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

NORTH AMERICA 

Cement 

January 15, 2008 .JAN 1 6 2008 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

707 North Robinson 

P.O. Box 1677 AIR 	QUALITY 

Oklahoma City, OK 73101·1677 

Attn: 	 Mr. P. Fielder, Engineering and Permits Section Manager 


Air Quality Division 


Subject: 	 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Waiver 


Lafarge - Tulsa Cement Plant 


Dear Mr. Fielder: 

In response to your letter of December 12, 2007: 

1. 	 Kiln #1, Unit EP 14 was not installed in 1964, despite what is listed in the Title V permit. 

This is a mistake in the Title V that was missed during the review of that document. In fact, 

we have documentation that show that Kiln 1 did start in 1961. 

2. 	 A review of our records does not show why the PM, NOx and S02 emission rates were 

modeled at about 50% of the Title V emission limits. Our consultant, Trinity Consultants, is 

re-running the air model with the higher (Title V) values and will be submitted those results 

shortly. We do not expect the result (no significant impact on any Class I areas) to be 

different from previous modeling. 

Please call me at (918) 388-1155 if you have any questions. 

Regards, 

Gary Elliott 


Regional Environmental Manager 


cc: 	 File 


P.Bennett 


RIVER REGION 

2609 N. 145th East Ave., Tulsa, OK 74166 

Office: (918) 437-3902 Fax: (918) 234-7599 

Web: www.lafargenorthamerica.com 	 Printed 00 Recyclea papetS
#### § 81.84 Public document items.

Whenever there is offered (in whole or in part) a public document, such as an official report, decision, opinion, or published scientific or economic statistical data issued by any of the executive departments (or their subdivisions), legislative agencies or committees, or administrative agencies of the Federal Government (including Government-owned corporations), or a similar document issued by a State or its agencies, and such document (or part thereof) has been shown by the offeror to be reasonably available to the public, such document need not be produced or marked for identification, but may be offered for official notice, as a public document item by specifying the document or relevant part thereof.
# CE2009294EN.01009301.xml

| 3.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 294/93 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 294/93

---

Tuesday 8 July 2008Direct support schemes under the CAP *

P6_TA(2008)0316

European Parliament legislative resolution of 8 July 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (COM(2008)0247 — C6-0208/2008 — 2008/0088(CNS))

2009/C 294 E/25

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0247),

having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0208/2008),

having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0270/2008),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---
<PAGE>   1
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-32121 of Applied Graphics Technologies, Inc. on Form S-3 and Registration
Statement No. 333-25059 of Applied Graphics Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 of
our report dated March 12, 1997, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KA
of Applied Graphics Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
New York, New York
August 27, 1997
Exhibit
10.1


 


INTERSECT
BEVERAGE, LLC


 


June
5, 2020


Eastside
Distilling


1001
SE Water Ave


Suite
390


Portland
OR 97214


 


	Re:
    	General
    Mutual Release dated effective as of April 24, 2020 (“Mutual Release”), by and among Intersect Beverage,
    LLC, a California limited liability company, and its principals Patrick J. Kilkenny and Stephanie Kilkenny, and Robert Grammen
    (collectively, “Intersect”), and Eastside Distilling, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”),
    and Paul Shoen, Jack Peterson, and Lawrence Firestone (collectively, “Eastside”).


 


To
Whom it May Concern:


 


Eastside
agreed in the Mutual Release to nominate Geoffrey Gwin for election at Eastside’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, and
to cause Geoffrey Gwin to be submitted to the shareholders for election. Intersect hereby waives that requirement and instead
agrees that Robert Grammen be nominated for election in place of Geoffrey Gwin.


 


Intersect
and the Company acknowledge and agree that all other terms of the Mutual Release continue to be enforceable, and further that
references to the Asset Purchase Agreement in the Mutual Release were intended to and do include the Transaction Documents referred
to in the Asset Purchase Agreement.


 


The
Parties to this letter agreement represent and warrant that they have the power and authority to enter into this letter agreement.


