alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01245**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### x 01245\01245_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01245\01245_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 01245\01245_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted 

### x 01245\01245_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01245\01245_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01245\01245_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01245\01245_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01245\01245_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01245\01245_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01245\01245_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 01245\01245_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01245\Certification Statement Plant ID_01245.pdf Plant certification statement 

### x x 01245\Supporting Documentation\01245_Arial Map 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### x 01245\Supporting Documentation\01245_Arial Map 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x x 01245\Supporting Documentation\01245_Arial Map 3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 01245\Supporting Documentation\01245_Dry Bottom Ash System Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01245\Supporting Documentation\01245_Part F all ponds.xlsx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 01245\Supporting Documentation\01245_Water_Balance_Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Exhibit 32.1


    Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                     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  on  Form 10-QSB/A  of  Integrated
 Performance Systems, Inc. (the "Company") for  the period ended  January 31,
 2005, as  filed with  the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on  the  date
 hereof (the "Report"), we the undersigned  officers 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  Report fully complies with the requirements  of Section 13(a) 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.


 Date: January 31, 2006          /s/ BRAD JACOBY
                                 -------------------------------------
                                 Brad Jacoby
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer



 Date: January 31, 2006          /s/ BRAD J. PETERS
                                 -------------------------------------
                                 Brad J. Peters
                                 Chief Financial Officer
#### § 75.326 Procurements by states.

When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a state must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The state will comply with § 75.331 and ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 75.335. All other non-Federal entities, including subrecipients of a state, will follow §§ 75.327 through 75.335.
#### HENRY GRAUMANN v. HOWARD R. WARD.

Decided November 4, 1929.

Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justice Parker.

Eor the rule, *Joseph A. Como.*

Contra, *Burton A. Qaskill.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought suit to recover compensation for injuries received by him in the collision of a truck in which he was riding, but which had been parked on the side of the highway, with the automobile of the defendant. The jury found a verdict in his favor, awarding him $5,500.

We are asked to set this verdict aside for several reasons, the first of which is that it was excessive. Our examination of the testimony leads us to the conclusion that although it *954is large, it is not so clearly excessive as to justify our interference with it.

The next contention is that the rule should be made absolute because of the refusal of the trial court to allow the hospital records of the plaintiff’s injuries to be admitted in evidence. Our examination' of the case, however, fails to disclose the existence of any such refusal. The hospital record was not offered in evidence and consequently there was no ruling on its admissibility.

It is further argued that there should be a new trial ordered because the court erred in allowing in evidence mortality tables generally used by life insurance companies. This contention is in the face of our decision in *Camden and Atlantic Railroad Co.*v. Williams, 61 *N. J. L.*646, 649.

Lastly, it is contended that the trial court erred in refusing to charge a request of the defendant relating to the plaintiff’s profits from his farm. Our examination of the charge, however, satisfies us that this request was charged in effect so far as it was relevant.

Our conclusion is that the rule to show cause should be discharged.
Exhibit 31.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Patricia F. Russo, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Lucent Technologies Inc., certify that:




1.  I have reviewed this annual report on
Form 10-K of Lucent Technologies Inc. (the registrant);




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




3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
annual report is being prepared;




b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and




c)  disclosed in this annual report any
change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal year that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and




5.  The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors
and the audit committee of registrant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
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting.




Date: December 9,
2003


/s/ Patricia F. Russo

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)

