alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Myers.Ron@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Myers.Ron@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 10:43 AM

To: Ralph Patterson

Cc: 'James Rickun'; Telander.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov; Marinshaw, Richard

Subject: Re: Hanson Brick Elgin Texas ERT input file

Ralph:

I have finally had the time to look at the file and as far as the data entry part of the ERT, it looks good. I had an 

issue with the calculation of emissions factors (not required for the ICR) as the production information was not 

completed for each of the test runs. I made the assumption that all three runs were conducted at 7.7 tons/hr as 

were identified in the test plan under target values. I did not see any attached documentation as is required by the 

ICR. If you the ERT file to me as a courtesy or as a QA, and you have sent the complete project documentation to 

Jeff or through the RTI FTP site, then you are OK. If you sent this file to me to fulfill the ICR requirements, then you 

will need to resubmit it with all the calibration sheets, field data sheets and lab data attached. The attachments 

tab has a preliminary list of documentation that would be required. We would prefer the attachment of the 

individual components although if they are in a single file, that is acceptable. When you have attached all the files, 

you will note that the file size has grown to a size that it is too large to e-mail. That is why you will need to send it 

through RTI's FTP file server.

_________________________________

Ron Myers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Sector Policy and Programs Division

Measurement Policy Group, D243-05

RTP NC 27711

Tel. 919.541.5407

Fax 919.541.1039

E-mail myers.ron@epa.gov

From: "Ralph Patterson" <rcpatterson@charter.net>

To: Ron Myers/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: "'James Rickun'" <jrickun@chorus.net>

Date: 03/30/2011 06:35 PM

Subject: Hanson Brick Elgin Texas ERT input file

Hi Ron, 

Attached is the Hanson Brick Elgin Texas ERT input file. I changed the file extension to get it past your spam 

blocker. You will need to change it back to mdb in order to run the information in ERT. If you have any questions 

please let Jim or I know. 

Thanks. 

Ralph Patterson
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 12-628 

________________________________________________________________________ 

WEAPONS 

Proliferation 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and KOSOVO 

Signed at Pristina May 23, 2012 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
KOSOVO 

Weapons: Proliferation 

 Agreement signed at Pristina May 23, 2012; 

 Entered into force June 28, 2012.
No. 11-9405.

#### Taylor *v.*McKee, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5261.

#### Wallace, aka Green v. Klopotoski, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bank of Florida Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 20010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael L. McMullan, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of and for the period covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |     |  |                            
|------------------ |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: May 17, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael L. McMullan    
|                   |  |     |  | Michael L. McMullan,       
|                   |  |     |  | Principal Executive Officer



50
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-153: In Re MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. [ORDER], Precedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"X43f3D23du\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-30-2022-22-153-in-re-monolithic-power-systems-inc-order-22-153-order-9-30-2022_2011652\/\">22-153: In Re MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. [ORDER], Precedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-30-2022-22-153-in-re-monolithic-power-systems-inc-order-22-153-order-9-30-2022_2011652\/embed\/#?secret=X43f3D23du\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-153: In Re MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. [ORDER], Precedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"X43f3D23du\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: In Re MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-153 Origin: RIT Precedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
9 June 2016

105P16

#### In the Matter of C.R.B., D.G.B., and C.M.B.

Respondent-Mother’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-644)

Denied
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the Registrant) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, John L. Higgins, Chief Financial Officer; Executive Vice
President, Finance and Corporate Development of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with Rule
13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge: (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 Registrant. This certification accompanies theForm 10-Kto which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether
made before or after the date of theForm 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language
contained in such filing. Date: March 15, 2005
    
