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

Facility Name - DEC ID

LD Mc Cauley

9-1460-00032

Address 3875 California Road, Orchard Park, NY 14127

Type of business Captive Job Shop

# of Employees 

Hours of Operation 24 hours per day, 5 days per week

Annual Revenue $60,000,000

Process Type Decorative electroplating

Tank Design and Operation

Dimensions 44'L x 34'W x 64'H, 400 gals.

Rectifier Capacity 1500 amps

Annual Hours of Operation 4000 hours/year

Emisison Control Technology

Type of control/control device packed bed scrubber

control device operating parameters 0.5 inches of water

Emission test data Has test been performed? No. 

1996 Emission statement

Exhaust design

Emission point EP 09104

Stack height (m) 10

Stack diameter (m) 0.77

Exit velocity (m/sec) 13.76

cubic meters per minute 375.3

Exit temperature (K) 297

Other Available Supporting Documents

Emission Inventory Report 2009

Chromium release lbs/yr 9.6 x 10-3 From 1996 Emission statement

Permit Application/Operating permit

State Facility Permit - online

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/32249.html

Process flow diagrams/plant layout See attached files.

Notes
Quad/Graphics Buffalo

9-1430-00213

West Falls Machine Co.

9-1466-00047

2475 George Urban Blvd. 

Depew, NY 14043

11692 East Main Street, 

East Aurora, NY 14052

Printing and Publishing Job Shop

420 

24 hrs/day, 7 day/wk 

$40MM 

Hard chromium electroplating

Small hard chrome 

electropating

One active tank

20' X 5.25' 

limited to 60 E06 amp/hr per 

year < 60 E06 amp/hr per year

250 

composite mesh pad mist eliminator - Creco

0-2.5 inches of H2O max 1.6 inches of H2O

Complete test report Complete test report

EP 00101

10.97 7.0104

0.405 0.77

7.29 6.7

61.4 117.4

294 300

2009 2009

7.36 

Title V - online

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical

/32249.html

State Facility Permit - online

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chem

ical/32249.html

See attached files 

The chromium plating portion 

of this facility is closed but 

printing operations still open.

Not complete - waiting for 

more information
Quad/Graphics Buffalo

9-1430-00213

2475 George Urban Blvd. Depew, NY 14043 To Atmosphere

 Liquid Return to Tank

Vapor to

 Scrubber

Fume Suppressant 

(monitored by Surface Tension)

Cylinders

* Tank also normally operates with a partial foam blanket to further suppress chomic acid fumes.

Chrome 

Tank 

(Tank 4 

Plate & 

Baffle 

Mesh Pad Filter
o Atmosphere

Equipped with Magnahelic

Gauge for Pressure Differential Monitoring
LD McCauley
No. 75-1811.

#### In re Allis.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart would grant certiorari.
Before the First Division,

March 21, 1957

No. 60568.

#### S. S. Kresge Co. *v.*United States,

protests 238943-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fur dogs the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 60059, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

THOMAS A. WEBER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TIME WARNER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1706L

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #118)

of this Court’s January 31, 2006 order denying his motion to compel defendants to produce their

initial disclosures (Dkt. #110, the “Order”).

Plaintiff now alleges that defendants’ initial disclosures were incomplete, and requests

that the Court compel them to provide complete initial disclosures. A request for new relief is

not appropriate in a motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff also requests that the Court reconsider the portion of the Order imposing

$500.00 in sanctions against him. Plaintiff correctly notes that the Order erroneously stated that

plaintiff filed his motion on January 12, 2006, when in fact he mailed it on January 9, 2006. 

Therefore, the Order incorrectly stated that plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of

initial disclosures after he had already received them, which occurred on January 10, 2006. 

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 127 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 Instead of filing a reply, plaintiff filed two “notices” which did not comply with the

Court’s rules. Local Rules 7(d)(2), 10(e)(2). Plaintiff’s “notice regarding motion to compel

discovery” (Dkt. #106) incorrectly noted that defendants had not responded to the motion, and

failed to state that defendants had already served their initial disclosures.

