alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BACT Clearinghouse Search Results

6 matching record(s) found

District - All Districts

Category - Heater-Other Process

Pollutant - CO

Capacity / 

Dimension Pollutant District Name District Contact 

Plant 

Name 

35 MMBtu/hr 100

Santa Barbara County APCD 

Mike Goldman

Celite View 

Determination

48 MMBtu/hr 100

Santa Barbara County APCD 

Mike Goldman

Celite View 

Determination

6.5 mmbtu/hr 50

South Coast AQMD 

Martin Kay

Southern 

California 

Gas Co

View 

Determination

19 MMBtu/hr 50

South Coast AQMD 

Martin Kay

NELCO 

Products. 

Inc,

View 

Determination

117.6 MMBtu/hr 4000

South Coast AQMD 

Martin Kay

Praxair View 

Determination

 10

South Coast AQMD 

Martin Kay

Chevron 

Products 

Co.

View 

Determination

Report Results Page 1 of 1

http://www.arb.ca.gov/bact/bactnew/query.php 11/30/2009
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Repro-Med Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
I. Sealfon, Chief Executive Officer and Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

(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/ Andrew I. Sealfon
---------------------
Andrew I. Sealfon
Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer


July 13, 2007
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 13, 2019

No. 04-19-00528-CV

IN RE John EBIN and Joyce O’Connor

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On August 5, 2019, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and the real party in 

interest responded. After reviewing the petition, the response, and the record, we conclude relators 

are entitled to the relief requested in part. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is 

CONDITIONALLY GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c).

The Honorable Rex Emerson is ORDERED to vacate his August 2, 2019 “Order on 

Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Testimony and Report of Derek Steiner.” The writ will issue 

only if we are notified that Judge Emerson has not complied within fifteen days from the date of 

this order. All other relief requested by relators is DENIED. The stay imposed on August 5, 2019 

is LIFTED.

It is so ORDERED on November 13, 2019.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 13th day of November, 2019.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 17365B, styled Joyce O’Connor and John C. Ebin v. USAA Casualty 

Insurance Company and Kimberly Schaeffer, pending in the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas, the 

Honorable Rex Emerson presiding.
Appleton Papers Retirement Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan Amendment



 Exhibit 10.9.4 
 APPLETON PAPERS RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND 
 EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN 
 AMENDMENT 
 The Appleton Papers Retirement Savings and Employee Stock Ownership Plan is amended as follows.

 Effective January 1, 2006, or as soon thereafter as the Committee shall determine to be administratively feasible, Subsection 3.2(a) is
amended by replacing subsection (2) with the following two subsections and subsequently renumbering subsections (3), (4), and (5): 
  

	 	(2)	Bargaining Unit Employees (Appleton): 

 (A) 100% of
the Participant’s Savings Percentage invested under the ESOP Component of the Plan; and 
 (B) 50% of the Participant’s Savings
Percentage invested under the Non-ESOP Component of the Plan. 
 provided, however, that a Matching Contribution shall only be made on that
portion of the Savings Percentage not in excess of 6% of Covered Compensation. Such matching contribution shall be invested in either the ESOP Component or the Non-ESOP Component of the Plan in the same manner as the Participant’s Savings
Percentage to which the Matching Contribution relates. 
  

	 	(3)	Bargaining Unit Employees (West Carrollton and Roaring Spring): A contribution to the Participant’s ESOP Matching Contribution Account equal to 100% of the portion of
the Participant’s Savings Percentage invested under the ESOP Component of the Plan not in excess of 6% of Covered Compensation. 

 2. Effective December 1, 2005, Subsection 3.4(c) is amended by adding the following subsection (5). 
  

	 	(5)	Special Profit Sharing Contributions. Notwithstanding paragraphs (3) and (4) above, a special Profit Sharing Contribution of $1,000 shall be allocated to the
Non-ESOP Profit Sharing Account of each Bargaining Unit Employee (Appleton) 








 when his work area completes the work system redesign conducted during 2005 and 2006 or, if his work
area does not participate in a redesign, when all redesigns are complete. 
 DATED this 15th day of December, 2005. 
  