 


	Intersect
    Beverage, LLC 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Patrick J. Kilkenny	 
	 	Name:
    Patrick J. Kilkenny	 
	 	Its:
    Manager	 
	 	 	 
	 	Patrick
    J. Kilkenny	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Patrick J. Kilkenny	 
	 	Patrick
    J. Kilkenny	 
	 	 	 
	 	Stephanie
    Kilkenny	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Stephanie Kilkenny	 
	 	Stephanie
    Kilkenny	 
	 	 	 
	 	Robert
    Grammen	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Robert Grammen	 
	 	Robert
    Grammen	 


 


	Acknowledged
    and agreed: 	 
	 	 
	Eastside
    Distilling, Inc.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Lawrence Firestone	 
	 	Name:
    Lawrence Firestone	 
	 	Its:
    Chief Executive Officer
§ 12.625 Requirements to qualify for an STCW endorsement as vessel personnel with designated security duties. ( a ) An applicant for an STCW endorsement as vessel personnel with designated security duties must— ( 1 ) Present satisfactory documentary evidence, such as a certificate or letter signed by a company official, or a certificate of completion from a Coast Guard-accepted or Coast Guard-approved course, of meeting the requirements in 33 CFR 104.220;
( 2 ) Meet the physical examination requirements in 46 CFR Part 10, subpart C; and
( 3 ) Meet the safety and suitability requirements and the National Driver Registry review requirements in § 10.209(e) of this subchapter, unless the applicant has met these requirements within the previous 5 years in connection with another endorsement.
( b ) Until March 24, 2014, seafarers will be able to apply for an endorsement as vessel personnel with designated security duties by— ( 1 ) Having completed approved seagoing service with designated security duties, for a period of at least 6 months in total during the preceding 3 years;
( 2 ) Having performed security functions considered to be equivalent to the seagoing service required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section; or
( 3 ) Successfully completing Coast Guard-accepted or Coast Guard-approved training.
#### Young *v.*The State.

Submitted October 17,

Decided November 8, 1906.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Lewis. Baldwin supe-, rior court. September 6, 1906.

*J ohn B. Qooper*and *Ilines & Vinson,*for plaintiff in error.

*John O. Hart, attorney-general,*and *Joseph IS, Pottle, solicitor-general,*contra.

Ltjmpkin, J.

The grounds of the motion for a new trial assigning no error on any ruling of the court, but only complaining of the verdict on the ground that it was contrary to law, evidence, and the weight of the evidence, and without evidence to support it, and the evidence being amply sufficient to support the verdict, there was no error in overruling *the*motion. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in RegistrationStatement No. 333-141077 on Form S-8 of our report relating to the consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule of PAETEC Corp. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) dated April 2, 2007 (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change in the Company’s method of accounting for stock-based compensation on January 1, 2006, to conform to Statement of Financial Accounting StandardNo. 123 (revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment*), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Rochester, New York 

April 2, 2007
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Larry S. Kramer, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof MarketWatch.com, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)	disclosed in this report any change in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant'smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)	all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: November 14, 2003
By:	/s/ Lawrence S. Kramer    Lawrence S. Kramer, Chief Executive Officer
1

**MEMORANDUM DATE:**  **May 14 , 2010**  **TO: DISTRIBUTION**  **FROM: ROB KLAUSMEIER** **, TOM DVORAK SUBJECT:**  **PI F EFFECTIVENESS FACTOR**  Based on New Jersey ’s enhancements to the enforcement of its OBDII inspection , it’s reasonable to claim that OBDII inspections in PIFs are as effective as OBDII inspections in CIFs. In addition, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Georgia and Utah claim in their SIP that their decentralized OBDII inspections are as effective as centralized programs. None of these states use the decentralized program effectiveness prompt when modeling the emission benefits for their OBDII inspection. We recommend further anal ys is of MIT and previou s inspection data. A lthough many states claim that the ir decentralized tailpipe inspections are 100% effectiv e , we plan to keep the PIF effectiveness factor for tailpipe tests at 80% until we complete the anal ys is of MIT and previous inspection data
. Tom Dvorak prepared estimates of the overall network effectiveness based on the following data and assumptions:
 PIF Effectiveness is as follows: o OBDII tests: 100% o Tailpipe tests: 80%
 30 % of the vehicles are tested in PIFs . B ased on historical data , the percent tested in PIFs is more like 20%, so this assumption results in a conservative, i.e., low, effectiveness fact or. Table 1 and Figure 1 summarize the results of Tom’s anal ys is. **Table 1 –**  **Preliminary Estimates of the I/M Program Effectiveness of the Network**
**Year PIF Testing**  **OBD % PIF Testing** 

