alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**Certification**

 

The undersigned officer ofCapital Crossing Preferred Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies thatthe Bank’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March31, 2003 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, andthat the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.  This certification is providedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

 
| Date: May  13, 2003 | By:    | /s/ Richard  Wayne                        |   |
|---------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                |   | Richard  Wayne                            |   |
|                |   | *President (Principal Executive Officer)* |   |
|                     |        |                                           |        |  |

 

----
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Sierrita pipeline project,final environmental impact statement.**
 
SuDoc Number:E 2.11:0247 F
Item Number:0429-V-17 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000931277
 
 
Cover  Letter
Table  of Contents
Executive  Summary
Section  1
Section  2
Section  3
Section  4
Section  5
Appendix  A
Appendix  B
Appendix  C
Appendix  D
Appendix  E
Appendix  F
Appendix  G
Appendix  H
Appendix  I
Appendix  J
Appendix  K
Appendix  L
Appendix  M
Appendix  N
Appendix  O
Appendix  P
Appendix  Q
Appendix  R
Appendix  S
Appendix  T
Appendix  U
Appendix  V
Appendix  W
Appendix  X
Appendix  Y
 
 
 
January 17, 2018
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50591 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. TU AN M I N H PH AM , a l s o kno w n a s Chi c ke n D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 07- C R
- 173- 3 B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z Aan d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * T u an M i n h P h am w as convi ct ed of one coun tof con spi ri n g t o possess E c s ta s yw ith in te n t t o d is tr ib u te a n dw a s s e n te n c e dto s e rv e 1 8 0 m o n th s in pri so n. P ham n ow appeal s hi s c onvi c t i on an d sent enc e. P ham f i r star gues t hat th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e db yr eje c tin gh is f ir s t p le aa g r e e m e n t a n db yd e n y in gh is m o tio n fo rd i s c o v e r y . P h a m a ls o co n te n d s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly r e l i e d up o n i nf

o r m at i o n i n hi s pr e s e nt e nc e r e po r t(PSR ) w he n c o ns i de r i ng w he t he rt o r ej e c thi s f i r s tpl e a ag r e e m e nt . Pham ar gue s t hatt he G o ve r nm e nt United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 9, 20 09 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50591

2 act ed i m properl y w i t h res pect t o hi s f i rstpl ea agreem en t . Ph am w aivedt h ese c la im s b y s u b s e q u e n tly e n te r in ga n u n c o n d itio n a l g u iltyp le a . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. S m all w ood , 9 2 0 F .2d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 4 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); Un itedS ta tes v. B ell , 966 F . 2 d9 1 4 , 9 1 5
- 1 6 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) . We t h u s d e c l i n e t o c o n s i d e rt h e m. P h am contend s t h at t h e di st ri ct court erred by r elyin gu p on u n corr oborated hea rsay st atem en t s fro m h is co d e fen d an t s, w h ich w ere c on t ai n ed i n t he PSR, a ts e nt e nc i ng. Pham h as s ho w n no e r r o ri n c o nne c t i o n wi t h t he di st r i c tcourt ’ s dec i si on t o r ely o n t he i nf or m at i on c ont ai ned i n t he PS R at s e n te n c in g . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. Mitch ell , 4 8 4 F .3d 7 6 2 , 7 7 6 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Caldw ell , 4 4 8 F .3 d2 8 7 , 2 9 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Young , 9 8 1 F .2 d1 8 0 , 1 8 6 -8 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D .
§ 48.205 Display and location of unique identifier. ( a ) The unique identifier must be maintained in a condition that is legible.
( b ) The unique identifier must be affixed to the small unmanned aircraft by any means necessary to ensure that it will remain affixed for the duration of each operation.
( c ) The unique identifier must be legibly displayed on an external surface of the small unmanned aircraft.
[Doc. No. FAA-2015-7396; Amdt. No. 48-1; 80 FR 78645, Dec. 16, 2015, as amended by Doc. No. FAA-2018-1084, 84 FR 3673, Feb. 13, 2019]
|  | (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      at the dates and for the periodsindicated. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      May 20, 2009 | /s/      Edward Man Wai Ma                                                   |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                                                         |
|                    | Edward      Man Wai Ma                                                       |
|                    |                                                                         |
|                    | Chief      Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting    Officer) |
|                    |                                                                         |
|                    |                                                                         |

----
#### Becker, plaintiff in error, *v.*The People, *ex rel.*Cook defendants in error.

The determination of the Supreme Court in mandamus or prohibition is to be brought to this court for review by writ of error, as before the Code, and not by appeal.

Motion to dismiss writ of error.

*Philo Gridley,*for the appellant.

