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

Ogulei, David

From: Garnett, Kim

Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 11:55 AM

To: Ogulei, David

Subject: FW: Veolia comment responses

From: John Cooper [mailto:jacooper@cooperenvironmental.com] 

Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:46 PM 

To: Garnett, Kim 

Cc: Bivins, Dan; andreag@cooperenvironmental.com 

Subject: RE: Veolia comment responses 

Hi Kim, 

Yes, I will send you an email – early next week be OK? 

I will not be attending AWMA, but CES’ Andrea Geiger will be attending and presenting Krag Petterson’s paper on the 

ETV testing of the Xact 625. She would be happy to talk with David Ogulei. However, she will only be there on 

Thursday. Can you send David’s contact info.? 

John 

From: Garnett, Kim [mailto:Garnett.Kim@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 7:24 AM 

To: John Cooper 

Cc: Bivins, Dan 

Subject: Veolia comment responses 

John, 

First of all – Thank you so very much for your assistance in responding to the Veolia comments. We 

really appreciate your help. And if you don’t mind, we have one more request. 

We heard back from Region 5 this morning and they are wondering if it would be possible for you to 

send us an email summarizing your comments on the lead time for the multi-metals system so that 

we can add it to the record. It doesn’t need to be a legal declaration or anything, just an email stating 

that the multi-metals CEMS is feasible for Veolia’s operations, and can be installed within the 

timeframe we are talking about (~within 6 months). 

Let me know if you have any questions. 

Also, the lawyer in Region 5 – David Ogulei – is wondering if you are going to the AWMA meeting 

next week. If so, he will be there and would like to introduce himself. 

Thanks again for your help with this. 

Have a great weekend! 

Kim 
2

Kim Garnett 

Engineer 

USEPA/OAQPS/MTG (E143-02) 

109 TW Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

TEL-(919)541-1158/FAX-(919)541-0516 

garnett.kim@epa.gov
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report),
I, Ralph C. Guild, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to my knowledge:



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/    RALPH C.
GUILDRalph C. Guild Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




Date: August 8, 2003



---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the Report), I, William J. McEntee, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to my knowledge:



3.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



/s/    WILLIAM J. MCENTEE,
JR.William J. McEntee, Jr. Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




Date: August 8, 2003
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MIN TANG,

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent

______________________

2018-2188

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-1221-17-0763-W-1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

GEORGE CHUZI, Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch, PC, 

Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. 

 STEPHEN FUNG, Office of General Counsel, Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by KATHERINE MICHELLE 

SMITH, TRISTAN LEAVITT. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and 

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

September 13, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
07/13/2012 15:51 FAX 2024935142 FAA -+ OMS ~001/003 

, .... ' " I \ • I·~:\ ~~, r ··:{-', ; . .:: ~~: "f' 

I b A q: 0 L! ·.: . , •'' '·'"•'I -··· J,....,,,• ··-' ~ "'- : 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Complainant 

v. 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

# 2010-1211 

NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DECISION § 13.233 

NOTICE is hereby given that Respondent, M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

hereby appeals the initial decision by the Honorable Richard C. Goodwin dated 

June 18, 2012, received by first class mail by Respondent on June 21~ 2012 in 

accordance to§ 13.233. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

MICHAEL B. SELIG 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, PA 18104 

610 360 3953 

clune 21, 2012
#### § 1212.603 Mailing lists.

NASA will not sell, rent, or otherwise disclose an individual's name and address to anyone, unless otherwise specifically authorized by law. This is not to be construed to require the withholding of names and addresses otherwise permitted to be made public.

[57 FR 4928, Feb. 11, 1992, as amended at 77 FR 60621, Oct. 4, 2012]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                         786,416
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  282,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,068,680
<PP&E>                                          73,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,838,574
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,686,621
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,619
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,151,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,838,574
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,899,771
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  881,817
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (64,843)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,082,797
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,082,797
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,082,797
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### ROBERTSON v. STATE ex rel. PINSON.

No. 32245.

Aug. 4, 1945.

*163 P. 2d 975.*

Hall & Cotton, of - Oklahoma City, and E. G. Avery, of Wagoner, for plaintiff in error.

Fred W. Martin and Chas. G. Watts, both of Wagoner, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

On the 16th day of March, 1945, the relator, J. C. Pinson, filed his petition against E. A. Robertson seeking to try title to the office of county judge of Wagoner county. Thereafter what is denominated a special demurrer and plea to jurisdiction of the court was filed and the court overruled the same. Defendant gave notice of intention to appeal and presents the record by transcript.

A motion to dismiss has been filed on the ground, first, that the order of the district court of Wagoner county overruling the demurrer of the defendant is not a final order and is not properly presented by the appeal; second, that the appeal is by transcript with no bill of exceptions, and therefore presents nothing for the review of the court.