---
§ 138.410 Conduct of external audits. ( a ) External audits must be conducted by an auditor from a TPO and cover all elements of the TSMS requirements of this subchapter, but may be conducted on a sampling basis of each of those TSMS elements.
( b ) External audits must be of sufficient depth and breadth to ensure the owner or operating manager effectively implemented its TSMS throughout all levels of the organization, including onboard its vessels.
( c ) The auditor must be provided access to examine any requested documentation, question personnel, examine vessel equipment, witness system testing, and observe personnel training, including drills, as necessary to verify TSMS effectiveness.
( d ) The auditor may broaden the scope of the audit if: ( 1 ) The TSMS is incomplete or not effectively implemented;
( 2 ) Conditions found are not consistent with the records; or
( 3 ) Unsafe conditions are identified.
( e ) The auditor may verify compliance with vessel standards and TSMS requirements through a review of objective evidence such as checklists, invoices, and reports, and may conduct a visual sampling onboard the vessels to determine whether or not the conditions onboard the vessel are consistent with the records reviewed.
( f ) If an auditor identifies a major non-conformity during the course of the external audit, then the auditor must notify the local Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection (OCMI) within 24 hours and the owner or managing operator's designated representative in accordance with the TSMS applicable to the vessel.
Stephen E. Earle MD and Stephen E. Earle MD s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 28, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00753

- CV

Robert SCHRADE

, Appellant

v.

Stephen E

. EARLE MD and Stephen E. Earle MD PA, Appellee s

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 03779 Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing is GRANTED. T he motion for rehearing is due on July 31, 2014.

_________________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 28th day of July, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
----

The backscatter data from the southwest margin between Makahu'ena Point and Port Allen shows that the debris avalanche blocks and associated deposits are characterized by high backscatter.  The debris avalanche deposits form three high-backscatter features about 10 km long by 4 km wide each that trend nearly north-south in the central portion of the southwest flank.  The remainder of the image surrounding the avalanche debris is characterized by a complex, high-backscatter, dendritic pattern.  These high-backscatter dendritic features probably represent pathways (gullies, chutes, or canyons) for downslope sediment transport.	

Backscatter data from the southeast margin of Kaua'i between Makahu'ena Point and Nawiliwili shows that the steep seaward edge of the submerged terrace is incised with high-backscatter gullies and canyons that coalesce downslope into broad, high-backscatter deposits.  The broad areas of high backscatter on the lower slope correspond to the broader, smooth, lower-slope sediment mantle visible in the shaded-relief map.

*go to a larger version of Figure 3 (3.3MB)**go to metadata for this field activity, A-1-98-HW*

Top of pageBeginning of OFR 00-124URL: http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of00-124/fig3.htmlMaintainer: SusanA. CochranLast modified: 12 Dec 2000
U.S. Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,Western RegionCoastal and Marine Geology
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2090 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2090

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 431 State Street in Ogdensburg, New York, as the ``Frederic 
                   Remington Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FREDERIC REMINGTON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 431 State Street in Ogdensburg, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Frederic Remington Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Frederic 
Remington Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2090

