alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Kent.Martens@ct.spx.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Sunda, John B.

John, 

During our phone conversation, you asked about the cost impact of sound attenuation on cooling towers. 

As you suggested, I ran a selection to cool 150,000 gpm, with a 15 deg Range, 10 deg Approach to a 78 wet-bulb temperature. The baseline tower is 10 cells, about 48' x 486' in plan area with one 200 horsepower fan motor per cell.  The overall tower SPL (considering sound from both the mechanical equipment/fan exit, and the air inlet is 60 dBA at 500'. 

You mentioned a target of 50 dBA at 500'.  There are many ways to reduce sound, which include reducing fan speed, low noise fans, barrier walls, inlet and outlet attenuation and water splash attenuation.  For this example, in order to meet the target, I reduced the fan speed (which requires a physically larger tower), added fan deck and perimeter barrier walls, and splash attenuation.  The resulting selection is a 10 cell tower, 54' x 546' in plan area, with 125 horsepower fan motors.  The total estimated cost of the larger tower, along with the additional sound features is about 60% higher than the baseline tower. 

For lower sound levels, inlet and possibly outlet attenuation packages would be involved, probably driving the cost to more than 2x a standard tower. 

Please let me know if you have any further questions on this topic. 

I am doing a global search to determine if we have any plume-abated towers on seawater, or brackish water, and will let you know when I get some responses. 



Kent A. Martens, P. E.
Chief Technical Advisor - Evaporative Cooling
SPX Cooling Technologies
7401 W 129 Street
Overland Park, KS 66213 USA
Tel:      913/664-7501
Fax:     913/693-9522
Cell:     913/302-7234
kent.martens@spx.com


The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended by SPX Corporation for the use of the named individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is confidential or privileged.  If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by reply email so that the sender's address records can be corrected.
### Hydrologic and water-quality data in selected agricultural drainages in Beaufort and Hyde Counties, North Carolina, 1990-92

By: M.W. Treece Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr9378

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area

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.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 4.12

         NOMINEE HOLDER CERTIFICATION AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHTS

To the Subscription Agent:


     The undersigned hereby certifies that it is a broker-dealer registered with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, a commercial bank or trust company, a
securities depository or participant therein, or a nominee therefor, holding of
record _______________ shares of Common Stock, par value $.02 per share ("Common
Stock"), of EXCO Resources, Inc. ("EXCO") on behalf of _______________
beneficial owners as of the close of business on May 22, 2001 (the "Record
Date"), for the offering by EXCO of an aggregate of 7,168,634 shares of 5%
convertible preferred stock (the "Convertible Preferred Stock") of EXCO pursuant
to transferable subscription rights (the "Rights") being distributed to record
holders of shares of Common Stock, all as described in the prospectus of EXCO
dated May 23, 2001 (the "Prospectus"), a copy of which the undersigned has
received. As stated in the Prospectus, one Right is being distributed for each
share of Common Stock held of record as of 5:00 p.m., New York time, on May 22,
2001. Accordingly, the undersigned requests that, upon surrender of its Rights
Certificate evidencing _______________ Rights, a Rights Certificate evidencing
_______________ Rights be issued. The undersigned further certifies that each
such beneficial owner is a bona fide beneficial owner of shares of Common Stock,
that such beneficial ownership is reflected on the undersigned's records and
that all shares of Common Stock which, to the undersigned's knowledge, are
beneficially owned by any such beneficial owner through the undersigned have
been aggregated in calculating the foregoing. The undersigned agrees to provide
EXCO or its designee with such additional information as EXCO deems necessary to
verify the foregoing.


                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name of Record Holder

                                            By:
                                               ---------------------------------

                                               Name:
                                                    ----------------------------

                                               Title:
                                                     ---------------------------

                                               Address:
                                                       -------------------------

                                               Telephone Number:
                                                                ----------------

