alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Atlanta Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration 

Appendix G 

Clean Air Markets - EGU NOx Data 
  	 

     
 

Emissions

1980 - 2006 Emissions

Unit Level Emissions

Monitoring Location

Level Emissions

Quick Reports

2007 Emissions

Preliminary Unit

Level Emissions

Preliminary Monitoring

Location Level

Emissions

Preliminary Quick

Reports

Prepackaged Data Sets

Data Caveats

Data Updates

Place your mouse over

the menu items to see

their instructions.

CAMD Home D&M Home Help Data Definitions Fact Sheet

cfpub.epa.gov

State Level Emissions Quick Report

Your query will return data for 36 facilities and 138 units.

You specified: Ozone Season(s): 2006,2005,2004,2003,2002,2001,2000,1999,1998,1997,1996 Program(s): ARP State(s): GA

FILTER results by clicking on the Filter Data bar.

PRINT THIS PAGE using the buttons below.

DOWNLOAD ALL DATA using the buttons below (download is limited to 500,000 rows).

SORT results by clicking on a column name (once=ascending, twice=descending).

New Quick Report Print This Page Download All Data Report Definitions

Filter Data (Expand this toolbar to filter your results.)

(11 records in 1 page of 11 records)

GA 1996 ARP 187,504.6 5 61,283.7 24,227,207.0 236,299,237

GA 1997 ARP 242,582.8 5 84,095.7 35,802,126.6 351,198,141

GA 1998 ARP 258,170.1 5 87,685.3 38,653,967.5 387,147,877

GA 1999 ARP 247,779.1 5 83,113.2 38,590,990.2 384,090,436

GA 2000 ARP 243,835.5 5 85,499.1 41,207,116.5 416,326,591

GA 2001 ARP 228,154.5 5 71,701.6 37,252,171.9 373,898,703

GA 2002 ARP 234,074.0 5 60,165.5 39,503,326.6 405,415,967

GA 2003 ARP 245,007.2 5 31,127.8 38,355,385.4 383,550,749

GA 2004 ARP 254,578.8 5 30,422.1 40,473,336.3 407,368,559

GA 2005 ARP 291,554.5 5 35,271.7 45,156,414.7 462,510,915

GA 2006 ARP 295,991.0 5 34,711.4 45,374,918.7 469,725,551

Total 2,729,232.1 665,077.0 424,596,961.2 4,277,532,726

State Year Program(s) SO2

Tons # of Months Reported NOxTons CO2Tons Heat Input (mmBtu)

Last updated on Friday, Feb 16, 2007.

   

Clean Air Markets - Data and Maps Page 1 of 1

http://cfpub.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm 6/20/2007
Before the Third Division,

August 12, 1953

No. 57459.

#### The Texas Company *v.*United States,

protest 178356-K (Providence).

*238Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of fuel oil derived from petroleum and that the facts and issue herein are the same in all material respects as those in *Esso Standard Oil Company*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 111, C. D. 1506). In the cited case it was held that a liquidator’s failure to withhold liquidation upon certain quota merchandise and his liquidation without allowance for the reduction granted under the quota constituted a clerical error and that the collector’s refusal to reliquidate upon demand duly made by the importer was in error. In view of the agreement of counsel and following the cited case, 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.                  

###### Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

# AGENCY:

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

# ACTION:

Notice of public availability of FY 2020 service contract inventory.

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with section 734 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2020 service contract inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000, which the Bureau funded during FY 2020. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources were used by the agency to support its mission. The inventory has been developed in accordance with the guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). The Bureau has posted its inventory on the Bureau's Open Government homepage at the following link:                         *https://www.consumerfinance.gov/​open*. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact                         *CFPB_Accessibility@cfpb.gov*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Nikki Burley, Senior Procurement Analyst, Office of Procurement, at 202-435-0329, or                         *Nikki.Burley@cfpb.gov*.                    

Jocelyn Sutton,

Deputy Chief of Staff, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

[FR Doc. 2023-21744 Filed 9-29-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
Case No. 9,571.

