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

Medina, Dayana

From: Pettyjohn, Mary <PETTYJOHN@adeq.state.ar.us>

Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 11:05 AM

To: Galler, Wayne J.

Subject: FW: Region 6 feedback on Georgia Pacific- 6A and 9A boilers

Hi Wayne,

Nice talking with you today.

This is the response from EPA on the 6A boiler. To be BART‐eligible a unit has to be in operation between 07 Aug 1962

and 07 Aug 1977.  If you can locate documentation showing the 6A boiler was in operation prior to 07 Aug 1962, then

this unit would not be BART‐eligible.

Another email will follow.

Have a great day,

Mary

From: Medina, Dayana [mailto:Medina.Dayana@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:46 PM 

To: Pettyjohn, Mary 

Cc: Feldman, Michael; Donaldson, Guy 

Subject: Region 6 feedback on Georgia Pacific- 6A and 9A boilers 

Hi Mary,  

One of the action items from our call with you last Thursday was for Region 6 to send an email with feedback concerning

the 6A and 9A boilers at the Georgia‐Pacific Crossett Mill.  

In our action on the Arkansas RH SIP, we disapproved the finding that the 6A Boiler at the Georgia‐Pacific Crossett Mill

was not BART‐eligible. Assuming no new information surfaces regarding  boiler 6A, then we continue to believe that the

6A and 9A boilers are BART‐eligible and visibility modeling should be performed to determine whether the combined

visibility impacts from the BART‐eligible units at the facility are greater than the 0.5 dv threshold, therefore making the

units subject‐to‐BART.  As we previously discussed, we believe the best approach is for Georgia Pacific to use data on

production rates, fuel usage, heat capacity, etc., to provide some kind of technical support that would demonstrate that

the maximum 24‐hr emissions during the 2001‐2003 baseline period from the 9A boiler are less than or equal to the new

permit limit used in the modeling.  We do not believe that relying on the maximum permit allowable without

documentation of the baseline period emissions is a good option.  Maximum 24‐hr emissions from the baseline period

from the 6A boiler should be estimated based on available data and also included in the modeling.  Should revised

modeling demonstrate that the visibility impacts from the source fall below the 0.5 dv threshold at all impacted Class I

areas, this would support a determination that the source (6A and 9A boilers) was never subject to BART and no five

factor BART analysis is necessary.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this issue.  

Thank you,  

Dayana Medina

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
2

Air Planning Section (6PD‐L)

214‐665‐7241

medina.dayana@epa.gov
# L_2005105EN.01000502.xml

| 26.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 105/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 105/5

---

Corrigendum to Commission Directive 2000/3/EC of 22 February 2000 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 77/541/EEC relating to safety belts and restraint systems of motor vehicles

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 53 of 25 February 2000
  )

On page 15, point 2.7.3 of Annex I shall read as follows:

2.7.3.   Conditioning of straps for the breaking-strength test.

Samples cut from the strap, as referred to in 2.1.3.2, shall be conditioned as follows.’

---
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 61 FR 19984, May 3, 1996.

