alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Baldyga, Lyndsey [LBaldyga@tecoenergy.com]

Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:03 AM

To: Hofmeister, Art

Cc: Lukcic, David M.; Burrows, Byron T.

Subject: RE: Additional Info

Art, 

The answers to your questions can be seen below. Please let me know if any additional information is 

needed. We look forward to seeing the draft permit.

Thank you,

Lyndsey Baldyga

Environmental Health & Safety

Air Programs: Engineer I

Phone: 813-228-4740

Ext. 34740

Mobile: 813-309-0376

Lbaldyga@tecoenergy.com

From: Hofmeister, Art [mailto:Hofmeister.Art@epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 4:44 PM

To: Baldyga, Lyndsey

Cc: Forney, Katy; Ceron, Heather

Subject: Additional Info

Hi, Lyndsey:

Can you give us an idea of when we can expect to receive the following information?

1) The proposed apportioning methodology for the STG; and

TEC proposes that we apportion the ST MWs by using the CT MWs.

2) Whether the proposed GHG BACT limits for the CTs/HRSGs are acceptable (for including periods 

of startup/shutdown)?

To maintain the current project schedule, TEC agrees to leave the limit as proposed in the 

permit application including startup and shutdown.

Ideally, we would like to have it by Sept. 9th so that we can keep to our current schedule to go to public 

notice by Sept. 13th.

Thanks.

Art Hofmeister
Environmental Engineer

Air Permits Section

EPA Region 4

(404) 562-9115

***** This email is from an external sender. Be cautious about clicking links or opening 

attachments from unknown sources. *****

NOTICE: This email is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have 

received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not copy or disclose it to 

anyone else. Although we take precautions to protect against viruses, we advise you to take your own precautions to protect against viruses 

as we accept no liability for any which remain.
#### DANA MARIE RIBELIN (f/k/a CREEL) v. PHILLIP RAY CREEL

No. 112A15

Filed 15 April 2016

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the unpublished decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,_N.C. App._, 770 S.E.2d 389 (2015), affirming in part and remanding in part an order entered on 12 November 2013, and remanding an order entered on 24 January 2014, both by Judge Charlie Brown in District Court, Rowan County. On 20 August 2015, the Supreme Court allowed plaintiffs petition for discretionary review of additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court on 21 March 2016.

*Arlaine Rockey for plaintiff-appellant.*

*Kip D. Nelson for defendant-appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

As to the appeal of right based on the dissenting opinion, we affirm the majority decision of the Court of Appeals. We conclude that the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joey Schwartz, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

4. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this quarterly
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

                             DATE: NOVEMBER 11, 2005


                             /S/ JOEY SCHWARTZ
                             --------------------
                             JOEY SCHWARTZ
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
389A15

#### State v. Tae Kwon Hammonds

Defs Motion to File Amended Brief (COA15-53)

Allowed 04/27/2016
No. 11-5134.

#### Smith *v.*Hutchins, Sheriff, Jefferson County, Georgia, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Circuit Mediation Office Statistics

2019 Calendar Year

(January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019)

Appeals settled: 2

• Patent: 2

• Non-patent: 0

Appeals not settled; mediation terminated: 8

• Patent: 8

• Non-patent: 0

Success rate - overall (of appeals selected for mediation): 20%

• Patent: 25%

• Non-patent: N/A
#### § 302-9.602 How should we administer the allowances for transportation and emergency storage of a POV?

To minimize costs and promote an efficient workforce, you should provide an employee use of their POV when it mutually benefits the Government and the employee.

[FTR Amdt. 98, 66 FR 58196, Nov. 20, 2001. Redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2011-01, 76 FR 18342, Apr. 1, 2011 and further redesignated by FTR Amdt. 2011-06, 76 FR 71890, Nov. 21, 2011;
FTR Case 2022-05, 89 FR 12255, Feb. 16, 2024]
{"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":"2018-1204: St. Bernard Parish Government v. US - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XVxnHKbIiZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2018-1204-st-bernard-parish-government-v-us-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1204: St. Bernard Parish Government v. US<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-2018-1204-st-bernard-parish-government-v-us-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=XVxnHKbIiZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1204: St. Bernard Parish Government v. US” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"XVxnHKbIiZ\" 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: St. Bernard Parish Government v. US (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1204 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
No. 11-1180.

#### McGarry *v.*Geriatric Facilities of Cape Cod, Inc., et al.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 12.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Christopher Morris, the Principal Financial Officer of SVG Capital, plc,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of SVG Capital, plc.;

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 company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The company'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 company 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 company, 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) [Intentionally omitted];

     c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company'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

     d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
        over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
        annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
        materially affect, the company's internal control over financial
        reporting; and

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

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
        operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
        reasonably likely to adversely affect the company'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 company's internal control
        over financial reporting.