#### MILLER v. GAGES.

[4 McLean, 436.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Ohio.

July Term, 1848.

Writ — Indorsement—Amendment—Plea in Bar —Abatement.

1. The indorsement on the writ, required by the state statute, which has been adopted, may be objected by a motion to quash the writ.

[Cited in Woolridge v. M’Kenna, 8 Fed. 662.)

2. In such case an amendment would be permitted.

[Cited in Brown v. Pond, 5 Fed. 35.)

3. A neglect to make the indorsement is no ground for a plea in bar. A plea in abatement ■ is the only one that could be filed.

At law.

Mr. Perry, for plaintiff.

1

 [Reported by Hon. John McLean, Circuit Justice.)

OPINION OF THE COURT. The defendant in this case craved oyer of the writ, set it forth, and demurred to the declaration. Several causes of demurrer are assigned, but the variance assigned between the indorsement on the writ and the declaration, being the only one relied on, will be noticed. The statute adopted in our practice, requires the clerk to indorse the cause of action on the writ, without prescribing any form. An indorsement, therefore, which shall state the cause of action in general terms, will be a compliance with the law. As this is a requisite of the statute, it may constitute a ground of objection to the writ, where the indorsement is not made. The most appropriate manner of taking advantage of a neglect to make the in-dorsement would seem to be by a .motion to quash the writ. On such a motion the court would, of course, permit an amendment of the writ to be made. A defective indorsement might be pleaded in abatement, by craving oyer of the writ; but it is no ground for a plea in bar. The demurrer is overruled, and leave given to amend the writ.
SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE - 1 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

GUTAMA JOTE DINKA, 

 Defendant. 

NO. CR06-26-RSL 

SUMMARY REPORT OF 

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE AS 

TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 

OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 

An evidentiary hearing on a petition for violation of supervised release was held before 

the undersigned Magistrate Judge on August 22, 2012. The United States was represented by 

Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Friedman, and the defendant by Ronald Ness. 

 The defendant had been charged and convicted of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine 

Base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. On or about March 30, 

2007, defendant was sentenced by the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, to a term of 70 months in 

custody, to be followed by 5 years of supervised release. 

 The conditions of supervised release included the requirements that the defendant 

comply with all local, state, and federal laws, and with the standard conditions. Special 

conditions imposed included, but were not limited to, participation in substance abuse and 

mental health program, financial disclosure, search and gang association prohibition. 
SUMMARY REPORT OF U.S. MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE - 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

JAMES P. DONOHUE 

United States Magistrate Judge 

 In a Petition for Warrant or Summons, dated July 12, 2012, U.S. Probation Officer 

Brian K. Facklam asserted the following violations by defendant of the conditions of his 

supervised release: 

1. Committing the criminal offense of assault on or about December 4, 2011, 

in violation of the general condition of supervision that he not commit 

another federal, state, or local crime. 

2. Committing the criminal offense of disorderly conduct on or about 

December 4, 2011, in violation of the general condition of supervision that 

he not commit another federal, state, or local crime. 

 On August 7, 2012, defendant made his initial appearance. The defendant was advised 

the allegations and advised of his rights. On August 22, 2012, this matter came before the 

Court for an evidentiary hearing. Defendant admitted to violations 1 and 2. 

 I therefore recommend that the Court find the defendant to have violated the terms and 

conditions of his supervised release as to violations 1 and 2, and that the Court conduct a 

hearing limited to disposition. A disposition hearing on this violation has been set before the 

Honorable Robert S. Lasnik on August 30, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. 

Pending a final determination by the Court, the defendant has been released, subject to 

supervision. 

cc: District Judge: Honor

 DATED this 22nd day of August, 2012. 

able Robert S. Lasnik 

A

 AUSA: Andrew Friedman 

 Defendant’s attorney: Ronald Ness 

 Probation officer: Brian K. Facklam
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Form 10-Q of Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc., a
company duly formed under the laws of Colorado (the "Company"), for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mark A. Smith, President (Chief
Executive Officer) and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting
Officer) of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.