In our opinion the consideration of the first question will determine the issues presented -on the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff asserts that under the provisions of 12 O. S. 1941 § 952, it is only after a final order has been entered that such i an order may be brought to this court for review. Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Patterson, 73 Okla. 234, 175 P. 934; Hopper v. Steward, 137 Okla. 228, 279 P. 354; McGrath v. Rorem, 123 Okla. 163, 252 P. 418; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry. Co. v. Parks, 182 Okla. 598, 78 P. 2d 791.

Defendant admits the effect of these decisions, but asserts that under the provisions of 12 O. S. 1941 § 267 a special demurrer attacking the jurisdiction of the trial court does not come within the rule of the. above cases. With this contention we are unable to agree. The purport of the above statute is to permit but one demurrer, based, however, on specific grounds, one of which is the lack of legal capacity of the party bringing the proceeding.

Under the above holdings of this court, until a final order has been entered in the trial court, disposing of the proceeding, no appeal lies from the order overruling the demurrer to the . petition.

Appeal dismissed.

GBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and RILEY, WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.
§ 1212.205 Exceptions to individual's rights of access. ( a ) The NASA Administrator has determined that the systems of records set forth in § 1212.501 are exempt from disclosure to the extent provided therein.
( b ) *Medical records.* Normally, an individual's medical record shall be disclosed to the individual, unless the system manager, in consultation with a medical doctor, determines that access to the record could have an adverse effect upon the individual. In this case, NASA shall allow access to the record by a medical doctor designated in writing by the requesting individual.
( c ) *Test and qualification materials.* Testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process and copies of certificates of eligibles and other lists of eligibles, the disclosure of which is proscribed by 5 CFR 300.201, shall be removed from an individual's record containing such information before granting access.
( d ) *Information compiled for civil actions or proceedings.* Nothing in this part shall allow an individual access to any information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding.
[57 FR 4928, Feb. 11, 1992, as amended by NASA-21-091; NASA-2021-0007, 88 FR 12149, Feb. 27, 2023]
Editorial Note on Part 747
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 747 appear at 84 FR 1609, Feb. 5, 2019.

§ 747.34 Hearing subpoenas. ( a ) *Issuance.* ( 1 ) Upon application of a party showing general relevance and reasonableness of scope of the testimony or other evidence sought, the ALJ may issue a subpoena or a subpoena *duces tecum* requiring the attendance of a witness at the hearing or the production of documentary or physical evidence at the hearing. The application for a hearing subpoena must also contain a proposed subpoena specifying the attendance of a witness or the production of evidence from any state, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, or as otherwise provided by law at any designated place where the hearing is being conducted. The party making the application must serve a copy of the application and the proposed subpoena on every other party.
( 2 ) A party may apply for a hearing subpoena at any time before the commencement of a hearing. During a hearing, a party may make an application for a subpoena orally on the record before the ALJ.
( 3 ) The ALJ will promptly issue any hearing subpoena requested pursuant to this section. If the ALJ determines that the application does not set forth a valid basis for the issuance of the subpoena, or that any of its terms are unreasonable, oppressive, excessive in scope, or unduly burdensome, the ALJ may refuse to issue the subpoena or may issue it in a modified form upon any conditions consistent with this subpart. Upon issuance by the ALJ, the party making the application must serve the subpoena on the person named in the subpoena and on each party.
( b ) *Motion to quash or modify.* ( 1 ) Any person to whom a hearing subpoena is directed or any party may file a motion to quash or modify the subpoena, accompanied by a statement of the basis for quashing or modifying the subpoena. The movant must serve the motion on each party and on the person named in the subpoena. Any party may respond to the motion within ten days of service of the motion.
( 2 ) Any motion to quash or modify a hearing subpoena must be filed prior to the time specified in the subpoena for compliance but not more than ten days after the date of service of the subpoena upon the movant.
( c ) *Enforcing subpoenas.* If a subpoenaed person fails to comply with any subpoena issued pursuant to this section or any order of the ALJ which directs compliance with all or any portion of a document subpoena, the subpoenaing party or any other aggrieved party may seek enforcement of the subpoena pursuant to § 747.26(c).
§ 1253.405 Housing. ( a ) *Generally.* A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, apply different rules or regulations, impose different fees or requirements, or offer different services or benefits related to housing, except as provided in this section (including housing provided only to married students).
( b ) *Housing provided by recipient.* ( 1 ) A recipient may provide separate housing on the basis of sex.
( 2 ) Housing provided by a recipient to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, shall be as a whole: ( i ) Proportionate in quantity to the number of students of that sex applying for such housing; and
( ii ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( c ) *Other housing.* ( 1 ) A recipient shall not, on the basis of sex, administer different policies or practices concerning occupancy by its students of housing other than that provided by such recipient.
( 2 ) ( i ) A recipient which, through solicitation, listing, approval of housing, or otherwise, assists any agency, organization, or person in making housing available to any of its students, shall take such reasonable action as may be necessary to assure itself that such housing as is provided to students of one sex, when compared to that provided to students of the other sex, is as a whole: ( A ) Proportionate in quantity; and
( B ) Comparable in quality and cost to the student.
( ii ) A recipient may render such assistance to any agency, organization, or person that provides all or part of such housing to students of only one sex.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1



                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Metal Management, Inc. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, the Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of
the Corporation, certifies 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 results of operations of the
Corporation.