Date: July 14, 2006

                               /s/ Christopher Morris

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



                              (Principal Financial Officer)
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4322

AN ACT

To amend the Small Business Act to increase the authorization for the development company program, and for other

purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LOANS.

4 Section 20(i)(2) of the Small Business Act (15

5 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘$8,458,000,000’’ and inserting

7 ‘‘$8,758,000,000’’; and

8 (2) by striking ‘‘$1,200,000,000’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘$1,500,000,000’’.
2

•HR 4322 EH

1 SEC. 2. DISASTER LOAN PERSONNEL.

2 Section 5(b)(8) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.

3 634(b)(8)) is amended by striking the semicolon and in4 serting the following: ‘‘: Provided, That the Administrator

5 may extend the six-month limitation for an additional six

6 months if the Administrator determines the extension is

7 necessary to continue efficient disaster loan making

8 activities;’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4322

AN ACT

To amend the Small Business Act to increase the

gram, and for other purposes.authorization for the development company pro-
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DARLENE PATRICE BENNETT,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Respondent

______________________

2022-2004

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-21-0142-I-1.

______________________

Before HUGHES, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In response to this court’s August 29, 2022, show cause 

order, the Department of Commerce urges transfer of this 

mixed case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, noting Darlene Patrice Bennett “has 

brought related claims alleging discrimination” in that 

court. ECF No. 20 at 2. Ms. Bennett does not oppose transfer to a court where this court “believe[s] the case should 

be placed and has jurisdiction” and requests that if the 

matter is transferred, it be transferred to the United States 

Case: 22-2004 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 11/15/2022
2 BENNETT v. COMMERCE

District Court for the District of Columbia or the United 

States District Court for the District of Maryland. ECF No. 

19 at 3. 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

This petition and all its filings are transferred to the 

United States District Court for the District of Maryland 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

November 15, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-2004 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 11/15/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
financial statements for Anaren Microwave,  Inc. filed with form 10Q for the six
months ended  December 31, 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           2,916,420
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,672,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                        13,000
<INVENTORY>                                      7,129,287
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,339,464
<PP&E>                                          28,855,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (21,646,838)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,608,585
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,437,953
<BONDS>                                            793,334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            49,653
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,251,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,608,585
<SALES>                                          8,891,094
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,891,094
<CGS>                                            5,554,244
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,821,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  73,635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     76,791
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 76,791
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        76,791
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.02  
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.02  
                                               


</TABLE>
{"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":"22-2245: EDWARDS v. OPM [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"5YeiDN6K5o\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-27-2023-22-2245-edwards-v-opm-order-22-2245-order-3-27-2023_2100527\/\">22-2245: EDWARDS v. OPM [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-27-2023-22-2245-edwards-v-opm-order-22-2245-order-3-27-2023_2100527\/embed\/#?secret=5YeiDN6K5o\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-2245: EDWARDS v. OPM [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"5YeiDN6K5o\" 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: EDWARDS v. OPM [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-2245 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4435 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4435

 To provide for the orderly termination of easements and property used 
 for public utility purposes at the Manassas National Battlefield Park.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 1994

   Mr. Wolf introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the orderly termination of easements and property used 
 for public utility purposes at the Manassas National Battlefield Park.

    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 ``Manassas National Battlefield Park 
Amendments of 1994''.

SEC. 2. ORDERLY TERMINATION.

    Subsection (b)(2)(C) of the first section of the Act entitled ``An 
Act to preserve within Manassas National Battlefield Park, Virginia the 
most important historic properties relating to the battle of Manassas, 
and for other purposes'', approved April 17, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 429b), is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The owner of any easement 
or property used for public utility purposes which are taken pursuant 
to this paragraph may initiate a proceeding in a court of competent 
jurisdiction seeking a determination of just compensation with respect 
to the taking of such property at any time within nine years after the 
date of enactment of the Manassas National Battlefield Park Amendments 
of 1988.''.

                                 <all>
```
§ 18.211 Multiple listing of equipment. ( a ) When the same or essentially the same equipment will be marketed under more than one FCC Identifier, equipment authorization must be requested on an FCC Form 731 for each FCC Identifier.
( b ) If equipment authorization for additional FCC Identifiers is requested in the initial application, a statement shall be included describing how these additional devices differ from the basic device which was measured and stating that the report of measurements submitted for the basic device applies also to the additional devices.
( c ) If equipment authorization for additional FCC Identifiers is requested after a grant has been issued by the FCC for the basic device, the application may, in lieu of the report of measurements, be accompanied by a statement including: ( 1 ) FCC Identifier of device for which measurements are on file with the FCC.
( 2 ) Date when equipment authorization was granted for the device(s) listed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section and the file number of such grant.
( 3 ) Description of the difference between the device listed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section and the additional device(s).
( 4 ) A statement that the report of measurements filed for the device listed under paragraph (c)(1) of this section applies also to the additional device(s).
( 5 ) Photographs pursuant to § 2.1033(c).