alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02259**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 02259\02259_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 02259\02259_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 02259\02259_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02259\02259_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02259\02259_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02259\02259_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02259\02259_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02259\02259_PartF.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02259\02259_PartG.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02259\02259_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 02259\Certification Statement Plant ID 02259.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 02259\Supplemental Documents\02259_2009 EIA-860.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02259\Supplemental Documents\02259_LTS 1 F4-2.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02259\Supplemental Documents\02259_Map Part F Sec 5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02259\Supplemental Documents\02259_Pond 1 D-1.doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 02259\Supplemental Documents\02259_sitemap.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02259\Supplemental Documents\02259_wb-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
.
3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
# C_2020123EN.01004801.xml

| 16.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 123/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 123/48

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 123/13)

| Member State | Iceland |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned routes | Flight routes:






  1. | Reykjavík – Gjögur – Reykjavík |

Member State

Iceland

Concerned routes

Flight routes:

1.

Reykjavík – Gjögur – Reykjavík

| 2. | Reykjavík – Bíldudalur – Reykjavík |
| --- | --- |

2.

Reykjavík – Bíldudalur – Reykjavík

| 3. | Reykjavík – Höfn – Reykjavík |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reykjavík – Höfn – Reykjavík

Period of validity of the contract

1 November 2020 – 31 October 2023

Deadline for submission of tenders

16 June 2020

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the modified public service obligations can be obtained

| Ríkiskaup (Central Public Procurement) |
| --- |
| Borgartún 7 |
| 105 Reykjavík |
| ICELAND |

Ríkiskaup (Central Public Procurement)

Borgartún 7

105 Reykjavík

ICELAND

Tel. +354 5301400

Fax +354 5301414

www.rikiskaup.is

The procurement web:

http://utbodsvefur.is/

---
* 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 27, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-31103

Summary Calendar

 

RAYMOND GIUFFRIA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BELLSOUTH TELEPHONE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:03-CV-3235

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

Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Raymond Giuffria appeals following the district court’s

grant of summary judgment to the defendant in this civil action. 

Giuffria alleged in his complaint that Bellsouth committed fraud

by billing him for America Online (“AOL”) services to which he

did not subscribe. 

“This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary

judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards as the

district court.” Am. Home Assurance Co. v. United Space
No. 04-31103

-2-

Alliance, LLC, 378 F.3d 482, 486 (5th Cir. 2004). Giuffria

argues that the bills Bellsouth sent to him were fraudulent. 

However, he fails to show a genuine issue of material fact with

respect to the elements for a cause of action for fraud, and his

largely conclusional brief is insufficient to meet his summary

judgment burden. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069,

1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc); see also Guidry v. United States

Tobacco Co., Inc., 188 F.3d 619, 627 (5th Cir. 1999).

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
§ 7.5005 National bank acting as digital certification authority. ( a ) It is part of the business of banking under 12 U.S.C. 24(Seventh) for a national bank to act as a certificate authority and to issue digital certificates verifying the identity of persons associated with a particular public/private key pair. As part of this service, the bank may also maintain a listing or repository of public keys.
( b ) A national bank may issue digital certificates verifying attributes in addition to identity of persons associated with a particular public/private key pair where the attribute is one for which verification is part of or incidental to the business of banking. For example, national banks may issue digital certificates verifying certain financial attributes of a customer as of the current or a previous date, such as account balance as of a particular date, lines of credit as of a particular date, past financial performance of the customer, and verification of customer relationship with the bank as of a particular date.
( c ) When a national bank issues a digital certificate relating to financial capacity under this section, the bank shall include in that certificate an express disclaimer stating that the bank does not thereby promise or represent that funds will be available or will be advanced for any particular transaction.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7605** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. KALVIN MARSHALL , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:02

- cr - 00225

- HEH

- 2; 3:12

- cv - 00480

- HEH )

Submitted : January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kalvin Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kalvin Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a 28
U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2012 ) motion and dismissing it as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circ uit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court ’ s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude t hat Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
CONTROL NO 

### CITY OF TEXARKANA,

## ARKANSAS 216 Walnut Street, Texarkana, Arkansas 71854 P.O. BOX 2711 TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS 75504-2711 PHONE (870) 779-4996

- FAX (870) 774-3170 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR February 26,2010
TheHonorableRaymond H. LaHood Secretary, U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Ave,SE·
.. .. . . Washington, DC 20590 Docket**DOT-OST~201O-"** DearMr. Secretary: Thank you for the opportunity to express my support as well as that ofmy community for the application for antitrust immunity and proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The proposed alliance between these two airlines is vital for the oneworld alliance to compete effectively with the Star and SkyTeam alliances. This increased alliance competition will in tum enhance the benefits ofthe Department's Open Skies policy

- first by solidifying U.S.