/s/ Daniel W. Dienst
------------------------------------------
Daniel W. Dienst
Chairman of the Board, Chief
Executive Officer and President
October 29, 2004

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Billy Best and George Best, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. The State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Upon a trial of two jointly indicted for murder, when conspiracy is not shown, when the evidence warrants it, either is entitled to a separate charge on self-defense.

Appealed from the Circuit Court for Calhoun County.

The facts in the cáse are stated in the opinion of the court.

*33
      *Lewis &*Buford, for Plaintiffs in Error;

*Park*Trammell, Attorney General, and. *C. O.*Andrews, for the State.

Cockrell, J.

Upon a joint indictment for the murder of Barney Griffin, Billy and George Best were convicted of manslaughter and each sentenced to a term of five years in the State prison.

It appears that these negroes with others were engaged in gambling; that Billy Best complaining of a lost nickle, drew his pistol and flourishing it around; Barney Griffin then placed his pistol on Billy’s neck threatening to shoot, and shortly thereafter though not immediately Billy and Barney began shooting at each other. During the fusillade George Best, a cousin of Billy, according to the State’s evidence, fired the shot that killed Barney, the only shot that struck him.

There was evidence that Billy did not shoot until stricken down by a bullet from Barney, and that George did no shooting at all. There was no evidence looking towards a conspiracy between Billy and George, or knowledge by Billy that George was taking part.

Under these circumstances we think the court erred in refusing to instruct that Billy Best was entitled to an acquittal, or he acted in lawful self defense, even though George may not have escaped upon that plea, and the general charge upon self defense being in the plural as to both should have been qualified or explained by the requested instruction.

This error causes a reversal as to Billy Best, but does not affect George Best, as to whom the judgment must be affirmed.

As the case goes back we think it proper to suggest that *34upon a future trial, should the evidence' develop as upon this record, that a charge be framed submitting to the jury whether Billy Best incited the act of George Best.

Affirmed as to George Best;

Reversed as to Billy Best.

Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford and Hocker, J. J., concur.
§ 1230.117 Documentation of informed consent. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, informed consent shall be documented by the use of a written informed consent form approved by the IRB and signed (including in an electronic format) by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. A written copy shall be given to the person signing the informed consent form.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the informed consent form may be either of the following: ( 1 ) A written informed consent form that meets the requirements of § 1230.116. The investigator shall give either the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative adequate opportunity to read the informed consent form before it is signed; alternatively, this form may be read to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative.
( 2 ) A short form written informed consent form stating that the elements of informed consent required by § 1230.116 have been presented orally to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, and that the key information required by § 1230.116(a)(5)(i) was presented first to the subject, before other information, if any, was provided. The IRB shall approve a written summary of what is to be said to the subject or the legally authorized representative. When this method is used, there shall be a witness to the oral presentation. Only the short form itself is to be signed by the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. However, the witness shall sign both the short form and a copy of the summary, and the person actually obtaining consent shall sign a copy of the summary. A copy of the summary shall be given to the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, in addition to a copy of the short form.
( c ) ( 1 ) An IRB may waive the requirement for the investigator to obtain a signed informed consent form for some or all subjects if it finds any of the following: ( i ) That the only record linking the subject and the research would be the informed consent form and the principal risk would be potential harm resulting from a breach of confidentiality. Each subject (or legally authorized representative) will be asked whether the subject wants documentation linking the subject with the research, and the subject's wishes will govern;
( ii ) That the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside of the research context; or
( iii ) If the subjects or legally authorized representatives are members of a distinct cultural group or community in which signing forms is not the norm, that the research presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and provided there is an appropriate alternative mechanism for documenting that informed consent was obtained.
( 2 ) In cases in which the documentation requirement is waived, the IRB may require the investigator to provide subjects or legally authorized representatives with a written statement regarding the research.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
§ 1262.107 Rulemaking on maximum rates for attorney fees. ( a ) If warranted by an increase in the cost of living or by special circumstances (such as limited availability of attorneys qualified to handle certain types of proceedings), the Agency may adopt regulations providing that attorney fees may be awarded at a rate higher then $75 per hour in some or all of the types of proceedings covered by this part. This Agency will conduct any rulemaking proceedings for this purpose under the informal rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553).
( b ) Any person may file with the Agency a petition for rulemaking to increase the maximum rate for attorney fees. The petition should be addressed to the General Counsel, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; should identify the rate the petitioner believes the Agency should establish and the types of proceedings in which the rate should be used; and should also explain fully the reasons why the higher rate is warranted. The Agency will respond to the petition within 60 days after it is filed, by initiating a rulemaking proceeding or denying the petition, or taking other appropriate action.