			
	APPLETON PAPERS INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Paul J. Karch

	Title:	 	Secretary


  

 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         298,335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  279,368
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    158,587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               846,476
<PP&E>                                         694,755
<DEPRECIATION>                                (479,487)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,133,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,522
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,922,708
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,855,110)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,067,598
<SALES>                                        142,023
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               407,023
<CGS>                                           47,908
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  258,276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                89,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,786
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,786
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,786
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .003
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
The Honorab le Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge 1 for the Eastern District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3585

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Edward Earl Wright, also known * Eastern District of Missouri. as James Hill, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 4, 1997 Filed: February 14, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Edwa rd Earl Wright appeals the sentence imposed by th e district court after he pleaded guilty to cons piring to distribute 1 cocaine base and distributing more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We affirm. Wright’s presentence report in dicated a Guidelines sentencing range of 360 months to life, noting that a 120-month mandatory
mi nimumpenalty was applicable. At sentencing, the governmen t move d for a downward departure under U.S. Sentencing Guideline s-2-

Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (1995). The district court departed and-3-

se ntenced Wright to 180 months imprisonment and five year s supervised release, stating th e mandatory minimum was not a severe eno ughpenalty given Wright's criminal history and the nature o f the offense. On appeal, Wright contends the court erred in not departin g further and not imposing the m andatory minimum. We may not review the extent of the court’s downward departure, however, regardless of it s reasons for not departing further. See United States v . Dutcher , 8 F.3d 11, 12 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 21

LabOne, Inc. A Missouri Corporation



Subsidiaries

LabOne L.L.C. Kansas - Single member LLC

Central Plains Holdings, Inc.  Kansas - C Corp.
     Central Plains Laboratories, L.L.C.  Kansas - Single member LLC

ExamOne World Wide, Inc.  Pennsylvania - C Corp.
     ExamOne World Wide of NJ, Inc.New Jersey - C Corp.

ExamOne Canada, Inc. Canada - C Corp.

LabOne Ohio

Lab One Canada, Inc. Canada - C Corp.

Osborn Group, Inc.  Delaware - C Corp.
     Intellisys, Inc.  Georgia - C Corp.

Systematic Business Services, Inc.  Missouri - C Corp.
     ScanTech Solutions, LLC  Missouri - Single member LLC
§ 179.400-25 Stenciling. Each tank car must be stenciled in compliance with the provisions of the AAR Specifications for Tank Cars, appendix C (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). The stenciling must also include the following: ( a ) The date on which the rupture disc was last replaced and the initials of the person making the replacement, on the outer jacket in letters and figures at least 11 ⁄ 2 inches high.
( b ) The design service temperature and maximum lading weight, in letters and figures at least 11 ⁄ 2 inches high adjacent to the hazardous material stencil.
( c ) The water capacity, in pounds net at 60 °F., with the tank at its coldest operating temperature, after deduction for the volume above the inlet to the pressure relief device or pressure control valve, structural members, baffles, piping, and other appurtenances inside the tank, in letters and figures at least 11 ⁄ 2 inches high.
( d ) Both sides of the tank car, in letters at least 11 ⁄ 2 inches high, with the statement “Do Not Hump or Cut Off While in Motion.”
( e ) The outer jacket, below the tank classification stencil, in letters at least 11 ⁄ 2 inches high, with the statement, “vacuum jacketed.”
[Amdt. 179-32, 48 FR 27708, June 16, 1983, as amended at 66 FR 45391, Aug. 28, 2001; 68 FR 75763, Dec. 31, 2003]
#### § 1242.76 Administration; pickup and delivery, marine line haul, and rail substitute service; loading, unloading and local marine; protective services; freight lost or damaged—solely related; fringe benefits; casualties and insurance; joint facility, and other (accounts XX-34-01, XX-34-73, XX-34-74, XX-34-75, 51-34-00, 12-34-00, 50-34-00. 37-34-00, 38-34-00 and XX-34-99).

These accounts pertain solely to freight service and contain no common expenses for separation herein.

administrative support operations
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,246,909
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      41,552,631
<DEPRECIATION>                            (21,557,013)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,790,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     23,681,727
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,790,263
<SALES>                                      4,279,436
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,521,018
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,221,633
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,084,949
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                214,436
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   214,436
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
-----Original Message----- 

From: paulareyart@gmail.com [mailto:paulareyart@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:24 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

All people and especially insurance companies should recognize that the 

brain is part of the human body and to ignore the need for health care 

of the brain is not acceptable. 

Sincerely, 

paula rey 

5002 9th ave. w. 

Everett, WA 98203
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.945 What methods must an operator use to measure program effectiveness? ( a ) *General.* An operator must include in its integrity management program methods to measure whether the program is effective in assessing and evaluating the integrity of each covered pipeline segment and in protecting the high consequence areas. These measures must include the four overall performance measures specified in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, *see* § 192.7 of this part), section 9.4, and the specific measures for each identified threat specified in ASME/ANSI B31.8S, Appendix A. An operator must submit the four overall performance measures as part of the annual report required by § 191.17 of this subchapter.
( b ) *External Corrosion Direct assessment.* In addition to the general requirements for performance measures in paragraph (a) of this section, an operator using direct assessment to assess the external corrosion threat must define and monitor measures to determine the effectiveness of the ECDA process. These measures must meet the requirements of § 192.925.
[68 FR 69817, Dec. 15, 2003, as amended by Amdt. 192-95, 69 FR 18234, Apr. 6, 2004; 75 FR 72906, Nov. 26, 2010]
From: kbcoventry@yahoo.com [mailto:kbcoventry@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:48 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Coventry 

GWU HOVA 412; 2601 Virginia Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20052
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 31, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00181

- CV

IN RE STATE EX REL. STEVEN A. WADSWORTH, County Attorney, Gillespie County, Texas

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On March 31, 2022, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and the real party in interest responded. After reviewing the petition, the response, and the record, we conclude relator is partially entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, the peti tion for writ of mandamus is

CONDITIONALLY GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(c).

