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

GHG Reporting Instructions » 

Preparing Your Annual GHG Reporting » 

Subpart Reporting Instructions » 

Subpart A - General Provisions » 

... » 

Using e-GGRT to Prepare Your Subpart A Report » 

Subpart A U.S. Parent Companies » 

Standardization of Parent Company Names - Style Guide

Standardization of Parent Company Names - Style Guide 

Reporters are required to enter the "Legal Name of United States Parent Company." EPA has defined U.S. 

parent company(s) as highest-level U.S. company(s) with an ownership interest in the reporting entity as of 

December 31 of the year for which data are being reported. Please select you facility's parent company from 

the pick-list provided. A screen snap of the parent company page is shown below:

To improve the quality and utility of GHG data EPA has established guidelines for standardizing corporate parent

names. As a first step EPA has established a pick list of existing corporate parents. The following 4 steps were taken 

standardize the names of on the pick list including: 

1) Names were standardized and research was conducted to verify the name submitted was the highest-level of the 

company in the U.S. 

2) For GHG reporters who also report to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), standardized names were sourced from 

the TRI parent company database. 

3) For the sectors covered by the GHG reporting program only, parent companies were derived from internet 

research. 

4) The List of Parent Companies with local government agencies (e.g., city, town, county government) was 

removed. 
A list of the parent company names provided on this pick list can also be downloaded using this link. 

If your facility's parent company is not already on the parent company pick-list you will need to enter the parent 

company's name in e-GGRT. The following provides a "style guide" for parent company naming: 

Remember to:

• Eliminate all periods 

• Enter & instead of AND 

• Use "North America" instead of NA 

When reporting the Parent Company, use the terms displayed in the "Acronym" column of the table below:

Acronym Definition 

CORP Corporation 
ASSOC Association 

CO Company 

DIV Division 

INC Incorp/Incorp./Incorporated 

LP Limited Partnership 

LTD Limited 

LLC Limited Liability Company 

PTNR Partnership 

USA United States of America 

US United States
----

----

I Informácie

Komisia

----

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

22. júla 2004

(2004/C 188/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

----

----

ZOZNAM ODBORNÍKOV VYMENOVANÝCH ZA ČLENOV VEDECKÝCH VÝBOROV

(2004/C 188/02)

Zoznam vedcov v abecednom poradí, ktorých vymenovala Komisia za členov vedeckých výborov ustanovených rozhodnutím Komisie 2004/210/ES zo dňa 4. marca 2004.

Náhradný zoznam odborníkov

Zoznam vedcov v abecednom poradí, ktorí tvoria náhradný zoznam odborníkov, ako je stanovené v článku 4 rozhodnutia Komisie 2004/210/ES zo dňa 4. marca 2004.

----

----

OZNÁMENIE KOMISIE

Vymenovanie prezidenta a členov dohadovacieho orgánu ustanovené rozhodnutím Komisie 94/442/ES z 1. júla 1994 o začatí dohadovacieho konania v rámci účtovnej uzávierky Európskeho poľnohospodárskeho zabezpečovacieho a garančného fondu (EPZGF), sekcia „garancie“

(2004/C 188/03)

Komisiou boli vymenovaní:

Komisiou bol ako náhradný člen tohto orgánu od 1. augusta 2004 určený

p. Gert Ingmar JÖNSSON

----

----

Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii

(Prípad COMP/M.3472 — Reliance/Trevira)

[Prípad vhodný na zjednodušený postup]

(2004/C 188/04)

(Text s významom pre EHP)

----

(1)Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1.

(2)Ú. v. ES C 217, 29.7.2000, s. 32. Nariadenie Rady (EHS) č. 4064/89 bolo nahradené nariadením Rady (ES) č. 139/2004.

----

III Oznámenia

Komisia

----

Oznámenie o výzve na predkladanie ponúk na poskytnutie zníženia dovozného cla na dovoz kukurice z tretích krajín

(2004/C 188/05)

I.   PREDMET

II.   Termíny

III.   Ponuky

IV.   Zábezpeka verejnej súťaže

Zábezpeka verejnej súťaže sa skladá v prospech kompetentnej organizácie.

V.   Pridelenie kontraktu

Pridelenie kontraktu zakladá:

----

(1)Ú. v. ES L 249, 23.7.2004, s. 7.

(2)Ú. v. ES L 177, 28.7.1995, s. 4.

