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

Plant ID 04017

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 04017\04017_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04017\04017_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

04017\04017_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 04017\04017_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04017\04017_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04017\04017_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04017\04017_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04017\04017_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04017\Certification Statement Plant ID 04017.pdf Plant certification statement

x 04017\Supplemental Documents\04017_Water Balance OWS JTD.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

04017\Supplemental Documents\final calaveras site map 8-2010.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04017\Telecon Documents\EPA water ICR follow-up data-questions final-1-21-2011.doc Plant submitted survey file

x 04017\Telecon Documents\JT Deely - Part C-updated 1-21-2011.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04017\Telecon Documents\RE EPA Steam Questionnaire Followup 4017.rtf Plant submitted survey file

x 04017\Telecon Documents\RE EPA Steam Questionnaire Followup 4017_1.rtf Plant submitted survey file

04017\04017 (00493)_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

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

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moises Eliseo GARDUNO-HERMOSA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41090.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Marjorie A Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Moisés Elíseo Garduño-Hermosa (Garduño) appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine. Garduño argues for the first time on appeal that the district court erred by sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme, that this issue is subject to de novo review, and that prejudice should be presumed. *See United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Garduño concedes that pursuant to *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517), plain error review applies and that he cannot establish that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. He raises the issue solely to preserve Supreme Court review.

Because Garduño has not established that the district court plainly erred in sentencing him, his sentence is AFFIRMED. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 732-34 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNDRA-CHRISTOPHER WATKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JACK E. TANNER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5640RBL

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION

 The Court, having reviewed Plaintiffs’ complaint, the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, if any, and

the remaining record, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE prior to service. Plaintiff

may not challenge his current conviction in a civil rights action.

(3) Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, counsel for any defendants

who have appeared, and to the Hon. Karen L Strombom.

DATED this 10th day of November, 2005.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05640-RBL Document 7 Filed 11/10/05 Page 1 of 1
From: ceejaymcgw@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:44:23 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Carol McGowan

Spencerport, NY 14559
9B7F3059-9CB8-4B0A-BBEB-02805950539F
From: lukewomble@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:53:49 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Luke Womble

Silver Spring, MD 20906
From: jeff@genevagrowers.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:52:24 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jeffery Baumsteiger

San Anselmo, CA 94960
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.9.2




AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO THE
BRIGHTHOUSE SERVICES, LLC AUXILIARY SAVINGS PLAN
The BRIGHTHOUSE SERVICES, LLC AUXILIARY SAVINGS PLAN (the “Plan”) is hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2018, as follows:


Section 3.1(d) of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new subsection (iii) to read as follows:


“(iii)  Company Matching Contributions, as set forth in subsection (b), are made to the Plan on behalf of each Participant that completes and submits a deferral election (that is not rejected) in a Plan Year under the Brighthouse Services, LLC Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan or the Brighthouse Services, LLC Voluntary Deferred Compensation Plan (For Employees Located in California), in an amount equal to the amount of Company matching contributions that would have been made to the BSP Plan for such Plan Year had the Participant not completed and submitted such deferral election under one of such plans.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed by the Plan Administrator thereof, on this 28th day of December 2017. 
        
Plan Administrator






/s/ Mark J. Davis                                                  
Mark J. Davis






Witness: /s/ Elyse Moore                                                    




1
****Exhibit31.2** **Certificationof the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to****Section302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002** I, J.Robert Patterson, certify that: 1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of InfoTech USA, Inc.;  2. Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;  4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; b) [Reserved.] c) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and d) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting. Date: May13, 2005                                    /s/ J.Robert Patterson              J. Robert Patterson, VicePresident, Chief Financial              Officer, Treasurer andDirector              (Principal FinancialOfficer)    **
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4652-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-4652-DR), dated May 4, 2022, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This change occurred on June 27, 2023.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, David R. Gervino, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of José M. Gil Montañez as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2023-20998 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
H. Res. 390 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 5, 2007. 