                                            Date:                         , 2001
                                                 -------------------------
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 accompanying Annual Report of Back Yard Burgers, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending January 1, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Lattimore M. Michael, 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, to my knowledge, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Lattimore M. Michael
------------------------
Lattimore M. Michael
Chief Executive Officer
April 15, 2005
§ 252.163 Internal debt conversion order. ( a ) The Board may issue an internal debt conversion order if: ( 1 ) The Board has determined that the Covered IHC is in default or danger of default; and
( 2 ) Any of the following circumstances apply: ( i ) A foreign banking organization that directly or indirectly controls the Covered IHC or any subsidiary of the top-tier foreign banking organization has been placed into resolution proceedings (including the application of statutory resolution powers) in its home country;
( ii ) The home country supervisor of the top-tier foreign banking organization has consented or not promptly objected after notification by the Board to the conversion or exchange of the eligible internal debt securities of the Covered IHC; or
( iii ) The Board has made a written recommendation to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 5383(a) regarding the Covered IHC.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the Board will consider: ( 1 ) A Covered IHC in default or danger of default if ( i ) A case has been, or likely will promptly be, commenced with respect to the Covered IHC under the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 101 *et seq.*);
( ii ) The Covered IHC has incurred, or is likely to incur, losses that will deplete all or substantially all of its capital, and there is no reasonable prospect for the Covered IHC to avoid such depletion;
( iii ) The assets of the Covered IHC are, or are likely to be, less than its obligations to creditors and others; or
( iv ) The Covered IHC is, or is likely to be, unable to pay its obligations (other than those subject to a bona fide dispute) in the normal course of business; and
( 2 ) An objection by the home country supervisor to the conversion or exchange of the eligible internal debt securities to be prompt if the Board receives the objection no later than 24 hours after the Board requests such consent or non-objection from the home country supervisor.
#### Morris Levin, Respondent, *v.*Sarah R. Spero, Appellant.

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

R. S. Levy, for appellant.

James, Schell & Elkus, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff, to show performance of a contract to provide a new store front and to do certain repairing, testified that he put in the front and did the work.

The defendant presented evidence that the work was done in an unworkmanlike and improper manner. This evidence was uncontradicted.

To warrant the judgment, there must have been a finding of a substantial performance, and such a finding is unsupported by the evidence, in view of the fact that the plaintiff did not describe the execution of the work as workmanlike or proper. The evidence did not show that the charge for extra work was reasonable, this may, however, be an unimportant omission, as it is not referred to by appellant.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) 
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             420
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                       740
<INVENTORY>                                     47,014
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,426
<PP&E>                                          40,980
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,001
<BONDS>                                         46,330
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            42
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,637
<SALES>                                         63,795
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,845
<CGS>                                           53,069
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,954
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   658
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,285
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    879
<INCOME-TAX>                                       338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                541
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       541
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
§ 5.70 Federal branches and agencies. ( a ) *Authority.* 12 U.S.C. 93a and 3101 *et seq.*
( b ) *Scope.* This subpart describes the filing requirements for corporate activities and transactions involving Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. Substantive rules and policies for specific applications are contained in 12 CFR part 28.
( c ) *Definitions.* For purposes of this subpart: ( 1 ) To *establish* a Federal branch or agency means to: ( i ) Open and conduct business through an initial or additional Federal branch or agency;
( ii ) Acquire directly, through merger, consolidation, or similar transaction with another foreign bank, the operations of a Federal branch or agency that is open and conducting business;
( iii ) Acquire a Federal branch or agency through the acquisition of a foreign bank subsidiary that will cease to operate in the same corporate form following the acquisition;
( iv ) Convert a State branch or State agency operated by a foreign bank, or a commercial lending company controlled by a foreign bank, into a Federal branch or agency;
( v ) Relocate a Federal branch or agency within a State or from one State to another; or
( vi ) Convert a Federal agency or a limited Federal branch into a Federal branch.
( 2 ) *Federal branch* includes a limited Federal branch unless otherwise provided.
( d ) *Filing requirements* — ( 1 ) *General.* Unless otherwise provided in 12 CFR part 28, a Federal branch or agency must comply with the applicable requirements of this part.
( 2 ) *Applications.* A foreign bank must submit an application and obtain prior approval from the OCC before it: ( i ) Establishes a Federal branch or agency; or
( ii ) Exercises fiduciary powers at a Federal branch. A foreign bank may submit an application to exercise fiduciary powers at the time of filing an application for a Federal branch license or at any subsequent date.
( 3 ) *Biographical and Financial Reports.* The OCC may require any senior executive officer of a Federal branch or agency submitting a filing to submit an Interagency Biographical and Financial Report, available at *www.occ.gov ,* and legible fingerprints.
[61 FR 60363, Nov. 27, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 70698, Dec. 19, 2003; 85 FR 80470, Dec. 11, 2020]
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 200 (Monday, October 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53499-53500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-25104]

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

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD

Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting 
Standard 35, Estimating the Historical Cost of General Property, Plant, 
and Equipment--Amending Statements of Federal Financial Accounting 
Standards 6 and 23

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of 
Procedure, as amended in April, 2004, notice is hereby given that the 
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued 
Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard 35, Estimating the 
Historical Cost of General Property, Plant, and Equipment--Amending 
Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 6 and 23.
    The standard is available on the FASAB home page http://www.fasab.gov/standards.html. Copies

[[Page 53500]]

can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Payne, Executive Director, at 
(202) 512-7350.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463.