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

However, the award of sanctions was also based on the fact that plaintiff failed to withdraw his

motion after acknowledging that he had received the initial disclosures. 

Plaintiff does not dispute that he never withdrew his motion after receiving the initial

disclosures. Instead, he argues that he did not withdraw the motion because the disclosures were

incomplete. Plaintiff, however, did not file a reply in support of his motion to notify the Court

of his changed request.1

 Nor did he confer with defendants regarding the allegedly incomplete

disclosures as required by the Court’s rules. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

DATED this 17th day of February, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 127 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 2
From: woodsmith5@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:36:59 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,

Kevin Smith

Green Bay, WI 54303
From: messa.or@frontier.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:35:57 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I urge you to 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,

Martha Messa

Newberg, OR 97132
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF 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 Annual Report of Mondas Minerals Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the year ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott Bengfort, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
21st day of September, 2010.


/s/ Scott Bengfort
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### Wayne BALLARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORP., Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 00-7995.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 13, 2001.

Wayne Ballard, Brooklyn, NY, pro se. Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY; Larry A. Sonnenshein and Mordecai Newman, on the brief on submission, for appellee.

Present WINTER, McLAUGHLIN and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Wayne Ballard appeals from an order granting summary judgment to defendant. We affirm.

Ballard filed a Title VII claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (“NYCHHC”) in February 1998. Ballard’s complaint alleged he had been terminated from his job as an emergency medical technician and subjected to unequal terms of employment based on his gender and race. Shortly after, with leave of the court, Ballard amended his complaint to include only the gender discrimination claims. Ballard sought an award of $750,000 and five years back pay; reinstatement to his job with full seniority and all benefits; haring NYCHHC bring his insurance payments up to date; and to be cleared of any wrongdoing.

After the completion of discovery, the NYCHHC filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, finding Ballard did not present sufficient evidence to make out a *prima fade*case of gender discrimination. The district court concluded Ballard could neither show he was qualified for the job nor produce evidence of facts giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Even assuming Ballard could make out a *prima fade*case, the district court found NYCHHC presented evidence of legitimate, non-diseriminatory reasons for Ballard’s termination which Ballard could not rebut. NYCHHC introduced undisputed evidence that Ballard was issued three prior warning notices; two formal charges of misconduct and two counseling conferences. Judgment against Ballard was entered on August 3, 2000, and this timely appeal followed.

On appeal, Ballard argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment because there are genuine issues of material fact which should have been sent to a jury to decide. We review grants of summary judgment *de novo. Bedoya v. Coughlin,*91 F.3d 349, 351 (2d Cir.1996).

Our review of the record shows the district court did not err in its analysis. Thus, primarily for the reasons given in the district court’s thorough memorandum and order, we affirm the grant of summary judgment.

We have examined the remainder of Ballard’s arguments and we find them without merit.
Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  The Board
of Directors and Management
 The
Student Loan Corporation:
  We have
examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Management
Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that The Student
Loan Corporation (The Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the
asset backed securities transactions involving student loans for which the
Company acted as servicer (the Platform), except for servicing criteria
1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi),
1122(d)(3)(i)(criteria A and B only), 1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v),
1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the
Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with
respect to the Platform as of and for the twelve months ended December 31, 2008.
Appendix A to Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing
Criteria identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities
defined by management as constituting the Platform.  Management is
responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the
Company’s compliance based on our examination.
  Our
examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing
criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our
procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities
performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our
procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred
either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances
or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by
this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance
with the servicing criteria.
  In our
opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended December
31, 2008 is fairly stated, in all material respects.
  
  New York,
New York
 March 18,
2009
No. 68955.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 63/1880 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the articles in question are not essential for the operation of a microscope, can be used with items other than microscopes, and that they are articles in chief value of metal, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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.                  

###### Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

# AGENCY:

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given that the Appointments Panel, a subcommittee of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), will hold a meeting on October 5, 2023. The Appointments Panel makes recommendations regarding appointments for non-federal member positions.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting is closed to the public. The reason for the closure is that matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) will be discussed. Any such discussions will involve matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the sponsor agencies and the disclosure of information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), portions of advisory committee meetings may be closed to the public where the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines that such portion of such meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code. The determination shall be in writing and shall contain the reasons for the determination. A determination has been made in writing by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget, as required by section 10(d) of FACA, that such portions of the meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.

*Authority:*31 U.S.C. 3511(d); Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1001-1014.                

Dated: September 19, 2023.

Monica R. Valentine,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 2023-20659 Filed 9-22-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-321-CV

SHEREKHAN LAMAR EVANS A/K/A APPELLANT

SHON EVANS

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

------------

FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

------------

Sherekhan Lamar Evans a/k/a Shon Evans filed a notice of appeal from a

July 28, 2009 “Interlocutory Default Judgment.” It appears that the trial court

has not signed a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. On

September 30, 2009, we notified Appellant that unless he or any other party

desiring to continue the appeal filed a response by October 12, 2009, showing

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
grounds for continuing the appeal, we would dismiss the appeal. Appellant did

not file a response, and we have not received a response from any other party.

A party may appeal only from a final judgment or an interlocutory order

specifically made appealable by statute or rule. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 195 & n.12 (Tex. 2001); see, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code

Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2009) (listing appealable interlocutory orders).

Because the trial court has not signed a final judgment or appealable

interlocutory order, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 3, 2009

2
ex-10.19

 

 LOAN AGREEMENT
 January 23, 2018
 

 Hampshire Avenue Sdn Bhd, (the “Lender”) of 156 Jalan Utama, 10450  Georgetown, P. Penang, Malaysia agrees to advance CAD$10,000 (the “Principal Sum”) to VGrab Communications Inc. (the “Borrower”) of 1130 W. Pender Street, Unit 820, Vancouver, BC V6E 4A4. The funds will be advanced on January 23, 2018 (the “Effective date”).
 

 The Borrower agrees to repay the Principal Sum on demand, together with interest calculated and compounded monthly at the rate of 4% per year (the “Interest”) from January 23, 2018. The Borrower is liable for repayment for the Principal Sum and accrued Interest and any costs that the Lender incurs in trying to collect the Principal Sum and the Interest.
 

 The Borrower will evidence the debt and its repayment of the Principal Sum and the Interest with a promissory note in the attached form.
 

 	 	
	 LENDER
	 BORROWER

	 Hampshire Avenue Sdn Bhd
	 VGrab Communications Inc.

	  
	  

	 Per:
	 Per:

	  
	  

	 /s/ Ahmad Mazlanbin Ahmad
	 /s/ Lim Hun Beng

	 Name: Ahmad Mazlanbin Ahmad
	 Name: Lim Hun Beng

	 Position: 
	 Position: CEO


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 
 

 

 PROMISSORY NOTE
 

 	 	
	 Principal Amount:  CAD$10,000
	 January 23, 2018


 

 

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED VGrab Communications Inc., (the “Borrower”) promises to pay on demand to the order of Hampshire Avenue Sdn Bhd (the “Lender”) the sum of $10,000 lawful money of Canada (the “Principal Sum”) together with interest on the Principal Sum from January 23, 2018 (“Effective Date”) both before and after maturity, default and judgment at the Interest Rate as defined below.
 

 For the purposes of this promissory note, Interest Rate means 4 per cent per year.  Interest at the Interest Rate must be calculated and compounded monthly not in advance from and including the Effective Date (for an effective rate of 4.07% per annum calculated monthly), and is payable together with the Principal Sum when the Principal Sum is repaid.
 

 The Borrower may repay the Principal Sum and the Interest in whole or in part at any time.
 

 The Borrower waives presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonour of this promissory note.
 

 

 BORROWER
 VGrab Communications Inc.
 

 Per:
 

 /s/ Lim Hun Beng
 Name: Lim Hun Beng
 Position: CEO