- Japan Open Skies, then by serving as afoundation for further liberalization across Asia. After a thorough review, we encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this application as it would enablethese oneworld alliance airlines to work closely togetherto deliver highly.competitiveait.transportation..services. Approval for AAlJAL alliance will have a positive impact on 

### air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensurethat customers continue to benefitfrom the competition afforded by three competitive air alliances. Iurgeyou to quickly approvethis application. Sincerely,

# ~tu- Jj.

# ~ Horace 

### G. Shipp Mayor www.txkusa.orglar shipp@txkusa.org
# Official Journal C 358A/7 Se

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 358A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 647 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 358A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 647 September 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 358 A/01 | Secretariat-General – Publication of a vacancy for a Member of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board at grade AD 14 (Principal Adviser) – Engagement of a temporary agent under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants – COM/2021/10406 | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2021/C 358 A/01

Secretariat-General – Publication of a vacancy for a Member of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board at grade AD 14 (Principal Adviser) – Engagement of a temporary agent under Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants – COM/2021/10406

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
EXHIBIT 23.1
CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 2,2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Human GenomeSciences, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2003, in the following Registration Statements:
 (1) Registration Statement Number 33-79020 on Form S-8  (2) Registration Statement Number 33-79022 on Form S-8  (3) Registration Statement Number 333-85319 on Form S-3  (4) Registration Statement Number 333-96387 on Form S-3  (5) Registration Statement Number 333-33252 on Form S-3  (6) Registration Statement Number 333-36384 on Form S-3  (7) Registration Statement Number 333-44798 on Form S-8  (8) Registration Statement Number 333-45272 on Form S-3  (9) Registration Statement Number 333-46298 on Form S-8  (10) Registration Statement Number 333-47292 on Form S-3  (11) Registration Statement Number 333-66670 on Form S-8  (12) Registration Statement Number 333-89392 on Form S-8  (13) Registration Statement Number 333-104219 on Form S-8
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
McLean, VirginiaMarch 10, 2004
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20585 Tuesday, April 19, 2011 Room 8E-089

Purpose The Department of Energy (DOE) seeks comments, information, and data from interested parties on the preliminary analyses addressing energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE).

Agenda

9:00 – 9:30 am Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review, & Opening Statements Doug Brookman Interested parties make a brief summary of their comments.

9:30 – 9:45 am Standards Rulemaking Overview Charles Llenza Summary of the statutory background, rulemaking process, and the issues on which DOE seeks input during today’s public meeting.

9:45 – 10:30 am Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and Engineering Analysis Collin Weber Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the market and technology assessment, screening analysis, and engineering analysis.

10:30 – 11:15 am Markups Analysis, Energy Use Analysis, and Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Satish Bapanapalli Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the markups to determine equipment price analysis, energy use analysis, and life-cycle cost and payback period analysis.11:15– 11:45 am Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis Alan Cooke Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the shipments analysis and national energy savings and net present value analysis.

11:45 am – 12:00 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis Christopher Lau Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach to be used and factors to be considered for the manufacturer impact analysis.

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00 – 1:15 pm NOPR Analyses: Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact Analysis Satish Bapanapalli Description of analyses DOE will conduct in the NOPR stage of the rulemaking.

1:15 – 1:45 pm Test Procedure Rulemaking Overview Andrew Nawrocki Summary of the background, rulemaking process, issues, and proposals regarding DOE’s ongoing CRE test procedure rulemaking.

1:45 – 2:15 pm Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement Ashley Armstrong Summary presentation and discussion regarding certification, compliance, and enforcement actions for commercial refrigeration equipment.

2:15 – 2:30 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks Doug Brookman Final discussions on issues and closing remarks.
§ 308.152 Grounds for disapproval of notice. The Board of Directors or its designee may issue a notice of disapproval with respect to a notice submitted by a state nonmember bank pursuant to section 32 of the FDIA (12 U.S.C. 1831i) where: ( a ) The competence, experience, character, or integrity of the individual with respect to whom such notice is submitted indicates that it would not be in the best interests of the depositors of the state nonmember bank to permit the individual to be employed by or associated with such bank; or
( b ) The competence, experience, character, or integrity of the individual with respect to whom such notice is submitted indicates that it would not be in the best interests of the public to permit the individual to be employed by, or associated with, the state nonmember bank.
[56 FR 37975, Aug. 9, 1991, as amended at 64 FR 62101, Nov. 16, 1999]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7425

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUTH VANESSA WALKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CR-95- 455-AMD, CA-99-1821-AMD) Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ruth Vanessa Walker, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 26, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 27, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Ruth Vanessa Walker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the district court’s dismissal of her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record andthe district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Walker , Nos. CR-95-455-AMD; CA-99-1821-AMD (D. Md. Jul. 27, 1999). *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
EPA HF Study Technical Workshop:

Chemical and Analytical Methods

Crosslinked and Linear Gel 

Composition 

Richard Hodge 
Fluid Types

– Water-based Fluids

• Linear Polymer Solution

• Crosslinked Gel

• Viscoelastic Surfactants

– Oil-based Fluids

– Acid-based Fluids

– Multiphase Fluids

• Emulsions

• Foams

• Energized

Fracturing Fluid Composition

Additives 

– Gelling Agents

– Crosslinkers

– Breakers

– Fluid Loss Additives

– Biocides

– Thermal Stabilizers

– Surfactants

– Clay Control Additives
Gelling Agents

• Increase Fluid Viscosity for Improved Proppant 

Transport

– Into perforations

– Along fracture

• Reduce Fluid Loss to Reservoir 

– Deposit filtercake

– Viscous resistance in porous media 

• Create/Maintain Desired Fracture Geometry

• Reduce Friction Pressure Loss in Wellbore

– Slick Water applications
Common Frac Fluid Gelling Agents

• Guar

• Guar Derivatives

– Hydroxypropyl Guar 

(HPG)