**TP % PIF I/M** 

**Effectiveness CIF I/M** 

**Effectiveness Mobile 6.2 I/M** 

**Effectiveness** 2005 54.00% 46% 90.8% 100.0% 97.2% 2006 53.00% 47% 90.6% 100.0% 97.2% 2007 57.45% 43% 91.5% 100.0% 97.4% 2008 64.47% 36% 92.9% 100.0% 97.9% 2009 67.76% 32% 93.6% 100.0% 98.1% 2010* 71.66% 28% 94.3% 100.0% 98.3% 2011* 75.56% 24% 95.1% 100.0% 98.5% 2012* 79.46% 21% 95.9% 100.0% 98.8%2 **Figure 1 –**  **Projected I/M Program Effectiveness**

**86.0% 88.0%**  **90.0% 92.0%**  **94.0% 96.0%**  **98.0% 100.0%** 

**2005 2006**  **2007 2008**  **2009 2010** * **2011*** **2012***



## I/M E**ff ectiveness by Y** 

**ear**

**PIF I/M E ffectiveness**  **Overall I/M E ffectiveness**
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , 

 Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 1:14-cr-20427-02 

Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

KWAME AMIN MATHEWS, 

 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

 On October 8, 2017, Defendant Kwame Amin Mathews pled guilty to one count of aiding 

and abetting the distribution of cocaine base. ECF No. 76. He was sentenced to 151 months’ 

imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. ECF No. 147. 

 On May 5, 2020, Defendant filed a pro se motion for compassionate release under 18 

U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A). ECF No. 321. His Motion was denied because (1) he did not demonstrate 

an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for release, (2) his early release would pose a danger to 

the community, and (3) the reduction of his sentence was unsupported by the factors provided in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). ECF No. 327. Defendant timely appealed. ECF No. 328. The United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed and held that this Court was within its discretion 

to deny compassionate release after due consideration of the § 3553 factors. ECF No. 351 at 

PageID.2391–93. 

 On May 20, 2021, Defendant sent a letter to this Court stating his disagreement with the 

Court of Appeals’ Opinion. Because the letter expressly asks for “reconsideration” of his prior 

Motion for Compassionate Release, the letter is liberally construed as a motion for reconsideration 

under Local Rule 7.1(h). Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, however, will be denied. 

Case 1:14-cr-20427-TLL-PTM ECF No. 360, PageID.2410 Filed 05/27/21 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

 The Local Rules provide that “[a] motion for rehearing or reconsideration must be filed 

within 14 days after entry of the judgment or order.” E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(1). The Order Denying 

Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release was entered on June 29, 2020—nearly 11 months 

ago. ECF No. 327. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is untimely. 

 To the extent that Defendant believes compassionate release is warranted based on changed 

circumstances, he may file another motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). See Delgado v. 

United States, No. 20-2294, slip op. at 3 (6th Cir. Apr. 21, 2021) (“[T]he compassionate release 

statute does not bar successive filings . . . .”). 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 359, 

is DENIED. 

Dated: May 27, 2021 s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Case 1:14-cr-20427-TLL-PTM ECF No. 360, PageID.2411 Filed 05/27/21 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

October 31, 2011

Mr. Wilfred K. Nagamine, Manager

Clean Air Branch

Department of Health

State of Hawaii

P.O. Box 3378

Honolulu, Hawaii 96801-3378 

Dear Mr. Nagamine:

Thank you for your submission of the State of Hawaii’s 2011 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan. 