    /s/ John L. HigginsJohn L. HigginsChief Financial Officer; Executive Vice President,Finance and Corporate Development
§ 60-30.15 Authority and responsibilities of Administrative Law Judges. The Administrative Law Judge shall propose findings and conclusions to the Secretary on the basis of the record. In order to do so, he shall have the duty to conduct a fair hearing, to take all necessary action to avoid delay, and to maintain order. He shall have all powers necessary to those ends, including, but not limited to, the power to: ( a ) Hold conferences to settle, simplify, or fix the issues in a proceeding, or to consider other matters that may aid in the expeditious disposition of the proceeding by consent of the parties or upon his own motion;
( b ) Require parties to state their position with respect to the various issues in the proceeding;
( c ) Require parties to produce for examination those relevant witnesses and documents under their control; and require parties to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions in full;
( d ) Administer oaths;
( e ) Rule on motions, and other procedural items or matters pending before him;
( f ) Regulate the course of the hearing and conduct of participants therein;
( g ) Examine and cross-examine witnesses, and introduce into the record documentary or other evidence;
( h ) Receive, rule on, exclude, or limit evidence and limit lines of questioning or testimony which are irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious;
( i ) Fix time limits for submission of written documents in matters before him and extend any time limits established by this part upon a determination that no party will be prejudiced and that the ends of justice will be served thereby;
( j ) Impose appropriate sanctions against any party or person failing to obey an order under these rules which may include: ( 1 ) Refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting it from introducing designated matters in evidence;
( 2 ) Excluding all testimony of an unresponsive or evasive witness, or determining that the answer of such witness, if given, would be unfavorable to the party having control over him; and
( 3 ) Expelling any party or person from further participation in the hearing;
( k ) Take official notice of any material fact not appearing in evidence in the record, which is among the traditional matters of judicial notice;
( l ) Recommend whether the respondent is in current violation of the order, regulations, or its contractual obligations, as well as the nature of the relief necessary to insure the full enjoyment of the rights secured by the order;
( m ) Issue subpoenas; and
( n ) Take any action authorized by these rules.
[43 FR 49259, Oct. 20, 1978; 43 FR 51401, Nov. 3, 1978]
Decided February 23, 1909.

#### STATE *v.*SHORT.

[99 Pac. 1043.]

Gaming — Statutes—Repeal—Municipal Ordinance.

Section 1914, B. & O. Comp., providing that every person who shall deal, play, or carry on numerous games, including roulette, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, was not repealed in so far as the city of North Bend was concerned by North Bend Oity Charter [Daws 1903, p. 103, § 27, subd. 5), declaring that the council of such city shall have power therein to regulate, prevent or suppress gaming and to punish any person engaging therein.

From Coos: JAMES W. HAMILTON, Judge.

The defendant, W. H. Short, was indicted, tried and convicted of gambling, and from the judgment and sentence following, he appeals.

Affirmed.

Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Rule 16 of the Supreme Court. 50 Or. 580.

For appellant there was a brief over the names of *Messrs. Guerry & Hollister*and *Mr. Austin S. Hammond.*

For the State there was a brief over the name' of *Mr. George M. Brown,*District Attorney.

Mr. Justice King

delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted for unlawfully conducting and playing for money, within the cor*246porate limits of the City of North Bend, a certain gambling game known as “roulette.” The charter of the city provides:

> “The council has power and authority within the City of North Bend * * to regulate, prevent or suppress gaming * * and to punish any person who engages in such games. * * ” Laws 1903, p. 103, § 27, subd. 5.

The statute bearing upon the same subject (Section 1944, B. & C. Comp.), provides that every person who shall deal, play, or carry on, open, or conduct any of the numerous games there mentioned, among which is that of “roulette,” shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, etc.

The sole question, then, with which we are confronted, is whether this provision of the charter — it having been adopted since section 1944 of The Code — repeals by implication or otherwise, so far as applies to North Bend, that part of the section relating to gambling in reference to which it is maintained by defendant that the charter repeals the statutory provisions on the subject. The charter does not purport to give to the City of North Bend exclusive jurisdiction to prevent gambling, and, since this offense was recognized at common law, the charter does not repeal or affect the general laws upon the subject, or .prevent a prosecution thereof under both the statute and charter.

This question was fully determined by this court, adversely to the position as here urged, in *State*v. *Ayres,*49 Or. 61 (88 Pac. 653: 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 992); and in *State*v. *Baker,*50 Or. 381 (92 Pac. 1076), making a further discussion thereof unnecessary.

It follows from an application of the rule invoked on the subject in the cases cited that the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed. Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of the President and Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.