– Carboxymethyl Guar 

(CMG)

– Carboxymethyl 

Hydroxypropyl Guar 

(CMHPG)

• Cellulose

– Hydroxyethyl Cellulose 

(HEC)

– Carboxymethyl 

Hydroxyethyl Cellulose 

(CMHEC)

• Synthetic Polymers

– Polyacrylic Acid (PAc)

– Polyacrylamide (PAm)

– Partially Hydrolyzed 

Polyacrylamide (PHPA)

– Acrylamido-methyl-propane 

sulfonate (AMPS)

• Viscoelastic Surfactants

– Cationic 

– Anionic

– Amphoteric
Typical Usage Rate of 

Frac Fluid Gelling Agents

Polymer Concentration

(by weight)

Guar < 1%

HPG < 1%

CMHPG < 1%

HEC < 1%

CMHEC < 1%

Synthetic Polymers < 0.05%

Viscoelastic Surfactants < 2%
Crosslinkers

• Increase Effective Molecular Weight by 

Chemically Linking Polymer Chains

• Create 3D Structure – Increases Elasticity 

and Suspension Properties

• React w/ Specific Sites (Functional Units) 

on Polymers

• Each Crosslinker Has Unique Reaction 

Requirements and Behavior
Common Crosslinker Compounds

Metallic (Ti & Zr)

• Chelated Compounds

– Retard Oxide 

Formation

• Crosslinking Rate 

Controlled by 

Complex Stability and 

Ligand Concentration 

• Non-reversible

• Shear Degraded

Borate

• Simple Salt (H3BO3 & 

Borax)

• Slowly Soluble Salts 

(Ca and Mg Salts)

• Borate Esters

• Polyborates
Typical Usage Rate of Common 

Crosslinker Compounds

General Class Concentration Range

Borate < 150 ppm as Boron

Titanate < 150 ppm as Titanium

Zirconate < 100 ppm as Zirconium
Breakers

• Purpose

– Improve Flowback & 

Maximize Conductivity 

• Mechanism

– Reduce Polymer 

Molecular Weight

– React with Specific 

Sites in Polymer Chain

– Reverse Crosslinking 

(Borate Only)

• Common Types

– Oxidizers

• Persulfate 

• Perborate

• Hypochlorite

• Mg & Ca Peroxide

– Enzymes

– Acids

• Esters of 

hydroxycarboxylic 

acids
References

1. “Chapter 7: Fracturing Fluids and Additives”, Recent 

Advances in Hydraulic Fracturing - SPE Monograph 

Series Volume 12 ; Society of Petroleum Engineers, 

2001.

2. “Chapter 7: Fracturing Fluid Chemistry and Proppants”, 

Reservoir Stimulation – 3

rd Edition; John Wiley and 

Sons, 2000.

3. “Chapter 7: Fracturing Fluids and Formation Damage”, 

Modern Fracturing ; Energy Tribune Publishing Inc., 

2007.
Questions ?
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and

Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors

so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 14-BG-366

IN RE: JIN-HO CYNN,

Respondent.

Bar Registration No. 395450 BDN: 187-13

BEFORE: Easterly, Associate Judge, and Nebeker and King, Senior Judges. 

ORDER

(FILED - June 19, 2014)

On consideration ofthe certified order suspending respondent fromthe practice

of law in the state of Virginia for six months, this court’s April 14, 2014, order

directing respondent to show cause why he should not be suspended for a period of

six months as reciprocal discipline, and the statement of Bar Counsel regarding

reciprocal discipline, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file a response to

this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, §14

(g), it is

ORDERED that Jon-Ho Cynn is hereby suspended from the practice of law in

the District of Columbia for a period of six months. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483

(D.C. 2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s period

of suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully

complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g). 

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
               ABT BUILDING PRODUCTS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          YEAR ENDED   YEAR ENDED   YEAR ENDED
                                         DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31,
                                             1995         1996         1997
                                         ------------ ------------ ------------
                                         (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
<S>                                      <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income.............................    $16,487      $23,152      $15,490
                                           =======      =======      =======
Basic weighted average number of shares
 outstanding...........................     10,707       10,433       10,547
Weighted average common equivalent
 shares................................        940        1,086        1,031
                                           -------      -------      -------
Diluted weighted average number of
 common shares outstanding.............     11,647       11,519       11,578
                                           =======      =======      =======
Net Income Per Common Share
  Basic................................    $  1.54      $  2.22      $  1.47
                                           =======      =======      =======
  Diluted..............................    $  1.42      $  2.01      $  1.34
                                           =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>