----
§ 1990.133 Publication. ( a ) The Secretary shall publish the Candidate List in the Federal Register at least annually.
( b ) The Secretary shall publish the Priority Lists in the Federal Register at least every six months and may seek public comment thereon.
( c ) The Secretary may periodically publish in the Federal Register a notice requesting information concerning the classification and establishment of priorities for substances on the Candidate List together with a brief statement describing the type of information being sought.
Effective Date Note
Effective Date Note: At 48 FR 243, Jan. 4, 1983, § 1990.133 was stayed in order to evaluate the impact of publishing the Candidate List and Priority Lists and to reconsider the criteria used in establishing the lists (see also 47 FR 187, Jan. 5, 1982).
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Michel Attias, Chief Executive Officer of Patriot Motorcycle
Corporation, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Patriot Motorcycle Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness
of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small
business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date: January 26, 2007



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/ MICHEL ATTIAS
|Michel Attias    
|President
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 954 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 954

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a 
   technical correction to the amendments made by section 422 of the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2007

Mr. Kohl (for himself and Mr. Feingold) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a 
   technical correction to the amendments made by section 422 of the 
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Residency Program Technical 
Correction Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT RESIDENT SLOTS THAT WERE 
              ERRONEOUSLY ELIMINATED.

    (a) In General.--Section 1886(h)(7) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(7)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E); 
        and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Adjustment based on settled cost report.--In 
                the case of a hospital for which--
                            ``(i) the otherwise applicable resident 
                        limit was reduced under subparagraph (A)(i)(I); 
                        and
                            ``(ii) such reduction was based on a 
                        reference resident level that was determined 
                        using a cost report that was subsequently 
                        settled, whether as a result of an appeal or 
                        otherwise, and the reference resident level 
                        under such settled cost report is higher than 
                        the level used for the reduction under 
                        subparagraph (A)(i)(I),
                the Secretary shall apply subparagraph (A)(i)(I) using 
                the higher resident reference level and make any 
                necessary adjustments to such reduction. Any such 
                necessary adjustments shall be effective for portions 
                of cost reporting periods occurring on or after July 1, 
                2005.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the enactment of section 422 of the Medicare 
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public 
Law 108-173).
                                 <all>
```
II 

Calendar No. 89 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 888 

To amend section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, to allow the 

prosecution of genocide in appropriate circumstances. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2007 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. COBURN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. FEINGOLD, and Mr. KENNEDY) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, 

to allow the prosecution of genocide in appropriate circumstances. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Genocide Account5 ability Act of 2007’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

S 888 RS

1 SEC. 2. GENOCIDE. 

2 Section 1091 of title 18, United States Code, is 

3 amended by striking subsection (d) and inserting the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(d) REQUIRED CIRCUMSTANCE FOR OFFENSES.— 

6 The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (c) 

7 is that— 

8 ‘‘(1) the offense is committed in whole or in 

9 part within the United States; 

10 ‘‘(2) the alleged offender is a national of the 

11 United States (as that term is defined in section 101 

12 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

13 1101)); 

14 ‘‘(3) the alleged offender is an alien lawfully ad15 mitted for permanent residence in the United States 

16 (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immi17 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)); 

18 ‘‘(4) the alleged offender is a stateless person 

19 whose habitual residence is in the United States; or 

20 ‘‘(5) after the conduct required for the offense 

21 occurs, the alleged offender is brought into, or found 

22 in, the United States, even if that conduct occurred 

23 outside the United States.’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS

ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
Calendar No. 89 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 888 

A BILL 

To amend section 1091 of title 18, United States 

propriate circumstances. Code, to allow the prosecution of genocide in apMARCH 26, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


ccoleman on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Todd Smith, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 104]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered April 2, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

After the first round of jury selection, the prosecutor peremptorily challenged four prospective jurors. The court noted that “[t]hey are all black”, and the defense counsel asked for race-neutral reasons for challenging the prospective jurors. The prosecutor was unable to recall a race-neutral reason for challenging one of those prospective jurors, and the court ordered that prospective juror seated. She proffered race-*571neutral reasons for challenging two of the other prospective jurors. With respect to the fourth prospective juror, the prosecutor noted “he’s a postal worker * * * I had experience with them on juries before and based upon my past experience I don’t * * * relate to them well when they’re on a jury”. The defense counsel objected, arguing that the prosecutor’s challenge based on her dislike of postal workers was not race-neutral. However, the court accepted the prosecutor’s reason.

Thereafter, the prosecutor peremptorily challenged two additional black prospective jurors. The trial court found that the challenge to one of those prospective jurors was pretextual (see, *People v Allen,*86 NY2d 101, 110), and restored that juror to the jury.