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 431 State Street in Ogdensburg, New York, as the ``Frederic 
                   Remington Post Office Building''.
```
# C_2008071EN.01001301.xml

| 18.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/13

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures

(2008/C 71/05)

| 1. | The Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below, as provided in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1583/2006 of 23 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ethanolamines originating in the United States of America (1). |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below, as provided in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1583/2006 of 23 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ethanolamines originating in the United States of America (1).

1

2.   Procedure

Community producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Community producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Community producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), J-79 4/23, B-1049 Brussels (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

2

| 4. | This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3). |
| --- | --- |

4.

This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (3).

3

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Ethanolamines | United States of America | Anti-dumping duty | Council Regulation (EC) No 1583/2006 (OJ L 294, 25.10.2006, p. 2) | 26.10.2008 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry

Ethanolamines

United States of America

Anti-dumping duty

Council Regulation (EC) No 1583/2006 (OJ L 294, 25.10.2006, p. 2)

26.10.2008

---

(1)  OJ L 294, 25.10.2006, p. 2.

1

(2)  Fax (32-2) 295 65 05.

2

(3)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ L 340, 23.12.2005, p. 17).

3

---
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 1 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 2 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 3 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 4 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 5 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 6 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 7 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 8 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 9 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 10 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 11 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 12 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 13 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 14 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 15 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 16 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 17 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 18 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 19 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 20 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 21 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 22 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 23 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 24 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 25 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 26 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 27 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 28 of 29
Case 1:14-cv-00837-CRC Document 1 Filed 05/21/14 Page 29 of 29
#### In the Matter of WILLIAM L. O’NEILL.

*Attorneys*— must *be citizens of the United States.*

No person can be admitted to practice as an attorney or counselor- at-law wbo is not a citizen of tire United States.

■ Motion to set aside an order made by the General Term of the Second Department, on the 9th day of May, 1881, admitting Mr. William Lane O’Neil to practice as an attorney and counselor-at-law.'

The papers, upon which the order admitting him to practice was made, show that he was born in Ireland in 1846, and emigrated to the United States on February 25, 1881. On February 28, 1881, he filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States. He had been admitted as an attorney on February 5, 1875, and as a solicitor in chancery on February 9, 1875, and practiced as such in England from the time of. his admission to the time’ of coming to this country.

This motion was made upon the ground that as O’Neill was not a citizen of the United States he could not be admitted to practice here.

*Henry*Arden, for John B. Newman, petitioner.

*Wm. L. O' Neill,*in person, opposed.

*600Barnard, P. J.:

An attorney of this court must be a citizen of the United States. This was the practice before the Constitution of 1846. (Graham’s Pr., 33.) By the Constitution of 1846, it was provided that *“*any male citizen of the age of twenty-one years, of good moral character, and who possesses the requisite qualifications of learning and ability, shall be entitled admission to practice in all the courts of this State.” (Const, of 1846, art. 6, § 8.) The use of the words *“*any male citizen ” must be held to exclude females and aliens.

By the statute of the State no one can hold a civil office who is not a citizen. (1 R. S., 116, § 1.) Attorneys are public officers. (*Waters*v. *Whittemore,*22 Barb., 594; *Wallis*v. *Loubat,*2 Den., 607.) The rule of the Court of Appeals requires an applicant for examination to prove he is a citizen of the United States. (Rule 2.)

The permission to license those who have, practiced m another country without examination was not intended to waive the requirement of citizenship. Neither the legislature or the Court of Appeals could so waive it under the Constitution of 1846. The preliminary objection taken by the respondent is one of mere form. Assuming that it is improper for an attorney to make this motion, the suggestion of the subject-matter would call upon the court to order the respondent to show cause why the license irregularly granted should not be revoked. We think that all parties are here for the purpose of determining the question raised.

Order admitting O’Neill as an attorney vacated and license issued thereon revoked.

Dykman and Cullen, JJ., concurred.

Order admitting W. L. O’Neill as an attorney revoked and license vacated.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****National Marine FisheriesService strategic plan for fisheries research [electronic resource].**
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.309/2-14:

Item Number:0610-A-05 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000862139
 
1998 | 2004 | 2007
 
March 24, 2020
#### § 136.250 Load lines.

Vessels described in Table 136.250 of this section that operate on the Great Lakes or outside the Boundary Lines, as set forth in 46 CFR part 7, are subject to load line requirements in subchapter E of this chapter in the following circumstances:

| A vessel that— | Is subject to load line requirements in subchapter E of this chapter if it is— |
| --- | --- |
| (a) Is on an international voyage— | (1) Seventy nine (79) feet (24 meters) or more in length and built on or after July 21, 1968; or |
| | (2) One hundred and fifty (150) gross tons or more if built before July 21, 1968. |
| (b) Is on a domestic voyage— | (1) Seventy nine (79) feet (24 meters) or more in length and built on or after January 1, 1986; or |
| | (2) One hundred and fifty (150) gross tons or more if built before January 1, 1986. |

Table 136.250
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

.



# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

CLOUDFLARE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SABLE NETWORKS, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2023

- 1612

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021

- 00909, IPR2022

- 00228.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties, having so agreed,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

The above

- captioned appeal is dismissed under Fed. R.

App. P. 42(b) with each side to bear their own costs.

July 8 , 2024

Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 8 , 2024 Case: 23-1612 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 07/08/2024