alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: John Miller [mailto:JMiller@wgpaver.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 10:23 AM

To: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>

Subject: RE: Whitacre Greer green brick testing results

Gabrielle,

Sorry for the delay. I am attaching the spreadsheet. I have been trying to get info on the shale but they

have not gotten back to me. When I get it I will forward to you.

Thanks,

John E Miller, PE

Engineering/EHS Manager

Whitacre Greer Co.

jmiller@wgpaver.com

330

- 823

- 1610 x230

Fax 330

- 823

- 6689

<<Green Brick Testing Results

- 032515BIA

- to EPA May 4 2015_WhitacreGreer.xlsx>>

From: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>

Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 10:11 AM

To: 'jmiller@wgpaver.com' <jm iller@wgpaver.com>

Subject: RE: Whitacre Greer green brick testing results

Hi,

I just got your voicemail, sorry I was out of the office Friday.

For the name of the deposit, something like clay or shale or the name of the pit, or name of the formation.

For the geologic age of the deposit something like Pennsylvanian, late Cretaceous, Mississippian,

Paleocene, Eocene, Quaternary, Tertiary, Permian , etc.

I hope this is helpful, I’ll be in the office Monday so you can call me if you want to talk about it more.

Thanks,

Gabrielle

Gabrielle Raymond

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 5 41

- 7015From: Raymond, Gabrielle <graymond@rti.org>

Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 12:42 PM

To: 'jmiller@wgpaver.com' <jmiller@wgpaver.com>

Subject: Whitacre Greer green brick testing results

Hello Mr. Miller,

As we discussed in our telephone conversation, I’m attaching a spreadsheet of the Whitacre Greer

facilities that provided green brick testing results to EPA via BIA. I’ve added some columns at the end for

you to fill out the Name of Clay Deposit, Geologic al Age of the Deposit, and Latitude/Longitude of the

Clay Deposit. Any information you are able to provide about the clay deposits will be much appreciated

and helpful!

Thank you for your help,

Gabrielle

Gabrielle Raymond

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Phone: (919) 541

- 7015

<< Green Brick Testing Results

- 032515BIA

- to EPA May 4 2015_WhitacreGreer.xlsx>>
PRESTON PAMPHILE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1785

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 19, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Terry P. Lewis, Judge.

Preston Pamphile, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, B.L. THOMAS, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[House Report 107-447]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     107-447

======================================================================

 
PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 84, 
  DISAPPROVING THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT UNDER SECTION 203 OF 
  THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TRANSMITTED TO THE CONGRESS ON MARCH 5, 2002

                                _______
                                

 May 7, 2002.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 414]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 414, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution provides for the disposition of House Joint 
Resolution 84, disapproving the action taken by the President 
under section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 transmitted to the 
Congress on March 5, 2002.
    The rule lays the joint resolution on the table.