Where a peremptory challenge is based upon a prospective juror’s employment, the concerns regarding the employment must be related to the factual circumstances of the case, and the qualifications of the juror to serve on that case *(see, People v Russo,*243 AD2d 658; *People v Dalhouse,*240 AD2d 420; *People v Louis,*239 AD2d 435). Here, the prosecutor made no effort to explain how a prospective juror’s employment as a postal worker related to the facts of the case, or to the juror’s qualifications. No relationship between the prospective juror’s employment as a postal worker and the instant case is apparent from the record. Thus, the nature of the prospective juror’s employment was not a “legitimate basis upon which to exclude him or her from the jury” *(People v Richie,*217 AD2d 84, 88). This pretextual explanation alone suffices to warrant reversal of the defendant’s conviction *(see, People v Bolling,*79 NY2d 317; *People v Dalhouse, supra).*In any event, it should be noted that the prosecutor’s challenge to this prospective juror was part of a pattern of intentional discrimination against black prospective jurors, which resulted in the trial court rejecting two of the prosecutor’s other peremptory challenges.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Thompson, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
#### ARB et v PENN etc.

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Lucas County

No 2131.

Decided April 8, 1929

Connolly, Flory & Streicher, Toledo, forArb.

Joseph G Gluck, Toledo, for Penn.

*308BY THE COURT

After giving the evidence and the arguments of counsel careful consideration, the court has reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction to the full extent sought but that they are entitled to an injunction against the defendants in the following respects:

1. Against the operation "of the laundry on Sundays, and also against operating it on all days of the week between the hours of 9:00 P. M. and 5:00 A. M.

2. Ag.ainst discharging waste material from the laundry upon the property of others than the defendants, except that they may continue the operation of the laundry by installing and having in constant use when the laundry is being operated, a modern, approved and efficient smoke consumer.

3. Against using a mangle in the building constructed as a garage and against using said garage building for' laundry purposes, such use being in violation of the zoning ordinance.

A decree may be drawn for the plaintiffs in accordance with this opinion.

Williams, Lloyd and Richards, JJ, concur.
#### United States Fidelity *&*Guaranty Co. v. Mooney’s Moving & Storage, Inc.

*James N. Peck,*for plaintiff.

*Smilie, Bean, Davis & Tredinnick and Saul, Ewing, Remick •& Saul,*for defendant.

December 9, 1958.

Groshens, J.,

— These are three suits in trespass arising out of the same alleged negligence of defendants. The three complaints are identical in substance, as are the three answers and new matter of the first defendant. In each case identical preliminary objections to first defendant’s new matter have been filed, which are the immediate matter before the court.

*669The new matter sets forth certain alleged defenses arising under the terms of first defendant’s warehouse receipt, namely: Paragraph 6(a) which provides in part that the goods are stored at customer’s risk with respect to damage caused by fire; paragraph 6(c) which provides in part that the burden of proving negligence is on the customer; and paragraph 14(a) which provides in part that the customer must file a claim in writing within 30 days after written notice of the damage is mailed to the customer at his last known address.

Plaintiff contends the foregoing terms in a warehouse receipt are against public policy and are null and void.

Paragraph 6(a) is an attempt to abrogate first defendant’s liability for fire damage regardless of negligence and is, therefore, ineffective under Schell v. Miller North Broad Storage Co., Inc., 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 101, affirmed 353 Pa. 319, where it was held that while a warehouseman was not an insurer, he was “obliged to exercise ordinary diligence and care not only to prevent fire from starting but also to arrest its progress.”

Paragraph 6(c) is a correct statement of a plaintiff’s burden of proof in an action in trespass against a noninsurer.

Paragraph 14 (a) is a reasonable provision as to the time within which claims against the warehouseman must be filed. Certainly as a matter of law, it cannot be called such an unreasonable contractual limitation as to be against public policy. The Uniform Commercial Code of April 6, 1953, P. L. 3, sec. 7-204(2) provides: “Reasonable provisions as to the time and manner of presenting claims and instituting actions based on the bailment may be included in the warehouse receipt or tariff.” The parties by their contract have agreed upon *67030 'days. It does not seem to be unreasonable or oppressive to enforce such a contractual provision without proof to the contrary.

And now, December 9, 1958, the third preliminary objection is sustained, the first and second preliminary objections are dismissed and plaintiff is allowed 20 days from this date to file a reply to new matter in conformity herewith.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 33313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12861]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-389-006]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate 
Filing

May 17, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 10, 2000, Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing the following contract for 
disclosure of a recently negotiated rate transaction:

FTS-1 Service Agreement No. 68346 between Columbia Gulf Transmission 
Company and Williams Energy Marketing & Trading Company, dated May 8, 
2000

    Columbia Gulf requests an effective date of June 1, 2000 for this 
negotiated rate agreement.
    Columbia Gulf states that copies of the filing have been served on 
all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12861 Filed 5-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<Page>

                                                                Exhibit 23.01



March 27, 2002


Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Subsidiary
220 West Main Street
P.O. Box 32010
Louisville, Kentucky 40232


Enclosed are our manually signed reports relating to the use in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of our reports dated January 25, 2002 relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of
Louisville Gas and Electric Company and Subsidiary (the "Company").

Our manually signed reports serve to authorize the use of our name on our
reports in the electronic filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
with the SEC.

Please provide us with an exact copy of the Annual Report on Form 10-K as
electronically filed with the SEC.


Very truly yours,

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
----------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.01

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the inclusion in
this Form 10-K of our report dated January 26, 2001. It should be noted that
we have not audited any financial statements of Lousiville Gas and Electric
Company subsequent to December 31, 2000 or performed any audit procedures
subsequent to the date of our report.

                                             /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                            -------------------------------


Louisville, Kentucky
  March 27, 2002