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

### Air Quality Modeling Data Drive s for the 2008 NAAQS CSAPR Proposal

This document describes data drive s containing certain air quality modeling data files, run scripts, and codes that were used for the proposed CSAPR for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These data drives are in the docket office.

Information on the air quality modeling performed for th is proposed rule including a description of the modeling domains, model inputs, emissions scenarios, contribution modeling, and results can be found in the Air Qualit y Modeling Technical Support

Document. Information on the emissions data can be found in the Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document.

The data drive s contain input/output data files for the following scenarios :

- 2011 base year (case name: 2011eh_ cb6 v2 _v6_11g)

- 2017 base case (case name: 2017eh_cb6 v2 _v6_11g)

- 2017 base case contribution modeling (case name: 2017eh_ussa_cb6v2_v6_11g)

- 2017 illustrative control case (case name: 2017eh_cntl_cb6v2_v6_11g )

The table below identifies the types of air quality model input and output data on the
drives . In addition to these data, the drives contain (1) the scripts and meteorological data output from the Weather Research Forecast Model run for 2011, (2) the CAMx model code and scripts and wrftcamx code an d scripts used for the proposed rule modeling, (3)
post

- processing codes and files used for calculating the ozone contribution metric values, (4) Model Attainment T est Software input files for ozone and PM2.5 , and (5) data files containing spatial fields o f ozone concentrations and PM2.5 concentrations for selected averaging times for use in the calculation of the monetized benefits of the rule as reported in the Regulatory Impact Assessment.

Emissions Data - "model

- ready" inputs for CAMx modeling of each emissions case

- "pre

- merged" intermediate files by emissions sector

- "raw" emissions inventories

- ancillary files and scripts for processing emissions

Non

- Emissions Inputs - "model

- ready" meteorology for 2011 output from wrfcamx

- photolysis rates files

- surface/landuse/ocean mask/satmap files

- ozone column data

- initial and boundary concentration data

CAMx Outputs

- layer 1 gridded hourly concentrations for each model run

- layer 1 gridded hourly ozone contributions for the 2017eh_ussa case

EPA will respond to specific requests for these data or specific additional inputs and outputs of the modeling process , depending on the availability of those data

.

Requests for electronic copies of the proposed rule data should be se nt to Norm Possiel ( possiel.norm@epa.gov ), Brian Timin ( timin.brian@epa.gov ), and Alison Eyth ( eyth.alison@epa.gov )
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Team Health Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A (Form 10-Q/A) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I, David P. Jones, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10-Q/A 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 Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/S/    DAVID P.
JONESDavid P. Jones Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 1, 2011
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4656

To make the provisions of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 applicable

to Cambodia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 27, 1994

Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To make the provisions of title IV of the Trade Act of

1974 applicable to Cambodia.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO

4 CAMBODIA.

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, title IV

6 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.) shall

7 apply for purposes of determining the eligibility of the

8 products of Cambodia to receive nondiscriminatory (most9 favored-nation) trade treatment.

Æ
#### John P. DAROUSE, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-6861.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 21, 2003.

Decided Feb. 17, 2004.

John P. Darouse, Jr., Appellant pro se. Kent Pendleton Porter, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*676Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

John P. Darouse, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part.

Darouse appeals the district court’s dismissal as moot his claim that the Parole Commission, in violation of his due process rights, held an untimely revocation hearing on November 11, 2000, a period more than ninety days after the parole warrant was executed. 18 U.S.C. § 4214(c) (2000). The district court found this claim moot because Darouse was released from incarceration on December 21, 2000. A consequence of the parole revocation hearing, however, was the continuation of Darouse’s parole until February 17, 2009, beyond his original release date of November 28, 2000. Thus, we conclude that Darouse is still in custody for purposes of this claim, and there is accordingly a live controversy. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 8, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); *Jones v. Cunningham,*371 U.S. 236, 243, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) (holding that parole amounts to custody under habeas corpus statute). We vacate the district court’s dismissal of this claim as moot and remand this claim to the district court for further proceedings regarding the significance, if any, to the alleged delay in holding Darouse’s revocation hearing. *See Morrissey v. Brewer,*408 U.S. 471, 488, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); *Gaddy v. Michael,*519 F.2d 669, 673 (4th Cir. 1975).