The Honorable Christopher G. Nevins is ORDERED to no later than fifteen days from the date of this order, VACATE (1) that portion of decretal paragr aph 4 in its March 23, 2022 Order ordering “ the cell phone of the Complaining Witness, in the possession of and/or owned by [her parents] be brought and presented to the Court for the Court, and Court only, for in

- camera inspection,” and (2) the entirety o f decretal paragraph 5 in its March 23, 2022 Order. That portion

of its March 23, 2022 Order ordering that “no communications are to be deleted, modified, destroyed, manipulated, or hidden by any party prior to presentation to the Court” REMAINS IN

PLACE

. We DENY the petition for writ of mandamus in all other respects. The writ will issue only if we are notified that Judge Nevins has not complied within fifteen days from the date of this

order.

It is so ORDERED on August 31, 2022

.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

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

court on this 31st day of August, 2022

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. JV

- 0018CCL , styled In the Matter of M.A.C.S.C., a Juvenile , pending in the County Court

, Gillespie County, Texas, the Honorable Christopher G. Nevins presiding.
-----Original Message----- 

From: Romanseigh8@cox.net [mailto:Romanseigh8@cox.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:12 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (RIN 

1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from charging 

higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for mental 

health treatment than they would for other physical health care. Thank you 

for ensuring that mental health care and physical health care coverage are 

included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Ruth Greene 

1810 Rolling Hills Drive 

Fayetteville, AR 72703
-----Original Message----- 

From: joangrossfield@yahoo.com [mailto:joangrossfield@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 4:39 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Joan Grossfield 

3030 St. Albans Mill Rd. 

Minnetonka, MN 55305
Editorial Note on Part 173
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

§ 173.50 Class 1—Definitions. ( a ) *Explosive.* For the purposes of this subchapter, an *explosive* means any substance or article, including a device, which is designed to function by explosion (*i.e.,* an extremely rapid release of gas and heat) or which, by chemical reaction within itself, is able to function in a similar manner even if not designed to function by explosion, unless the substance or article is otherwise classed under the provisions of this subchapter. The term includes a pyrotechnic substance or article, unless the substance or article is otherwise classed under the provisions of this subchapter.
( b ) Explosives in Class 1 are divided into six divisions as follows: ( 1 ) *Division 1.1* consists of explosives that have a mass explosion hazard. A mass explosion is one which affects almost the entire load instantaneously.
( 2 ) *Division 1.2* consists of explosives that have a projection hazard but not a mass explosion hazard.
( 3 ) *Division 1.3* consists of explosives that have a fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or a minor projection hazard or both, but not a mass explosion hazard.
( 4 ) *Division 1.4* consists of explosives that present a minor explosion hazard. The explosive effects are largely confined to the package and no projection of fragments of appreciable size or range is to be expected. An external fire must not cause virtually instantaneous explosion of almost the entire contents of the package.
( 5 ) Division 1.5 [1] consists of very insensitive explosives. This division is comprised of substances which have a mass explosion hazard but are so insensitive that there is very little probability of initiation or of transition from burning to detonation under normal conditions of transport.
( 6 ) Division 1.6 [2] consists of extremely insensitive articles that do not have a mass explosion hazard. This division is comprised of articles which predominately contain extremely insensitive substances and that demonstrate a negligible probability of accidental initiation or propagation.
[Amdt. 173-224, 55 FR 52617 Dec. 21, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 66267, Dec. 20, 1991; 66 FR 45183, Aug. 28, 2001; 68 FR 48569, Aug. 14, 2003; 78 FR 1074, Jan. 7, 2013; 82 FR 15876, Mar. 30, 2017] Footnotes -
173.50
[1] The probability of transition from burning to detonation is greater when large quantities are transported in a vessel.
[2] The risk from articles of Division 1.6 is limited to the explosion of a single article.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 23, 2015

s1216 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2015

151748 & (99)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151748

COA: 318661

Wayne CC: 00

- 005882

- FC

KEVIN J. MOORE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to permit filing in pro per supplemental pleading

is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2015 judgment of the

Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.