alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Date: December 16, 2011 Subject: The Effect on the MACT Floors for Mercury, Hydrogen Chloride, and Filterable Particulate Matter Emissions of Non- Low Rank Virgin Coal-Fired EGUs for Boilers Based on Rated Capacities of ≥ 125 MW Capacity or <125 MW.

From: Jeffrey Cole (RTI International)

To: Bill Maxwell OAQPS/SPPD/ESG (D243-01) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

The EPA requested that RTI calculate the Hg MACT floor values resulting from a subcategory containing only non-lo w rank, coal-fired electric util ity steam generating units (i.e., boilers fired by either bituminous-, subbituminous-, and coal refuse-fired) for boilers with rated capacities of ≥ 125 MW or <125 MW. EPA wanted RTI to calculate the potential MACT floors for mercury (Hg), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and f ilterable particulate ma tter (fPM) under these scenarios. The Hg MACT floor values are based on 12 percent of their respective emissions data sets collected by EPA in the recent information collection request (ICR). The HCl and fPM MACT floor values are based on 12 percent of th e number of these units in the EU industry population with capacities <125 MW (345 boilers) or ≥ 125 MW (699 boilers), respectively. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Hg, HCl, and fPM MACT Floor Values For Coal-Fired Boilers Based on Rated Capacity, ≥ 125 MW or <125 MW

Pollutant Number of Boilers in MACT floor MACT floor value MACT floor units of

measure Hg (boilers ≥ 125 MW) 27 0.64 lb/TBtu Hg (boilers < 125 MW) 19 0.17 lb/TBtu HCl (boilers ≥ 125 MW) 84 0.0020 lb/MMBtu HCl (boilers < 125 MW) 42 0.0040 lb/MMBtu fPM (boilers ≥ 125 MW) 84 0.030 lb/MMBtu fPM (boilers < 125 MW) 42 0.080 lb/MMBtu
#### § 4203.2 Definitions.

The following terms are defined in § 4001.2 of this chapter: complete withdrawal, employer, ERISA, multiemployer plan, PBGC, person, plan, plan sponsor, and plan year.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The South Atlantic States, Regulatory Fairness Board will hold a public hearing on June 22, 2000, at Morgan State University, Main Lecture Hall, Schaefer Building, located at 5200 Perring Parkway, Room 241, Baltimore, Maryland to receive comments and testimony from small businesses and representatives of trade associations concerning federal regulatory enforcement or compliance activities. Transcripts of these proceedings will be posted on the Internet. These transcripts are subject only to limited review by the National Ombudsman. For further information, call Elestine Harvey (312) 353-0880.

Bettie Baca,

Counselor to the Administrator/Public Liaison.

[FR Doc. 00-12691 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### § 417.17 Investigation of complaint and court action.

The Office of Labor-Management Standards shall investigate such complaint, and if upon such investigation the Secretary finds probable cause to believe that a violation of section 401(h) of the Act has occurred and has not been remedied, the Secretary shall within 60 days after the filing of such complaint, bring a civil action against the labor organization in the district court of the United States for the district in which such labor organization maintains its principal office, to direct the conduct of a hearing and vote upon the removal of officer(s) under the supervision of the Director as provided in section 402(b) of the Act.

[59 FR 65717, Dec. 21, 1994, as amended at 78 FR 8025, Feb. 5, 2013]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          33,445
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      418
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    227,389
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,000
<PP&E>                                       9,536,147
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,005,950
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,900,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,602,255
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,927,063
<OTHER-SE>                                  (8,693,415)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,900,714
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,164
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               958,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             702,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,650,387)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,650,387)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,650,387)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 8 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 8

   Expressing the support of Congress for the creation of a National 
      Hurricane Museum and Science Center in southwest Louisiana.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2007

   Mr. Vitter (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the support of Congress for the creation of a National 
      Hurricane Museum and Science Center in southwest Louisiana.