We have reviewed the submitted document and have found that it is complete, informative, very detailed 

and meets all of the requirements for annual network plans as required by our regulations set forth under 

40 CFR Part 58.10. While this letter serves as official approval of the annual network plan, it does not 

constitute approval of the system modifications that are proposed in the plan for the future. Please 

continue to work with EPA on any future modifications to your network. 

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at (415) 972-3851 or Gwen 

Yoshimura at (415) 947-4134.

Sincerely,

/s/

Matthew Lakin, Manager

Air Quality Analysis Office

Air Division

cc: Wanda Chang, HDOH, State Laboratories Division, Environmental Health Analytical Services 

Branch

Henry Yee, HDOH, State Laboratories Division, Air Surveillance and Analysis Section

Lisa Young, HDOH, Clean Air Branch
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6947

MARY D. PETERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus CHARLES MOLONY CONDON; DIRECTOR BEAUFORT COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-99-2716-2-8) Submitted: February 22, 2001 Decided: February 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mary D. Peters, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mary D. Peters appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Peters v. Condon , No. CA-99-2716-2-8 (D.S.C. July 11, 2000). 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.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GEORGELYN LANTZ,

Plaintiff, No. 14-12813

v. District Judge Linda V. Parker

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Company’s (“State Farm’s”) Motion to Enforce Subpoena Issued to Darci Carpenter, RN

and/or to Show Cause Darci Carpenter for Failing to Comply with Subpoena [Doc. #74].

This is a first-party claim under Michigan’s No-Fault Insurance Act. Plaintiff seeks

personal protection insurance benefits for injuries alleged to have arisen from an

automobile accident. Darci Carpenter, a Registered Nurse, is one of Plaintiff’s medical

providers. While Plaintiff has signed HIPPA authorizations, and State Farm has obtained

Plaintiff’s medical records, Nurse Carpenter has not to date complied with a deposition

subpoena. According to the motion, “Ms. Carpenter was informed by her employer to not

proceed with the deposition.” Motion, ¶ 7(e).

Because Plaintiff has put her medical condition at issue in this lawsuit, and has

waived any claim of privilege by filing the lawsuit and signing the HIPPA releases ,

1

 M.C.L. § 600.2157 provides that a patient who “brings an action against any 1

defendant to recover for any personal injuries” is deemed to have waived the medical

privilege.

-1-

4:14-cv-12813-LVP-RSW Doc # 100 Filed 01/19/16 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1750
Nurse Carpenter’s testimony is relevant, and she has no basis to not comply with a

deposition subpoena. Nor may her employer require her to defy either a lawfully issued

subpoena or any order of this Court.

In her response [Doc. #76], Plaintiff urges the Court to “rule as it sees fit regarding

Defendant’s motion.” Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Subpoena [Doc. #74] is

GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Darci Carpenter will appear for her deposition,

which will be scheduled no later than 21 days from the date of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Darci Carpenter’s failure to appear at her

deposition will result in sanctions against her, and may include sanctions for contempt of

court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: January 19, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on

January 19, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.

s/Carolyn M. Ciesla 

Case Manager to the

Honorable R. Steven Whalen

-2-

4:14-cv-12813-LVP-RSW Doc # 100 Filed 01/19/16 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1751
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL 

COMMITTEE, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00853 (CRC)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that [5] Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Court is 

denied. It is further

ORDERED that [6] Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expedite is denied. It is further

ORDERED that [25] Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied without 

prejudice. It is further 

ORDERED that [28] Defendant’s Motion for Discovery is denied. It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall jointly submit proposed findings of fact and constitutional 

questions for certification to the en banc D.C. Circuit on or before September 2, 2014.

SO ORDERED.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER

United States District Judge

Date: August 19, 2014

Case 1:14-cv-00853-CRC Document 34 Filed 08/19/14 Page 1 of 1