Whereas on December 18, 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt created by proclamation the Arkansas National 

Forest on reserved public domain lands south of the Arkansas River; 

Whereas on April 29, 1926, President Calvin Coolidge issued 

an Executive Order to change the name of the Arkansas 

National Forest to the Ouachita National Forest to reflect both the name of the mountains embraced by the 

national forest and the name of the principal river which 

drains the national forest; 

Whereas Ouachita is the French spelling of a Native American word meaning ‘‘good hunting ground’’; 

Whereas the Ouachita National Forest today encompasses 

approximately 1.8 million acres in Arkansas and eastern 

Oklahoma and offers a variety of recreation areas, scenic 

areas, wilderness areas, historic resources, and timber 

and other forest products to the Nation; and 

Whereas the Ouachita National Forest is the largest and oldest national forest in the southern region of the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That on the 100th anniversary of the creation 

of the Ouachita National Forest, the House of Representa-
2 

•HRES 390 EH 

tives recognizes the important contributions of the Ouachita 

National Forest to the success of the United States in conserving the environment and ensuring that our natural resources remain sources of pride for our citizens, our communities, and our Nation. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Luis GARIBAY-GARIBAY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-30504.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2005.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Garibay-Garibay appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to re-entry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Garibay-Garibay was sentenced before the United States Supreme Court held in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), that the Sentencing Guidelines were effectively advisory. He contends that his case should be remanded for resentencing under the advisory Guidelines. The record does not show how the district court would have proceeded had it known that the Guidelines were *665not mandatory. Accordingly, we remand for the district court to answer the question whether the sentence would have been materially different if it had known that the Guidelines were advisory, and for further proceedings under *United States v. Ameline,*409 F.3d 1073, 1084-85 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). *See United States v. Moreno-Hernandez,*No. 03-30387, slip op. 7773, 7793-94, 2005 WL 1560269 (9th Cir. July 5, 2005) (amended opinion).

REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
From: Donna Domzalski

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB44 Mandatory Birth Control

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:44:21 PM

To Whom it May Concern,

I object in the strongest of terms to mandating birth control with no co-pays under

the Affordable Care Act.

Birth control is already widely available to all women, subsidized largely by

taxpayers. Demanding that we further subsidize other people's birth control by

increasing our insurance premiums in these days when families are struggling just to

make ends meet is an outrage. 

The mandate violates my conscience and that of millions of Americans who oppose

birth control on moral and religious grounds. 

It is undisputed that one of the operations of contraceptives is to render the

endometrium hostile to implantation, so that if fertilization occurs, the newly

conceived child may be lost to an early abortion. I also strongly object to the

inclusion of free sterilization as well as abortifacient pills like ella, which can work

weeks after a person's biological beginning to cause an abortion.

And what of Catholic employers and others who oppose birth control, but are now

going to be forced to participate in these plans and/or offer it to their employees?

This flies in the face of the conscience protections that Americans have historically

enjoyed.

The conscience provisions attached to the rule are so narrowly crafted that they

would appear to force Catholic institutions to make free birth control and sterilization

available in health plans, or cease hiring and providing services to non-Catholics. 

It is incomprehensible that such a mandate is being forced upon the people of the

United States.

It is no secret that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in America, is

behind this mandate, and will reap huge financial benefits from it at a time when

citizens in the United States are working on both the state and federal levels to

defund the abortion giant. 

The majority of Americans are pro-life and we do not want our tax dollars and

insurance premiums supporting the nation's largest abortion chain.

It is imperative that you give credence to my personal objection along with those of

millions of other Americans who do not want to be forced to pay for and provide

medication, devices, and procedures that do not treat or prevent any disease or

illness, but distort and render inoperable a healthy reproductive system. This rule is

unjust, untenable, and un-American--and it should be stricken.

Sincerely,

Donna Domzalski
Pineville, Louisiana
No. 23, Misc.,

October Term, 1959.

#### In re Disbarment of Alker.

Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

*Francis E. Walter*and *William J. Woolston*on the petition.

The petition to vacate order of disbarment and reinstate order of suspension, pending action of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, is denied.