*John H. Reynolds,*for the respondent.

Johnson, Ch. J.

This is a writ of error, brought by the defendant in the Supreme Court, against whom, by the judgment of that court, a peremptory mandamus has been awarded. A motion is made to dismiss the writ, upon the ground that the proper and only mode of reviewing such a judgment is by appeal.

*488Under the judiciary act, this court possessed the power of reviewing, on writ of error, all judgments of the Supreme Court in cases at law, civil and criminal. By the Code, section 8, that act is declared to be divided into two parts, the first relating to courts of justice and their jurisdiction, the second to civil actions commenced in the courts of this State, after the 1st day of July, 1848, except when otherwise provided therein. By the 11th section, it is provided that this court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review, upon appeal, every actual determination thereafter made at a general term by the Supreme Court, in the following cases, and no other; which cases are then specified. This section is in the first part of the Code. Section 457, in the second part, provides that no writ of error shall be hereafter issued in any case whatever.. Were it not for the restrained construction imposed by the terms of the 8th section, on the language of this section, its words are broad enough to take away writs of error in criminal cases. But the 8th section limits its effect to civil actions, and leaves the writ of error in criminal cases to issue under the judiciary act. A similar effect is produced as to judgments in mandamus, by the 471st section, which enacts, that until the legislature shall otherwise provide, the second part of the Code shall not affect proceedings on mandamus or prohibition. This is as effectual to restrain the meaning of section 457, in its application to writs of mandamus and prohibition, as the 8th section is in respect to writs of error in criminal cases.

The writ of error is rightfully brought and the motion to dismiss must be denied, with $10 costs. " :

Mori op d miect
50



### ADDITIONAL PLAN ELEMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Transportation Conformity Transportation conformity is the regulatory program that links transportation and air quality planning processes together so that emissions from motor vehicles (both now and in the future) do not jeopardize air quality standards. Under conf ormity, emissions resulting from a transportation plan cannot exceed the allowable emi ssions level established for transportation in the air quality plan.

DEQ requested EPA to determine that emissions from transportation sources were insignificant for regional emissions analysis. EPA could not mak e that determination because their policy states that this determination can only be made whe n an area meets the standards. Therefore, the request has been denied. The request is described in Appendix A-25.



### Transportation Emissions Budgets for Conformity Since regional conformity is required, an emissions budget for on-road motor vehicle emissions
in the Klamath Falls nonattainment area is based on emissions from 2014. The transportation emissions budgets for 2014 are shown in Table 21 1 . The Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) is consistent with attainment of the 2006 24 -hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in 2014..

Table 121 : 2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

Klamath Falls Motor Vehicle PM 2.5 Emissions Budget

Worst Case Winter PM 2.5 Season (lbs/day)

Pollutant Pounds

per Day

PM2.5 699

NOx 4,834

The transportation emissions budgets were developed based on the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) travel demand model. The budg et amount for 2014 is the projected onroad mobile emissions for that year as calculated i n the emission inventory projections. See Appendix 11a. The emissions are based on vehicle mi les traveled (VMT) and other criteria from the transportation demand model then modeled by MOV ES as identified the emission in Appendix 11a and 11b. The emission inventory proje ctions include transportation projects in the statewide transportation plan that are funded. The projections do not include projects planned but

1 The motor vehicle emission budget for Klamath Fall s is based on the emissions in 2014 because that is the year projected for attainment of the 24-hour 2006 PM 2.5 NAAQS. DEQ predicts Klamath Falls will meet attain ment in 2014. VMT and other criteria used in the MOVES model can be found in Appendix 11 or by contacting DEQ Techni cal Services Section of Air Quality. While NOx is not c onsidered a substantive contributor to the PM2.5 pr oblem, DEQ included a budget for NOx only because the addition of a second pollutant is not much more of a worklo ad when running the MOVES model and it satisfies all aspect s of EPA’s requirements identified in 40CFR93.102(b )(2)(iv).51