We have reviewed the record relating to Darouse’s other claims and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm as to the remaining claims for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Darouse v. United States Parole Commission,*No. CA-01-137 (E.D.Va. Mar. 28, 2003). We grant Darouse’s motion to proceed in for-ma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART*
§ 24.830 Opposition to applications. ( a ) Petitions to deny (including petitions for other forms of relief) and responsive pleadings for Commission consideration must comply with § 1.2108 of this chapter and must: ( 1 ) Identify the application or applications (including applicant's name, station location, Commission file numbers and radio service involved) with which it is concerned;
( 2 ) Be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, filing periods, and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter except where otherwise provided in § 1.2108 of this chapter;
( 3 ) Contain specific allegations of fact which, except for facts of which official notice may be taken, shall be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, and which shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner (or respondent) is a party in interest and that a grant of, or other Commission action regarding, the application would be *prima facie* inconsistent with the public interest;
( 4 ) Be filed within thirty (30) days after the date of public notice announcing the acceptance for filing of any such application or major amendment thereto (unless the Commission otherwise extends the filing deadline); and
( 5 ) Contain a certificate of service showing that it has been mailed to the applicant no later than the date of filing thereof with the Commission.
( b ) A petition to deny a major amendment to a previously-filed application may only raise matters directly related to the amendment which could not have been raised in connection with the underlying previously-filed application. This subsection does not apply, however, to petitioners who gain standing because of the major amendment.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000595 19-DEC-2017 08:15 AM
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 74 FR 23956, May 22, 2009, 77 FR 30411, May 23, 2012, 82 FR 25538, June 2, 2017, and corrected at 83 FR 4153, Jan. 30, 2018. Nomenclature changes to part 36 also appear at 83 FR 63587, Dec. 11, 2018, and 84 FR 4360, Feb. 15, 2019.

§ 36.141 General. ( a ) Information Origination/Termination Equipment is maintained in Account 2310 and includes station apparatus, embedded customer premises wiring, large private branch exchanges, public telephone terminal equipment, and other terminal equipment.
( b ) The costs in Account 2310 shall be segregated between Other Information Origination/Termination Equipment—Category 1, and New Customer Premises Equipment—Category 2 by an analysis of accounting, engineering and other records.
( c ) Effective July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2024, local exchange carriers subject to price cap regulation, pursuant to § 61.41 of this chapter, shall assign the average balance of Account 2310 to the categories, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, based on the relative percentage assignment of the average balance of Account 2310 to these categories during the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2000.
[52 FR 17229, May 6, 1987, as amended at 66 FR 33206, June 21, 2001; 75 FR 30301, June 1, 2010; 76 FR 30841, May 27, 2011; 79 FR 36237, June 26, 2014]
§ 51.809 Availability of agreements to other telecommunications carriers under section 252(i) of the Act. ( a ) An incumbent LEC shall make available without unreasonable delay to any requesting telecommunications carrier any agreement in its entirety to which the incumbent LEC is a party that is approved by a state commission pursuant to section 252 of the Act, upon the same rates, terms, and conditions as those provided in the agreement. An incumbent LEC may not limit the availability of any agreement only to those requesting carriers serving a comparable class of subscribers or providing the same service (*i.e.*, local, access, or interexchange) as the original party to the agreement.
( b ) The obligations of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply where the incumbent LEC proves to the state commission that: ( 1 ) The costs of providing a particular agreement to the requesting telecommunications carrier are greater than the costs of providing it to the telecommunications carrier that originally negotiated the agreement, or
( 2 ) The provision of a particular agreement to the requesting carrier is not technically feasible.
( c ) Individual agreements shall remain available for use by telecommunications carriers pursuant to this section for a reasonable period of time after the approved agreement is available for public inspection under section 252(h) of the Act.
[69 FR 43771, July 22, 2004]
EXHIBIT 99
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly report of Anticline Uranium, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M.
Coombs, President of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ John M. Coombs
--------------------------
John M. Coombs, President
August 7, 2002
V

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4633

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

trade and on the Great Lakes and their tributary and connecting waters

in trade with Canada for each of 2 barges.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 22, 1994

Mr. ROTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a

certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade and on

the Great Lakes and their tributary and connecting waters in trade with Canada for each of 2 barges.