                                  

```
#### §§ 20.506-20.599 [Reserved]
Supreme Court — Appellate Term,

May, 1900.

Before Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

#### Peter J. McCourt, Respondent, v. Cynthia B. Cowperthwait, Appellant.

—Appeal from an order of the General Term of the City Court of New York, affirming an order of Special Term denying defendant’s motion to preclude plaintiff herein from giving evidence, at the trial of the above-entitled action.

Dill, Seymour & Baldwin (Henry Sehoenherr, Jr., of counsel), for Appellant; Walter Cox, for Respondent

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
# Official Journal L 193/2012

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.193.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 193 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5520 July 2012 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2012.193.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 193

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5520 July 2012

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 640/2012 of 6 July 2012 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 640/2012 of 6 July 2012 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, Regulation (EC) No 440/2008 laying down test methods pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
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



     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Research Frontiers
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Saxe,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
     of 1934; and

2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of
     operations of the Company.


/s/ Robert L. Saxe
    Robert L. Saxe
    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
    November 9, 2006
720 A.2d 322

#### Heath William BURCH v. STATE of Maryland.

Misc. No. 16,

Sept. Term, 1998.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 12, 1998.

H. Mark Stichel (Gohn, Hankey *&*Stichel) and William Kanwisher (Redmond, Burgin & Gutierrez), Baltimore, for appellant.

Gwynn X. Kinsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Submitted to BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, RAKER, WILNER and CATHELL, JJ.

ORDER

The Court having considered the application for leave to appeal the denial of post conviction relief in a capital case and the response in opposition to application filed thereto, it is this 12th day of November, 1998,

*732ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the application be, and it is hereby, denied.

BELL, C.J., would grant the application.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>              5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>           SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                   491,275
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                             17,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         513,203
<PP&E>                                                 4,051,149
<DEPRECIATION>                                         1,623,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         4,806,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    136,018
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                             4,670,702
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           4,806,720
<SALES>                                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,323,527
<CGS>                                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            811,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          511,645
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      511,645
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                             511,645
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 4.72 [Reserved]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2623 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the collection of copayments for all hospice care furnished by the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 7, 2007 

Mr. MILLER of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the collection of copayments for all hospice care furnished by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON COLLECTION OF COPAY4 MENTS FOR ALL HOSPICE CARE FURNISHED 

5 BY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

6 Section 1710B(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code 

7 is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting 

8 after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph 

9 (B): 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2623 IH

1 ‘‘(B) to a veteran being furnished inpatient or 

2 outpatient hospice care by the Department; or’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### David Schultz, Respondent, *v.*Max Berger et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, fourth district, borough of Manhattan.

Maurice H. Gotlieb, for appellants.

A. B. Jaworower, for respondent.

*765
      *Per Curiam.*

This is an. appeal by the defendant Carrie Berger from a judgment rendered against her in a Municipal Court. The pleadings were oral, and the complaint was for goods sold and delivered. It was sought to hold the defendants jointly, but it was not in terms alleged that they were partners, or that the defendant Max Berger acted as agent for his wife. The plaintiff did not produce any evidence of a partnership between the defendants, and it appeared that he had for a long time sold goods to the defendant Max Berger and rendered bills to him under the name of M. E. Berger, the bill of particulars in this very case being in the form of a bill against M. E. Berger. Both defendants swore positively that there was no partnership between them, each pursuing a separate business. While some of the circumstances under which the business was carried on, coupled with the relationship of the parties, warrant a suspicion that they may really be copartners, there is no proof of the fact, and a mere suspicion cannot be allowed to prevail against their positive and uncontradicted testimony. There was no evidence to justify a judgment against the appellant Carrie Berger and as to her the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to her to abide the event.

Judgment as to Max Berger affirmed, with costs.

Present: Tbttax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment reversed as to appellant Carrie Berger and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event. Judgment as to Max Berger affirmed, with costs.
#### § 1010.104 [Reserved]
#### § 75.111 Purpose and scope.

This subpart implements provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5724 and 5727, which are set forth in Title IX of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006. It only concerns actions to address a data breach regarding sensitive personal information that is processed or maintained by VA. This subpart does not supersede the requirements imposed by other laws, such as the Privacy Act of 1974, the Administrative Simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and implementing regulations of such Acts.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5724, 5727)