In connection with Bancshares of Florida, Inc.s (Company)
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 (Report), I certify that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for the period ended,
September 30, 2003.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 13, 2003



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|/s/    MICHAEL L. MCMULLAN                               
|                                                         
|Michael L. McMullan President and Chief Executive Officer
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WEI WANG, 

Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, 

Respondent

______________________

2024-1215

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-315H-20-0753-I-1.

______________________

O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to file the required 

Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is 

Case: 24-1215 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 02/01/2024
2 WANG V. MSPB

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the 

same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

February 1, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 1, 2024

Case: 24-1215 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 02/01/2024
§ 22.313 Station identification. The licensee of each station in the Public Mobile Services must ensure that the transmissions of that station are identified in accordance with the requirements of this section. ( a ) Station identification is not required for transmission by: ( 1 ) Stations in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service;
( 2 ) General aviation ground stations in the Air-ground Radiotelephone Service;
( 3 ) [Reserved]
( 4 ) Stations using Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems in the Rural Radiotelephone Service;
( 5 ) [Reserved]
( 6 ) Stations operating pursuant to paging geographic area authorizations.
( b ) For all other stations in the Public Mobile Services, station identification must be transmitted each hour within five minutes of the hour, or upon completion of the first transmission after the hour. Transmission of station identification may be temporarily delayed to avoid interrupting the continuity of any public communication in progress, provided that station identification is transmitted at the conclusion of that public communication.
( c ) Station identification must be transmitted by telephony using the English language or by telegraphy using the international Morse code, and in a form that can be received using equipment appropriate for the modulation type employed, and understood without the use of unscrambling devices, except that, alternatively, station identification may be transmitted digitally, provided that the licensee provides the Commission with information sufficient to decode the digital transmission to ascertain the call sign. Station identification comprises transmission of the call sign assigned by the Commission to the station, however, the following may be used in lieu of the call sign. ( 1 ) For transmission from subscriber operated transmitters, the telephone number or other designation assigned by the carrier, provided that a written record of such designations is maintained by the carrier;
( 2 ) For general aviation airborne mobile stations in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, the official FAA registration number of the aircraft;
( 3 ) For stations in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, a call sign assigned to another station within the same system.
[59 FR 59507, Nov. 17, 1994, as amended at 59 FR 59955, Nov. 21, 1994; 62 FR 11633, Mar. 12, 1997; 70 FR 19308, Apr. 13, 2005]
# Comments on: 19-2313: ALPHONSO INC. v. FREE STREAM MEDIA CORP. [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-1775: Boston Scientific v. Nevro Corp. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"LxmkHnCSHv\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-08-2022-2021-1775-boston-scientific-v-nevro-corp-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-1775: Boston Scientific v. Nevro Corp.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-08-2022-2021-1775-boston-scientific-v-nevro-corp-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=LxmkHnCSHv\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-1775: Boston Scientific v. Nevro Corp.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"LxmkHnCSHv\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Boston Scientific v. Nevro Corp. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-1775 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
United States Department of Agriculture

	 	 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

 New York State

	 	 Department of Agriculture and Markets

	 	 Asian Longhorned Beetle Cooperative

 Eradication Program

	 	 88-11 165th Street, 7th Floor

	 	 Jamaica, NY 11432

	 	 Phone: (718) 820-1300

	 	 Fax: (718) 820-1304

We missed you today:___________________________ Zone/Unit:_______________________

While you were out, ASIAN LONGHORNED BEETLE (ALB) COOPERATIVE ERADICATION 

PROGRAM inspectors attempted to contact you in order to obtain permission to enter your 

property for the purpose of inspecting your trees and shrubs for the invasive ALB.

Please call our office as soon as possible to grant verbal permission: 1-718-820-1300.

If you choose to be present at the time of survey, please call to schedule an appointment. 

Inspection is part of our ongoing ALB eradication efforts and is completed in accordance 

with State and Federal laws and regulations at no cost to the property owner.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in our efforts to save and protect trees from 

this destructive insect pest. For more information, please visit: 

www.beetlebusters.info

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets

are equal opportunity providers and employers.

Program Aid No. 2116-B • Issued July 2012
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.790 Reports relating to traffic by international carriers.

Carriers shall file periodic reports regarding international point-to-point traffic as required by part 43 of this chapter.

[57 FR 8579, Mar. 11, 1992]