#### § 4.186 [Reserved]
§ 2570.133 Parties, how designated. For 502(c)(7) civil penalty proceedings, this section shall apply in lieu of § 18.10 of this title. ( a ) The term “party” wherever used in this subpart shall include any natural person, corporation, employee benefit plan, association, firm, partnership, trustee, receiver, agency, public or private organization, or government agency. A party against whom a civil penalty is sought shall be designated as “respondent.” The Department shall be designated as the “complainant.”
( b ) Other persons or organizations shall be permitted to participate as parties only if the administrative law judge finds that the final decision could directly and adversely affect them or the class they represent, that they may contribute materially to the disposition of the proceedings and their interest is not adequately represented by existing parties, and that in the discretion of the administrative law judge the participation of such persons or organizations would be appropriate.
( c ) A person or organization not named as a respondent wishing to participate as a party under this section shall submit a petition to the administrative law judge within fifteen (15) days after the person or organization has knowledge of or should have known about the proceeding. The petition shall be filed with the administrative law judge and served on each person who or organization that has been made a party at the time of filing. Such petition shall concisely state: ( 1 ) Petitioner's interest in the proceeding;
( 2 ) How his or her participation as a party will contribute materially to the disposition of the proceeding;
( 3 ) Who will appear for petitioner;
( 4 ) The issues on which petitioner wishes to participate; and
( 5 ) Whether petitioner intends to present witnesses.
( d ) Objections to the petition may be filed by a party within fifteen (15) days of the filing of the petition. If objections to the petition are filed, the administrative law judge shall then determine whether petitioner has the requisite interest to be a party in the proceedings, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, and shall permit or deny participation accordingly. Where petitions to participate as parties are made by individuals or groups with common interests, the administrative law judge may request all such petitioners to designate a single representative, or he or she may recognize one or more of such petitioners. The administrative law judge shall give each such petitioner, as well as the parties, written notice of the decision on his or her petition. For each petition granted, the administrative law judge shall provide a brief statement of the basis of the decision. If the petition is denied, he or she shall briefly state the grounds for denial and shall then treat the petition as a request for participation as *amicus curiae.*
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Skibo Financial Corp.(the  "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ending  September  30,  2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Walter
G. Kelly,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and Carol A. Gilbert,  Chief
Financial and Operating Officer,  Treasurer and Secretary,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
               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.





/s/Walter G. Kelly                        /s/Carol A. Gilbert
-------------------------------------     --------------------------------------
Walter G. Kelly                           Carol A. Gilbert
President and Chief Executive Officer     Chief Financial and Operating Officer,
(Principal Executive Officer)             Secretary and Treasurer
                                          (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                          Officer)

Date: October 31, 2003                    Date: October 31, 2003
_______________________________________ __ ___________________ ________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
April 23, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh 133580 (25) Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. FRED HARTER, #99591 Stephen J. Markman, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 133580 CoA: 273278 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Defendant-Appellee.

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $11.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $364.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

jm I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
April 23, 2007
Clerk
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3571 — IBM/Maersk Data/DM Data)

(2004/C 260/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-20748

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THOMAS E. HUITT; CHARLES L. HENKE,

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-H-93-227-2

- - - - - - - - - -

October 24, 1996

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants appeal from the district court’s refusal to grant

a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant

to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Appellants argue that they never denied

committing the offenses alleged in the indictment, but they

relied upon a public authority defense to the charges. We have

reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that

the district court did not err in determining that the appellants
No. 95-20748

- 2 -

were not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility

given the deferential standard of review applied to acceptance of

responsibility findings, the finding that the appellants

obstructed justice, and given that the appellants put the

Government to its burden of proof as to their intent to commit

the offenses. United States v. Spires, 79 F.3d 464, 467 (5th

Cir. 1996); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2), (n.4).

AFFIRMED.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00832-CV

Maryvel SUDAY, Independent Executor of the 

Estate of Olga Tamez de Suday, Deceased

Appellant

v.

Jesus Lozano SUDAY,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3,625 CCL

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the final decree of divorce is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED November 25, 2020.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40270

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LUIS MEDINA, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:15-CR-706-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Luis Medina, 

Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Medina has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

October 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40270 Document: 00513722067 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
No. 16-40270