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

3 That notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine

4 Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886

5 (46 App. U.S.C. 289), and section 12106 and 12107 of

6 title 46, United States Code, the Secretary of Transpor7 tation may issue a certificate of documentation with ap-
2

•HR 4633 IH

1 propriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise

2 trade and on the Great Lakes and their tributary and con3 necting waters in trade with Canada, for each of 2 barges

4 owned by Roen Salvage (a company incorporated under

5 the laws of the State of Wisconsin and having its principal

6 place of business in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin) and num7 bered 103 and 203 by Roen Salvage.

Æ
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-15-0386 SAT Date: 4/14/2015 Print Date: 5/8/2015

Related cases : Yes Health related cases : Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 1 12

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Dermal Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: SENS-DERMAL/RESPIRATORY MUTA ONCO DEVEL REPRO-M LIVER KIDNEY AQUATOX-A,C
Summary of Assessment :

Fate : Fate Summary: P-15-0386 FATE: Liquid with MP < -100 C (M) log Kow = 4.00 (M) S = 54.8 mg/L at 25 C (M) VP = 3.5E-2 torr at 25 C (E) BP = 245 C (E) H = 9.04E-4 (E) log Koc = 2.69 (E)log Fish BCF = 2.31 (E) log Fish BAF = 2.23 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption, stripping, and biodeg; OECD 310(CO2 Headspace Test): 72%/28d. Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate Volatilization half-life from a standard river = 2 hrs Volatilization half-life from a standard lake = 6 da Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 0.86 hr via OH radical Atmospheric Oxidation Half-life = 0.62 hr via ozone PBT Potential: P1B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is good all routes based on analogs. Oxidation of the terminal double bond via an epoxide may occur but may be limited by the hindered the methyl group. To the extent that an epoxide forms, there is concern for skin and lung sensitization, mutagenicity, oncogenicity, developmental toxicity, male reproductive, liver, and kidney toxicity. Low moderate concern.

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.2 daphnid 48-h LC50 1.9 green algal 96-h EC50 0.57 fish

_ chronic value 0.055 daphnid

_ chronic value 0.68

algal

_ chronic value 0.31

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for esters; SAR chemical class = ester; MW 194; liquid with mp < -100 C (M); S 17.7 mg/L at 20 C (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; DWhardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and DWTOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern( p pb) Acute Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Chronic 6