The size of all the documents in the s e folders is 50 MB . Because of the unusually large size

of these document s they

are not available for download from www.regulations.gov. Copies of the s e document s (listed below) are available for public inspection at the EPA Region III address listed in the Federal Register Proposed Rules document. For further information, EPA Region III’s point of contact (POC) is listed in this docket. File Folder : Appendices Files : APPENDICES - cover page.pdf Appendix 1 - 1a Contribution Assessment Chapt_1 - 9 -- 2006[1].1006.pdf Appendix 1 - 1b A- Supplement_Brigantine_8[1].25.06.pdf Appendix 3 - 1 Final Intermin Principles for Regional Haze.pdf Appendix 4 - 1a US DOI Letter - Delaware Comments.pdf Appendix 4 - 1b DNREC Responses to DOI Comments.p df Appendix 7 - 1 MANE -VU_2002 Base Year Final_V3_TSD_11 - 20 - 06.pdf Appendix 7 - 2 MANEVU 2002 Inventory data.pdf Appendix 7 - 3 EGU_Projections_Summary_Final.pdf Appendix 7 - 4 MANEVU_Emission_Projections_TSD_.pdf Appendix 7 - 5 Emission Projection Tables.pdf Appendix 7 - 6 Reg 24 VOC controls.pdf Appendix 8 - 1 BART Letters.pdf Appendix 8 - 2a City of Dover BART final Analysis and Proposal 060207.pdf Appendix 8 - 2b City of Dover - MRS - BART Analysis Addendum to FLM.pdf Appendix 8 - 2c Indian River NRG addendum.pdf Appendix 8 - 2d Indian River NRG.pdf Appendix 8 - 2e Edge Moor BART final report 7 22 08 .pdf Appendix 8 - 3 Reg. 30 Title V.pdf Appendix 8 - 4 DE Regulation 1102.pdf Appendix 8 - 5 Claymont Steel Permit 7 - 2 - 08.pdf Appendix 8 - 6 Multi_p_TechSptDoc1.pdf Appendix 8 - 2d Edge Moor BARTre - submittal report final 6 25 07 submt to DNREC 7 3 07.pdf Appendix 9 - 1 Baseline and Natural_Background Visibility Conditions.pdf Appendix 9 - 2 The Nature of the Fine Particle and Regional Haze Problems in MANEVU Class I.pdf Appendix 9 - 3 Assessment o f RPG for RH in MANEVU.pdf Appendix 9 - 4 Five Factor Analysis of BART - Eligible Sources.pdf Appendix 9 - 5 BART_Control_Assessment.pdf Appendix 9 - 6 Modeling_for_Reasonable_Progress_Final_021208[1].pdf Appendix 9 - 7 2018 Visibility Projections FINAL 05 13 08.pdf Appendix 9 - 8 Non-EGU Source Shutdowns in MANEVU.pdf Appendix 9 - 9 Top_EGU_list_ the 167 FINAL list.pdf Appendix 9 - 10 Construction_TSD_102006.pdf Appendix 9 - 11 Hopke Receptor Modeling Study Final Report.pdf Appendix 9 - 12 Pages from Inter- RPO Consultation B riefing book_vol 1[1].pdf Appendix 10 - 1 Final_consultation_framework_060510[1].pdf File Folder : Final Marked and Unmarked SIP to EPA - Narrative Files : DE_ Proposed_Visibility_SIP_draft_SOUL 9_24_08.pdf
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2575 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2575

     For the relief of Mikael Adrian Christopher Figueroa Alvarez.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2007

Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     For the relief of Mikael Adrian Christopher Figueroa Alvarez.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MIKAEL ADRIAN CHRISTOPHER 
              FIGUEROA ALVAREZ.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mikael Adrian Christopher 
Figueroa Alvarez shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or 
for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Mikael Adrian Christopher Figueroa 
Alvarez enters the United States before the filing deadline specified 
in subsection (c), he shall be considered to have entered and remained 
lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment 
of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Mikael Adrian Christopher 
Figueroa Alvarez, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by 1, during the current or next following fiscal 
year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Mikael Adrian 
Christopher Figueroa Alvarez shall not, by virtue of such relationship, 
be accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23479]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 0


Commission Organization

CFR Correction

    In Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 0 to 19, 
revised as of October 1, 2008, on page 93, in Sec.  0.607, reinstate 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  0.607  Transcript, recording or minutes; availability to the 
public.

* * * * *
    (d) The Commissioner presiding at the meeting will prepare a 
statement setting out the time and place of the meeting, the names of 
persons other than Commission personnel who were present at the 
meeting, and the names of Commission personnel who participated in the 
discussion. These statements will be retained in a public file in the 
Minute and Rules Branch, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23479 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
----

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2005/363/EC of 2 May 2005 concerning animal health protection measures against African swine fever in Sardinia, Italy

(Official Journal of the European Union L 118 of 2 May 2005)

On page 46, title of Annex IV:

for:

                        ‘ANNEX IV

to Commission Decision 2005/000/EC’,

read:

                        ‘ANNEX IV

to Commission Decision 2005/363/EC’                     

----
2008 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-9-2008

Gartner v. USA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-2344

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Gartner v. USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1775.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1775
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2344

___________

JOHN B. GARTNER,

 Appellant

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 07-mc-00052)

District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sanchez

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 20, 2007

Before: SLOVITER, BARRY and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 9, 2008)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Appellant John B. Gartner appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his petition

to quash two Internal Revenue Service (IRS) third-party recordkeeper summonses. We

have jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Moutevelis v. United States,
727 F.2d 313, 314 (3d Cir. 1984) (citing 26 U.S.C. § 7609(h)(1)).

Under 26 U.S.C. § 7601, the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to make

inquiries of every person who may be liable to pay tax. Further, under 26 U.S.C. § 7602,

the Secretary is vested with the authority to issue summonses in order to fulfill the

Secretary’s investigatory obligation. These summonses include third-party recordkeeper

summonses which may be issued to banks and credit unions, among other entities. See 26

U.S.C. § 7609.

Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find no reversible error in the

district court’s denial of Gartner’s petition to quash.

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order entered April 20, 2007.