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40270 Document: 00513722067 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2016
§ 452.1 Introductory statement. ( a ) This part discusses the meaning and scope of the provisions of title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act[1] (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which deal with the election of officers of labor organizations. These provisions require periodic election of union officers, and prescribe minimum standards to insure that such elections will be fairly conducted. Specific provisions are included to assure the right of union members to participate in selecting their officers without fear of interference or reprisal, and to protect the right to nominate candidates, run for office, and vote in officer elections. Title IV also sets forth the rights of candidates, provides for secret ballots in appropriate cases, and requires notice of nominations and elections, preservation of election records, and other safeguards to insure fair elections. However, the Act does not prescribe complete, detailed procedures for the nomination and election of union officers.
( b ) Interpretations of the Director with respect to the election provisions of title IV are set forth in this part to provide those affected by these provisions of the Act with “a practical guide * * * as to how the office representing the public interest in its enforcement will seek to apply it.”[2] The correctness of an interpretation can be determined finally and authoritatively only by the courts. It is necessary, however, for the Director to reach informed conclusions as to the meaning of the law to enable him to carry out his statutory duties of administration and enforcement. The interpretations of the Director contained in this part, which are issued upon the advice of the Solicitor of Labor, indicate the construction of the law which will guide him in performing his duties unless and until he is directed otherwise by authoritative rulings of the courts or unless and until he subsequently announces that a prior interpretation is incorrect. However, the fact that a particular problem is not discussed in this part, or in interpretations supplementing it, should not be taken to indicate the adoption of any position by the Director with respect to such problem or to constitute an administrative interpretation or practice.
( c ) To the extent that prior opinions and interpretations relating to the election of officers of labor organizations under the Act are inconsistent or in conflict with the principles stated in this part, they are hereby rescinded and withdrawn.
[38 FR 18324, July 9, 1973, as amended at 78 FR 8026, Feb. 5, 2013] Footnotes -
452.1
[1] 73 Stat. 532-535, 29 U.S.C. 481-483.
[2] *Skidmore* v. *Swift & Co.,* 323 U.S. 134 at 138 (1944).
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12478]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-958-1430-ET; GP0-0014; OR-54087]


Public Land Order No. 7446; Withdrawal of Public Lands for the 
Desert Springs Seed Orchard; Oregon

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

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

SUMMARY: This order withdraws 80 acres of public land from surface 
entry and mining for a period of 50 years and transfers administrative 
jurisdiction to the Forest Service to protect its investment in the 
development of a seed orchard. The land has been and will remain open 
to mineral leasing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles R. Roy, BLM Oregon/Washington 
State Office, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208-2965, 503-952-6189.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:
    1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described public 
land is hereby withdrawn from settlement, sale, location, or entry 
under the general land laws, including the United States mining laws 
(30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994)), to protect the proposed investment of Federal 
funds and related facilities for the Forest Service's Desert Springs 
Seed Orchard:

Willamette Meridian

T. 33 S., R. 18 E.,
Sec. 11, E\1/2\SE\1/4\.
    The area described contains 80 acres in Lake County.
    2. Administrative jurisdiction of the land described in Paragraph 2 
is hereby transferred to the Forest Service.
    3. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the 
applicability of those public land laws governing the use of the land 
under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of its 
mineral or vegetative resources other than under the mining laws.
    4. This withdrawal will expire 50 years from the effective date of 
this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the 
expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1994), the Secretary 
determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

    Dated: May 4, 2000.
Sylvia V. Baca,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 00-12478 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001074544
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST VI


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-29-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Humphreys, Powell and Senior Judge Clements 

BARBARA J. GOODMAN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1333-09-1 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 27, 2009 

HOOVER UNIVERSAL, INC. AND 

 ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Kevin L. Hubbard; Hubbard and Hartley, PC, on brief), for 

appellant. 

 (Audrey Marcello; Taylor & Walker, P.C., on brief), for appellees. 

 Barbara J. Goodman (claimant) appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation 

Commission finding that claimant failed to reasonably market her residual work capacity after 

June 29, 2007. We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this 

appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its 

final opinion. See Goodman v. Hoover Universal, Inc., VWC File No. 222-97-00 (May 18, 

2009). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not 

aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
§ 4044.4 Violations. ( a ) *General.* A plan administrator violates ERISA if plan assets are allocated or distributed upon plan termination in a manner other than that prescribed in section 4044 of ERISA and this subpart, except as may be required to prevent disqualification of the plan under the Code and regulations thereunder.
( b ) *Distributions in anticipation of termination.* A distribution, transfer, or allocation of assets to a participant or to an insurance company for the benefit of a participant, made in anticipation of plan termination, is considered to be an allocation of plan assets upon termination, and is covered by paragraph (a) of this section. In determining whether a distribution, transfer, or allocation of assets has been made in anticipation of plan termination PBGC will consider all of the facts and circumstances including— ( 1 ) Any change in funding or operation procedures;
( 2 ) Past practice with regard to employee requests for forms of distribution;
( 3 ) Whether the distribution is consistent with plan provisions; and
( 4 ) Whether an annuity contract that provides for a cutback based on the guarantee limits in subpart B of part 4022 of this chapter could have been purchased from an insurance company.