    Dated: October 14, 2009.
Charles Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-25104 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
```
§ 354.1 Scope. ( a ) In addition to the applicable filing procedures of part 303 of this chapter, this part establishes certain requirements for filings involving an industrial bank or a Covered Company.
( b ) The requirements of this part do not apply to an industrial bank that is organized as a subsidiary of a company that is not subject to Federal consolidated supervision by the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) before April 1, 2021. In addition, this part does not apply to: ( 1 ) Any industrial bank that is or becomes controlled by a company that is subject to Federal consolidated supervision by the FRB; and
( 2 ) Any industrial bank that is not or will not become a subsidiary of a company.
#### WILCOX AND GAMBLE *v.*SINGLETARY.

Submission by one of several partners — award—consideration—order of non suit — directions to jury to find for defendant.

One of several as partners may agree for himself and fellows to submit a partnership controversy to arbitration, and bind the partnership.

The consideration of a suit on an award is the agreement to submit.

If the court order a non suit, it should enforce it, and not follow up the order of non suit with direction to the jury to find for the defendant. The non suit leaves the plaintiff at liberty to bring a new suit; the verdict and judgment for the defendant changes the case, creates a bar against a new suit, and puts an end to the plaintiff’s right.

Error to the Common Pleas. Wilcox and Gamble declared against Singletary in the Common Pleas, in assumpsit, upon a *parol award to pay on request.*Upon trial on non assumpsit, the plaintiffs proved the submission by Wilcox, for himself and Gamble, and the award; but gave no evidence of a request or demand of Singletary to comply with the award. The defendant moved the court for a non suit, for want of this proof, which the court ordered, and then directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, which they did, on which judgment was rendered.

Humphrey, for the plaintiff in error,

made two points:

1. That one of several parties plaintiff, may for himself and his co-plaintiff, submit to arbitration, and bind all. He cited 3 *Kent. C.*8; *Cowp. R.*816; 5 *Vesey R.*846; *Cald.onArh.*12,13; *lRoll.Ab.*249; *l.*35; 1 *Com.Dig.*657; *D.*1, 659,N. 2; *iLev.*139.

2. It is unnecessary to make or state a special request on such award; *Dunlap'sPr. 262-,*1 *John. Ga.*100; 10 *EastR.*359; 1 *Gh. PI.*324.

*Povjers*and *P. Hitchcoclc,*contra,

cited 3 *Kent. C.*25; *Kyd. on*Awards, 279, 295.

*421By the Court.

We think it very clear, that one of several partners, joint parties to a suit, may lawfully contract to submit it to arbitrators, and bind his copartners. The consideration upon which a suit upon an award is sustained, is the contract of submission; 3 *O. R.*513. The submission, therefore, in the case at bar, was good.

Whether the order for a non suit was right or wrong, seems immaterial. If right, the order should have been enforced; if wrong, the evidence should have gene to the jury. In neither case had the court the power to direct the jury to find for the defendant. The order of non suit, if executed, 'would have left the parties free to commence a new suit; the verdict and judgment bars that right, and is erroneous. The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded back.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7600

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. CASUAL BIANCA LYONS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cv-00068-BO; 5:03-cr-00312-BO-1)

Submitted: November 20, 2008 Decided: December 2, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Casual Bianca Lyons, Appellant Pro Se, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Casual Bianca Lyons seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing several claims raised in her motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Lyons seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny Lyons’ motions for preparation of a transcript at government expense and to seal all filings in this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2007207EN.01000601.xml

| 6.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/6

---

Public financing of municipal day-care institutions in Norway

EFTA Surveillance Authority has decided that the measure does not constitute State aid

(2007/C 207/04)

| Date of adoption | : | 27 February 2007 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Case No | : | 57325 |
| Title | : | Public financing of municipal day-care institutions in Norway |
| Objective | : | Compensation for the services of general interest/no aid |
| Legal basis | : | Act No 64 of 17 June 2005 on Day-Care Institutions and Regulation No 539 of 19 March 2004 relating to equivalent treatment of child care institutions in relation to public subsidies |
| Duration | : | Indefinite |

Date of adoption

:

27 February 2007

EFTA State

:

Norway

Case No

:

57325

Title

:

Public financing of municipal day-care institutions in Norway

Objective

:

Compensation for the services of general interest/no aid

Legal basis

:

Act No 64 of 17 June 2005 on Day-Care Institutions and Regulation No 539 of 19 March 2004 relating to equivalent treatment of child care institutions in relation to public subsidies

Duration

:

Indefinite

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregistry/

---