Whereas the Creole Nature Trail All-American Road District Board of 
        Commissioners has begun to create and develop a National Hurricane 
        Museum and Science Center in the southwest Louisiana area;
Whereas protecting, preserving, and showcasing the intrinsic qualities that make 
        Louisiana a one-of-a-kind experience is the mission of the Creole Nature 
        Trail All-American Road;
Whereas the horrific experience and the devastating long-term effects of 
        Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will play a major role in the history of the 
        United States;
Whereas a science center of this caliber will educate and motivate young and old 
        in the fields of meteorology, environmental science, sociology, 
        conservation, economics, history, communications, and engineering;
Whereas it is only appropriate that the effects of hurricanes and the rebuilding 
        efforts be captured in a comprehensive center such as a National 
        Hurricane Museum and Science Center to interpret the effects of 
        hurricanes in and outside of Louisiana; and
Whereas it is critical that the history of past hurricanes be preserved so that 
        all people in the United States can learn from this history: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress supports and encourages the creation of a National 
Hurricane Museum and Science Center in southwest Louisiana.
                                 <all>
```
J-S29001-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

MICHAEL SERRANO

Appellant No. 982 WDA 2013

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 3, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-07-CR-0000099-2011

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED JUNE 04, 2015

A previous panel of this Court remanded this case for re-sentencing. 

See Commonwealth v. Serrano, 61 A.3d 279 (Pa. Super. 2013). On 

remand, the sentencing court imposed sentence on counts two through four 

and ran the sentences consecutively. Count two is Serrano’s conviction for 

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (heroin), 35 P.S. 

780-113(a)(30), and the trial court imposed a term of imprisonment of 

fifteen to thirty years. The sentence for count two imposed a mandatory 

minimum, as the sentencing court notes in its sentencing order. See Order, 

5/3/13, at 6, ¶10. 

____________________________________________

 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29001-15

- 2 -

There is a problem with this sentence. It is illegal. This Court has 

held that section 7508 is facially invalid pursuant to Alleyne v. United 

States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). See 

Commonwealth v. Fennell, 105 A.3d 13 (Pa. Super. 2014). Simply put, 

“a mandatory minimum sentence imposed under this statute is illegal.” 

Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858, 876 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en 

banc) (citing Fennell). 

We have little doubt that our decision upsets the sentencing scheme. 

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for resentencing. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Phillips, 946 A.2d 103, 115 

(Pa. Super. 2008) (“If a correction by this Court may upset the sentencing 

scheme envisioned by the trial court, the better practice is to remand.”).1 

Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded for re-sentencing. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 6/4/2015

____________________________________________

1 Our disposition makes the first issue raised on appeal moot.
United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 31, 2016

Decided June 1, 2016

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐2802

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

GILBERTO MIGUEL LAUREANO,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Eastern Division.

No. 10 CR 772

James B. Zagel,

Judge.

O R D E R

Gilberto Laureano pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to distribute and to possess with

the intent to distribute 9.7 kilograms of heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), after he enlisted a

co‐conspirator to drive with him to Mexico, pick up heroin, and drive back to Chicago

with the drugs. Laureano was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, the statutory

minimum, and 5 years’ supervised release. Although his plea agreement included a

broad appeal waiver, Laureano appealed. His lawyer asserts that the appeal is frivolous

and seeks to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We invited

Laureano to comment on counsel’s motion, but he has not responded. See CIR. R. 51(b).

Counsel has submitted a brief that explains the nature of the case and addresses the

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 15‐2802    Page 2

issues that an appeal of this kind might be expected to involve. Because counsel’s

analysis appears to be thorough, we limit our review to the subjects that counsel

discusses. See United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774, 776 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v.

Wagner, 103 F.3d 551, 553 (7th Cir. 1996).

Counsel tells us that Laureano does not wish to challenge his guilty plea, and thus

we do not discuss the voluntariness of the plea or the adequacy of Laureano’s plea

colloquy. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11; United States v. Konczak, 683 F.3d 348, 349 (7th Cir. 2012);

United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670–71 (7th Cir. 2002). It follows, counsel properly

explains, that any challenge to Laureano’s sentence would be frivolous. Because an

appeal waiver stands or falls with the guilty plea, see United States v. Zitt, 714 F.3d 511,

515 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Sakellarion, 649 F.3d 634, 639 (7th Cir. 2011), we must

enforce Laureano’s waiver. The district court did not rely on any impermissible factors

in sentencing, and Laureano’s sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum of life.

See Dowell v. United States, 694 F.3d 898, 902 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Bownes,

405 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2005). And the waiver forecloses any challenge to Laureano’s

conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Campbell, 813 F.3d 1016, 1018

(7th Cir. 2016). If Laureano encounters problems with these conditions when supervised

release begins, he may seek modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). See Campbell,

813 F.3d at 1019; United States v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512, 514 (7th Cir. 2016).

We GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw and DISMISS the appeal.
Exhibit
32.2   Section 1350 Certification





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Citizens First Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Todd