SARs esters SAR Class ester N ew Chemcial Category Esters

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair:
§ 54.1304 Calculation of safety net additive. ( a ) *Safety net additive support.* Only those local exchange carriers that qualified for safety net additive based on 2011 or prior year costs shall be eligible to receive safety net additive pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. A local exchange carrier shall not receive safety net additive unless the carrier's realized total growth in Telecommunications Plant in Service (TPIS) was more than 14 percent in 2011 or earlier, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Calculation of safety net additive support for companies that qualified based on 2011 or prior year costs.* Safety net additive support is equal to the amount of capped support calculated pursuant to this subpart M in the qualifying year minus the amount of support in the year prior to qualifying for support subtracted from the difference between the uncapped expense adjustment for the study area in the qualifying year minus the uncapped expense adjustment in the year prior to qualifying for support as shown in the following equation: Safety net additive support = (Uncapped support in the qualifying year−Uncapped support in the base year)−(Capped support in the qualifying year−Amount of support received in the base year).
( c ) *Operation of safety net additive support for companies that qualified based on 2011 or prior year costs.* ( 1 ) In any year in which the total carrier loop cost expense adjustment is limited by the provisions of § 54.1302, a rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carrier shall receive safety net additive support as calculated in paragraph (b) of this section, if in any study area, the rural incumbent local exchange carrier realizes growth in end of period TPIS, as prescribed in § 32.2001, on a per loop basis, of at least 14 percent more than the study area's TPIS per loop investment at the end of the prior period.
( 2 ) If paragraph (c)(1) of this section is met, the rural incumbent local exchange carrier must notify the Administrator; failure to properly notify the Administrator of eligibility shall result in disqualification of that study area for safety net additive, requiring the rural incumbent local exchange carrier to again meet the eligibility requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this section for that study area in a subsequent period.
( 3 ) Upon completion of verification by the Administrator that the study area meets the stated criterion in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of this section, the Administrator shall: ( i ) Pay to any qualifying rural telephone company safety net additive support for the qualifying study area in accordance with the calculation set forth in paragraph (b) of this section; and
( ii ) Continue to pay safety net additive support in any of the four succeeding years in which the total carrier loop expense adjustment is limited by the provisions of § 54.1302. Safety net additive support in the succeeding four years shall be the lesser of: ( A ) The sum of capped support and the safety net additive support received in the qualifying year; or
( B ) The rural telephone company's uncapped support.
November 29, 1974 

The Honorable Joe Resweber 

County Attorney 

Harris County Courthouse 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Dear Mr. Resweber: 

Opinion No. H- 463 

Re: Construction of Arti,cle 

42. 13. Tex. Code Grim. 

Proc., regarding fur - 

nishing of fingerprints 

as a term of probation 

You have requested our opinion concerning the construction of section 

5(b)(lO) of the Misdemeanor Probation Law, Tex. Code Crim. Proc., 

Article 42.13, which provides: 

(b) . . . The terms [of probation] must include, 

but are not limited to, the requirement that a 

probationer: 

(10) submit a copy of his fingerprints to the 

sheriff’s office of the county in which he was 

tried. 

The clerk shall send such fingerprints to the 

Texas Department of Public Safety [for certifi,cation as to criminal record] s . . 

You ask whether the sheriff’s office is responsible for taking the fingerprints and, if not, whether the probationer must procure the services of 

an expert to do so. 

Statutes are to be construed with reference to their general purposes 

and ends. Magnolia Petroleum Co . y. Walker, 83 S. W. 2d 929 (Tex. 1935); 

State V. ‘Habe* 146 S. W. 2d 731 (Tex. 1941); City of Mason V. West Texas 

Utilities Co., 237 S. W. 2d 273 (Tex, 1951). The purpose of section 5(b)(lO) 

is to facilitate a true exami,nation. of the probationer’s criminal record if 

any exists. A pre-requisite to the fulfillment of this purpose is a true 

and adequate copy of the fi.ngerprinto. Not only must the fingerprints be 

p. 2121 
The Honorable Joe Resweber, page 2 (H-463) 

those of the probationer, but they also must be of a quality adequate 

to allow an accurate comparison with those prints in the records of 

the Department of Public Safety. 

This degree of reliability may be most easily attained through the 

submission of a copy of fingerprints which have been taken by a law 

enforcement agency. It is therefore our opinion that the probationer 

may satisfy section 5(b)(lO) by either submitting a sufficiently authecticated and clear copy of his fingerprints or by making himself available for fingerprinting by the sheriff’s office. 

SUMMARY 

A probationer may satisfy Article 42.‘13. section 5(b)(lO). 

Tex. Code Criminal Procedure, by either submitting a 

sufficiently authenticated and clear copy of his fingerprints 

or making himself available to the sheriff’s office for 

fingerprinting. With respect to the latter, the sheriff’s 

office has the duty to take the fingerprints. 

Very truly yours, 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

LARRY F. Y RK, First Assista,nt 

GM 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2122
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 134963 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134963 COA: 277786 Wayne CC: 99-005606-01 DENNIS MATHIS Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 23, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

d1217 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.

January 8, 2008

Clerk
No. 11-92.

#### Orient Mineral Co. et al. *v.*Bank of China.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.