without funding. DEQ’s transportation conformity ru les and the transportation conformity process can be found in Oregon Administrative Rule 340, Division 240
§ 193.17 How must design and production approval holders handle information they receive from the FAA under this part? ( a ) If the FAA discloses information under § 193.9(a)(2) to the holders of design approvals of production approvals issued by the FAA, the approval holder must disclose that information only to persons who need to know the information to address the safety or security condition.
( b ) Unless an emergency exists, before disclosing information to approval holders the FAA will contact the submitter of the information.
#### § 65.43 [Reserved]
§ 27.397 Limit pilot forces and torques. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the limit pilot forces are as follows: ( 1 ) For foot controls, 130 pounds.
( 2 ) For stick controls, 100 pounds fore and aft, and 67 pounds laterally.
( b ) For flap, tab, stabilizer, rotor brake, and landing gear operating controls, the follows apply (R = radius in inches): ( 1 ) Crank, wheel, and lever controls, [1 + R]/3 × 50 pounds, but not less than 50 pounds nor more than 100 pounds for hand operated controls or 130 pounds for foot operated controls, applied at any angle within 20 degrees of the plane of motion of the control.
( 2 ) Twist controls, 80R inch-pounds.
[Amdt. 27-11, 41 FR 55469, Dec. 20, 1976, as amended by Amdt. 27-40, 66 FR 23538, May 9, 2001]
§ 437.85 Allowable design changes; modification of an experimental permit. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76728 , Sept. 19, 2024.
( a ) The FAA will identify in the experimental permit the type of changes that the permittee may make to the reusable suborbital rocket design without invalidating the permit.
( b ) Except for design changes made under paragraph (a) of this section, a permittee must ask the FAA to modify the experimental permit if— ( 1 ) It proposes to conduct permitted activities in a manner not authorized by the permit; or
( 2 ) Any representation in its permit application that is material to public health and safety or the safety of property is no longer accurate or complete.
( c ) A permittee must prepare an application to modify an experimental permit and submit it in accordance with part 413 of this subchapter. If requested during the application process, the FAA may approve an alternate method for requesting permit modifications. The permittee must indicate any part of its permit that would be changed or affected by a proposed modification.
( d ) When a permittee proposes a modification, the FAA reviews the determinations made on the experimental permit to decide whether they remain valid.
( e ) When the FAA approves a modification, it issues the permittee either a written approval or a permit order modifying the permit if a stated term or condition of the permit is changed, added, or deleted. An approval has the full force and effect of a permit order and is part of the permit record.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

- 2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

November 9, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with the Truman Project to discuss the EPA/NHTSA Proposed Rulemaking

for Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards for Model Year 2017

- 2025 Light

- Duty Vehicles

FROM: William Charmley, US EPA

TO: EPA Docket # EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0799

This memo documents a meeting held on December 6 , 2011 between representatives of the Truman Project and EPA to discuss the EPA/NHTSA Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas

and CAFE Standards for Model Year 2017

- 2025 Light

- Duty Vehicles . This meeting took place in Washington, D.C., though two EPA participants were tied in by video

- conference.

The meeting attendees from the Truman Project included Lauren Wolfe and Benjamin Lowe

, and from EPA included Margo Oge, Chet France, and Bill Charmley

.

The discussion topics were limited to comments from the Truman Project representatives regarding their overall support for the proposal due to the proposal’s positive impacts on energy security, climate change impacts, and American competitiveness. In addition, the Truman Project representatives aske d for additional details regarding the upcoming public hearings for the proposal.
EXHIBIT 21

                          OMI CORPORATION SUBSIDIARIES
                    (ALL SUBSIDIARIES ARE 100% OWNED DIRECTLY
                       OR INDIRECTLY EXCEPT AS INDICATED)