Kanipe, Executive Vice President Credit Administration and Finance, of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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 results of operations of the Company.








By:
            /s/Todd KanipeTodd
      KanipeExecutive
      Vice President, Credit Administration and Finance(Principal
      Financial Officer)Date:
            May
      15, 2008








This
certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter
63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed ‘filed” for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability
of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act
or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
§ 37.61 Is there authority to issue subpoenas? Yes, section 183(c) of WIA authorizes the issuance of subpoenas. A subpoena may direct the individual named on the subpoena to take the following actions: ( a ) To appear: ( 1 ) Before a designated CRC representative,
( 2 ) At a designated time and place;
( b ) To give testimony; and/or
( c ) To produce documentary evidence.
The subpoena may require the appearance of witnesses, and the production of documents, from any place in the United States, at any designated time and place. Compliance Reviews
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 30 

Urging all sides to the current political crisis in Ukraine to act responsibly 

and use dialogue to resolve the crisis and ensure a free and transparent 

democratic system in Ukraine based on the rule of law. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2007 

Mr. DODD submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Urging all sides to the current political crisis in Ukraine 

to act responsibly and use dialogue to resolve the crisis 

and ensure a free and transparent democratic system 

in Ukraine based on the rule of law. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) acknowledges and welcomes the strong rela4 tionship formed between the United States and 

5 Ukraine since the restoration of Ukraine’s independ6 ence in 1991; 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•SCON 30 IS 

1 (2) urges all sides to the current political crisis 

2 in Ukraine to act responsibly and use dialogue to re3 solve the crisis; 

4 (3) urges all sides to adhere to the rule of law 

5 and resolve disputes in a peaceful manner consistent 

6 with Ukraine’s democratic values and national inter7 est, in keeping with its commitments as a member 

8 of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 

9 Europe (OSCE); 

10 (4) expresses strong and continuing support for 

11 the efforts of the Ukrainian people to establish a full 

12 democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human 

13 rights; 

14 (5) pledges its continued assistance to the 

15 strengthening of a free and transparent democratic 

16 system in Ukraine based on the rule of law and the 

17 continued development of a free market economy in 

18 Ukraine; and 

19 (6) reaffirms its commitment to Ukraine’s inde20 pendence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and 

21 assumption of Ukraine’s rightful place as a full 

22 member of the international community of democ23 racies. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
§ 4042.4 Disclosure of information by plan administrator or plan sponsor. ( a ) *Request for Information* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Beginning on the third business day (as defined in § 4000.22 of this chapter) after PBGC has issued a notice under section 4042 of ERISA that a plan should be terminated, an affected party may make a request to the plan sponsor or the plan administrator (or both) for any information that such plan administrator or plan sponsor has submitted to PBGC in connection with the plan termination.
( 2 ) *Requirements.* A request under paragraph (a) of this section must: ( i ) Be in writing to the plan administrator or plan sponsor;
( ii ) State the name of the plan and that the request is for information submitted to PBGC in connection with the plan termination;
( iii ) State the name of the person making the request for information and such person's relationship to the plan (e.g., plan participant), and that such relationship meets the definition of affected party under § 4001.2 of this chapter; and
( iv ) Be signed by the person making the request.
( b ) *Response by Plan Administrator or Plan Sponsor* — ( 1 ) *Timing of response.* A plan administrator or plan sponsor that receives a request under paragraph (a) of this section must provide the information requested not later than the 15th business day (as defined in § 4000.22 of this chapter) after receipt of the request.
( 2 ) *Supplemental responses.* If, at any time after receipt of a request under paragraph (a), the plan administrator or plan sponsor submits additional information to PBGC in connection with the plan termination, the plan administrator or plan sponsor must provide such additional information to any affected party that has made a request under paragraph (a), not later than the 15th business day (as defined in § 4000.22 of this chapter) after the information is submitted to PBGC.
( 3 ) *Confidential information.* ( i ) In responding to a request under paragraph (a) of this section, the plan administrator or plan sponsor shall not provide information that may, directly or indirectly, identify an individual participant or beneficiary.
( ii ) A plan administrator or plan sponsor that has received a request under paragraph (a) of this section may seek a court order under which confidential information described in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code— ( A ) Will be disclosed only to authorized representatives (within the meaning of section 4041(c)(2)(D)(iv) of ERISA) that agree, to ensure the confidentiality of such information, and
( B ) Will not be disclosed to other affected parties.
( 4 ) *Reasonable fees.* Under section 4042(c)(3)(D)(ii) of ERISA, a plan administrator or plan sponsor may charge a reasonable fee for any information provided under this section in other than electronic form.
§ 37.83 What happens if a complaint does not contain enough information? ( a ) If a complaint does not contain enough information, the Director must try to get the needed information from the complainant.
( b ) The Director may close the complainant's file, without prejudice, if: ( 1 ) The Director makes reasonable efforts to try to find the complainant, but is unable to reach him or her; or
( 2 ) The complainant does not provide the needed information to CRC within the time specified in the request for more information.
( c ) If the Director closes the complainant's file, he or she must send written notice to the complainant's last known address.
(75 South. 1006)

#### LONG v. ALTMAN.

(6 Div. 370.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 17, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C. B. Smith, Judge.

Allen, Fisk & Townsend, of Birmingham, for appellant. Sterling A. Wood, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAJH.

Appeal dismissed.