provided in 17 U.S.C. 111.
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.363 Bar to benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151. ( a ) *Claims subject to this section.* This section applies to claims received by VA on or after October 1, 1997. This includes original claims and claims to reopen or otherwise readjudicate a previous claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 or its predecessors.
( b ) *Administrative award, compromises, or settlements, or judgments that bar benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 .* If a veteran's disability or death was the basis of an administrative award under 28 U.S.C. 1346(b) made, or a settlement or compromise under 28 U.S.C. 2672 or 2677 finalized, before December 1, 1962, VA may not award benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for any period after such award, settlement, or compromise was made or became final. If a veteran's disability or death was the basis of a judgment that became final before December 1, 1962, VA may award benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 for the disability or death unless the terms of the judgment provide otherwise.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1151)
[69 FR 46434, Aug. 3, 2004]
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 11455 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

KATHRYN GRACE DIRKS

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:14

- CR

- 374

- 3

Before HIGGINSON, COSTA, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Kathryn Grace Dirks has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Dirks h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counse l’s brief s and the

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. Regardless of potentially

nonfrivolous issues that have been previously identified , it is dispositive that

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 23, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-11455 Document: 00514968578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2019No. 17

- 11455

2 the Government has declined to waive the untimeliness of the appeal. See

Unit ed States v. Pesina

- Rodriguez , 825 F.3d 787, 788 (5th Cir. 2016).

Therefore, without prejudice to a future 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion that Dirks

may file, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities her ein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-11455 Document: 00514968578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2019
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2450 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2450

  To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
                Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2007

Mrs. Tauscher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
                Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PUBLIC LAW 107-243.

    The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 
of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2010-0564 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-13-AD

Helicopter Model: Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc. (previously Utah State University); Firefly Aviation 

Helicopter Services (previously Erickson Air-Crane Co.); California Department of Forestry; Garlick 

Helicopters, Inc.; Global Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC (previously Western 

International Aviation, Inc.); International Helicopters, Inc.; Precision Helicopters, LLC; Robinson Air 

Crane, Inc.; San Joaquin Helicopters (previously Hawkins and Powers Aviation, Inc.); S.M.&T. Aircraft 

(previously US Helicopters, Inc., UNC Helicopter, Inc., Southern Aero Corporation, and Wilco 

Aviation); Smith Helicopters; Southern Helicopter, Inc.; Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc. 

(previously Jamie R. Hill and Southwest Florida Aviation); Tamarack Helicopters, Inc. (previously 

Ranger Helicopter Services, Inc.); US Helicopter, Inc. (previously UNC Helicopter, Inc.); West Coast 

Fabrication; and Williams Helicopter Corporation (previously Scott Paper Co.) Model HH-1K, TH-1F, 

TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1H, UH-1L, and UH-1P Helicopters; and Southwest 

Florida Aviation Model UH-1B (SW204 and SW204HP) and UH-1H (SW205) Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 20

The actions will take the following approximate number of work hours per helicopter to accomplish at an 

average labor rate of $85 per work hour:

 Create new component history cards or equivalent: 2 work hours;

 Maintain records: 5 work hours per year;

 24 visual inspections using a magnifying glass: 12 work hours per year;

 1⁄2 of a buffer pad inspection: 1.5 hours per year;

 1⁄4 of a fluorescent penetrant inspection: .5 work hour per year;

 4 UT inspections: 4 work hours per year; and

 Remove and replace grip set: 20 work hours per year.

Required parts will cost approximately $37,590 per set of grips. Based on these figures, we estimate the 

total cost impact of the AD is $828,300, if one set of grips is installed on the total affected fleet of 

helicopters at the end of the first year.

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()
# The Attorney General of Texas
November 29, 1978 JOHN L. HILL AttorneyGeneral
Honorable Reagan V.Brown Commissioner Texas Department ofAgriculture P.0. Box12847 Austin, Texas 787R Opinion No.H-1263 Re: Whether the Agricultural Protective Act, prior to the 1977 amendment, applied to vegetables which were not listed inthe Act. Dear Commissioner Brown: You ask whether it was the intent of the legislature to exclude from section l(b) of the Agricultural Protective Act, V.T.C.S. article 1287-3, certain agricultural commodities. You also ask if the Texas Department of Agriculture can consider an action of license revocation against a commissioned merchant when the complaint is based on a transaction involving nonlisted vegetables. Wenote initially that the transaction giving rise to your question occurred prior to the amendment of the statute and thus our response islimited to the statute as it existed prior to the 1977amendments. Allreferences are to the pre-1977 form ofthe statute. Section l(b)ofthis Act read asfollows:

‘Vegetables’ shall include agricultural commodities and mean any and all of the following enumerated commodities: asparagus, beans (string, waxor green), beets (bunched or topped), broccoli (Italian sprouting), cabbage (for sauerkraut), cantaloupes, carrots (bunched or clipped), cauliflower, celery (rough), corn (green), cucumbers (slicing), dewberries and blackberries, eggplant, endive, or escarole or chicory, garlic, kale, lettuce, melons (honey ball and honey dew), mustard greens, okra, onions, parsley, peaches, pears, peas (fresh), peppers (sweet), potatoes, potatoes (sweet), radishes, romaine, shallots, spinach, strawberries, tomatoes (fresh), turnips (bunched or topped), orrutabagas, turnip greens and watermelons. Since it is generally the case that the legislative intention of a statute is primarily found in the language of that statute, “twlhen the Legislature gives

P. 5005Honorable Reagan V.Brown - Page 2 (R-12631

a specific meaning to aword or term, that definition controls.” Childers v.State, 202S.W.Bd930,931(Tex. Crim. App. 19471. The power to revoke licenses extends onlyto violations ofthe Act. Since the Act was structured to apply only to vegetables falling within the section l(b) definition, it is our view that a license may not be cancelled for a transaction Involving nonlisted items since such a transaction would not constitute a violation ofthe Act. SUMMARY

The Agricultural Protective Act prior to the 1977amendments didnot apply tovegetables not listed inthe Act. The Department of Agriculture does not have authority to consider license revocation actions against commissioned merchants when the complaint is based on nonlisted vegetables.

Attorney General ofTexas APPROVED:

Opinion Committee

p. 5006
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 66 ) ll-K - (B ) -5 4 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:50AM Sheet 66 of 325P. 2



# \-8
II-K-(B)-5 4
INDUSTRIAL BOILE RNSP S ANALYSIS . Lette r fro

m E . Medine , EE

A t o IAW G Members . Augus t 22 , 1980 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-5 4
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES

v.

Senior Airman CHRISTIAN R. MANN

United States Air Force

ACM 38444

07 MAY 2014

Sentence adjudged 17 July 2013 by G CM convened at Tinker Air Force

Base, Oklahoma . Military Judge: Joshua E. Kastenberg (sitting alone).

Approved S entence: Bad

- conduct discharge, confinement for 8 months

, forfeiture of all pay and allowances

, reduction to E

- 1 , and a reprimand

.

Appellate Counsel for the Appellant: Major Matthew T. King

.

Appellate Counsel for the United States: Colonel Don M. Christensen and

Gerald R. Bruce, Esquire

.

Before

MARKSTEINER

, MITCHELL , and WEBER

Appellate Military Judges

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before final release

.



### PER CURIAM :

The approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, and no error

materially prejudicial to the substantial rights of the appellant occ urred. Article 66(c),

UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c); United States v. Reed , 54 M.J. 37, 41 (C.A.A.F. 2000).

Accor dingly, the approved findings and sentence are AFFIRMED.

FOR THE COURT

STEVEN LUCAS

Clerk of the Court
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41314

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO RIOS-PENA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:13-CR-131-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arturo Rios-Pena

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rios-Pena has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 18, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-41314 Document: 00512704207 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2014
No. 13-41314

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-41314 Document: 00512704207 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1893
WARREN A. TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELAINE CHAO, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA04-3273-PJM) Submitted: February 24, 2006 Decided: March 14, 2006 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Warren A. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Kristine Lynn Sendek-Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Warren A. Taylor appeals the district court’s orders granting the Secretary’s motion to dismiss Taylor’s civil action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying reconsideration thereof. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error or abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny Taylor’s pending motions and affirm both orders on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Chao , No. CA-04-3273-PJM (D. Md. July 15 and Oct. 11, 2005). 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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-41535

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE VALENTINO LOZANO RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-179-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Valentino 

Lozano Ramirez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lozano Ramirez has filed a response. 

The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of

Lozano Ramirez’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-41535 Document: 00513723335 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
No. 15-41535

2

decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. See United 

States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Lozano Ramirez’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 15-41535 Document: 00513723335 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016