                                     COMPANY

        Alliance Chartering LLC (50%)
        Alma Shipping LLC
        Amazon Transport, Inc. (49.0%)
        Cairo Sea Shipping LLC
        Colorado Shipping LLC
        Columbia Shipping LLC
        Czantoria Shipping LLC
        Danube Shipping LLC
        Elbe Shipping LLC
        Elbe Shipping LLC
        Geraldton Navigation Company Incorporated (49.9%)
        Geraldton Navigation Company Pte. Ltd.   (49.9%)
        Hayes Navigation Company Pte. Ltd.   (49.9%)
        Isere Shipping LLC
        Limar Shipping LLC
        Loire Shipping LLC`
        Mendala II Transport, Inc.
        Nile Shipping LLC
        OMI-Heidmar Shipping Ltd. (50.0%)
        OMI Marine Services LLC
        OMI Promise Transport, Inc.
        OMI State, Inc.
        Pagoda Shipping LLC
        Patricia Shipping LLC
        Paulina Shipping LLC
        Pecos Shipping LLC
        Sabine Shipping LLC
        Sacramento Shipping LLC
        Seine Shipping LLC
        Severn Shipping LLC
        Shannon Shipping LLC
        Shannon Shipping LLC.
        Sokolica Shipping LLC
        Soyang Shipping LLC
        Tiber Shipping LLC
        Trent Shipping LLC
        Trinidad Sea Shipping LLC
        UBC Chartering Ltd.
        Volga Shipping LLC
        White Sea Holdings Ltd.   (49%)
        White Sea Corporation   (49%)
Editorial Note on Part 302
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 302.604 Answers to a complaint or request for determination. ( a ) ( 1 ) When a carrier files a complaint under this subpart, the owner or operator of the airport and any other carrier serving the airport may file an answer to the complaint as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
( 2 ) When the owner or operator of an airport files a request for determination of the reasonableness of a fee it has imposed, any carrier serving the airport may file an answer to the request.
( b ) The answer to a complaint or request for determination shall set forth the answering party's entire response. When one or more additional complaints or a request for determination has been filed pursuant to § 302.602(b) with respect to the same airport's fee or fees, the answer shall set forth the answering party's entire response to all complaints and any such request for determination. The answer shall include a statement of position with a brief and any supporting testimony and exhibits on which the answering party intends to rely. In lieu of submitting duplicative exhibits or testimony, the answering party may incorporate by reference testimony and exhibits already filed in the same proceeding.
( c ) Answers to a complaint shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the filing date of the first complaint with respect to the fee or fees in dispute at a particular airport. Answers to a request for determination shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after the filing date of the request.
( d ) All exhibits and briefs prepared on electronic spreadsheet or word processing programs should be accompanied by standard-format computer diskettes containing those submissions as provided in § 302.603(b).
( e ) The answering party must also certify that: ( 1 ) it has served the answer, brief, and all supporting testimony and exhibits by hand, by electronic transmission, or by overnight express delivery on the carrier filing the complaint or the airport owner or operator requesting the determination, and that those parties have received or will receive these documents no later than the date the answer is filed; and
( 2 ) that any submission on computer diskette is a true copy of the data file used to prepare the printed versions of the exhibits or briefs.
§ 25.305 Strength and deformation. ( a ) The structure must be able to support limit loads without detrimental permanent deformation. At any load up to limit loads, the deformation may not interfere with safe operation.
( b ) The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at least 3 seconds. However, when proof of strength is shown by dynamic tests simulating actual load conditions, the 3-second limit does not apply. Static tests conducted to ultimate load must include the ultimate deflections and ultimate deformation induced by the loading. When analytical methods are used to show compliance with the ultimate load strength requirements, it must be shown that— ( 1 ) The effects of deformation are not significant;
( 2 ) The deformations involved are fully accounted for in the analysis; or
( 3 ) The methods and assumptions used are sufficient to cover the effects of these deformations.
( c ) Where structural flexibility is such that any rate of load application likely to occur in the operating conditions might produce transient stresses appreciably higher than those corresponding to static loads, the effects of this rate of application must be considered.
( d ) [Reserved]
( e ) The airplane must be designed to withstand any vibration and buffeting that might occur in any likely operating condition up to VD/MD, including stall and probable inadvertent excursions beyond the boundaries of the buffet onset envelope. This must be shown by analysis, flight tests, or other tests found necessary by the Administrator.
( f ) Unless shown to be extremely improbable, the airplane must be designed to withstand any forced structural vibration resulting from any failure, malfunction or adverse condition in the flight control system. These must be considered limit loads and must be investigated at airspeeds up to VC/MC.
[Doc. No. 5066, 29 FR 18291, Dec. 24, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 25-23, 35 FR 5672, Apr. 8, 1970; Amdt. 25-54, 45 FR 60172, Sept. 11, 1980; Amdt. 25-77, 57 FR 28949, June 29, 1992; Amdt. 25-86, 61 FR 5220, Feb. 9, 1996]
#### Joseph LaBarbera, Appellant, *v.*Hart & Crouse Co., Inc., Respondent.

(Submitted September 29, 1936;

decided October 13, 1936.)

*M. Francis Malone*for appellant.

*Raymond F. Nichols*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, without costs. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 437.57 Operating area containment. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76727 , Sept. 19, 2024.
( a ) During each permitted flight, a permittee must contain its reusable suborbital rocket's instantaneous impact point within an operating area determined in accordance with paragraph (b) and outside any exclusion area defined by the FAA in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) An operating area— ( 1 ) Must be large enough to contain each planned trajectory and all expected vehicle dispersions;
( 2 ) Must contain enough unpopulated or sparsely populated area to perform key flight-safety events as required by § 437.59;
( 3 ) May not contain or be adjacent to a densely populated area or large concentrations of members of the public; and
( 4 ) May not contain or be adjacent to significant automobile traffic, railway traffic, or waterborne vessel traffic.
( c ) The FAA may prohibit a reusable suborbital rocket's instantaneous impact point from traversing certain areas within an operating area by designating one or more areas as exclusion areas, if necessary to protect public health and safety, safety of property, or foreign policy or national security interests of the United States. An exclusion area may be confined to a specific phase of flight.