Date:  November 12, 2009               /s/ Mark A. Smith
                                       Mark A. Smith
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Principal Financial Officer


This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by
Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required
to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Principal
Life Income Fundings Trust 2008-065 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as whole, do
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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.
    
    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in this
report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement(s) in all material respects; and5.
    
    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise
disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
   /s/ Dwight N. Soethout

Dwight N. SoethoutVice President  Principal Life Insurance Company
Before the First Division,

May 12, 1965

No. 69303.

#### Devon Tape Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 64/25008 and 64/25024 (New York).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of vinyl tape, coated on one side with an adhesive, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 67888, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

March 15, 1956

No. 59766.

#### Daniel D. Karasik *v.*United States,

protest 253417-K/6618 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The protest was dismissed.
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

SCOTT BOYD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendants,

Case No. C06-5077RBL

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR APPOINTMENT OF

COUNSEL AND

DIRECTING THE CLERK

TO ACCEPT NO

FURTHER PLEADINGS

UNDER THIS CAUSE

NUMBER

This Civil Rights corpus action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to

Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR 4. 

Plaintiff filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. When the court reviewed the complaint prior to service,

the court noted several defects. The court entered an order to amend and in response plaintiff asked to

dismiss the action. (Dkt. # 7). The action was dismissed on May 24, 2006, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a) (Dkt. # 9). 

Nearly one year later, on May 15, 2007, plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel

Case 3:06-cv-05077-RBL-JKA Document 13 Filed 05/22/07 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

ORDER

Page - 2

(Dkt. # 10). This action has been dismissed without prejudice and the time for filing any appeal from that

dismissal has past. If plaintiff wishes to proceed he must file a new cause of action.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff and to accept no further filings under

this cause number.

DATED this 22 day of May 2007.

/S/ J. Kelley Arnold

J. Kelley Arnold

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05077-RBL-JKA Document 13 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 2
No. 57025.

protest 187706-K (New York).

#### Kopf Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of saddles, which saddles are in part of pigskin and valued at more than $40 each, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 54419, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 67671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28383]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Connecticut, District 
of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 
and Pennsylvania Advisory Committees

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a webinar briefing meeting 
of the Connecticut, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania State 
Advisory Committees will convene on Monday, November 14, 2011, at 10:30 
a.m. (E.S.T.). The briefing will be at Commission Headquarters, 624 9th 
Street NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425. The purpose of the meeting 
is to receive a briefing from experts on Human Trafficking.
    Those who are unable to attend the briefing at the Commission 
Headquarters in person may join through an Internet connection. Please 
contact the Eastern Regional Office for details on the internet 
connection by calling (202) 376-7533 or by email at ero@usccr.gov.
    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments. The 
comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, December 5, 
2011. The address is Eastern Regional Office, 624 9th Street NW., Suite 
740, Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to email their comments, or 
who desire additional information should contact the Eastern Regional 
Office at (202) 376-7533 or by email to: ero@usccr.gov.
    People seeking disability accommodations should contact the Eastern 
Regional Office at least five (5) working days before the scheduled 
meeting date.
    Records generated from this briefing may be inspected and 
reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, 
both before and after the webinar. Persons interested in the work of 
these advisory committees are advised to go to the Commission's Web 
site, http://www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office 
at the above email or street address.
    The briefing will be conducted pursuant to the rules and 
regulations of the Commission and FACA.

    Dated in Washington, DC, on October 27, 2011.
Peter Minarik,
Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 2011-28383 Filed 11-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-24-00066-CV

SITRAM GERS EQUIPMENT

v.

ZULEIMI BENITEZ

On Appeal from the

423rd District Court of Bastrop County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 423-8283

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered. The 

Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment in 

accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 15, 2024
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony S. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-3136.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 28, 2005.

Lanny D. Welch, Brent I. Anderson, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Anthony S. Smith, Waseca, MN, pro se.

Before EBEL, McKAY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining Defendant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument *768would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his Rule 36 motion to correct his sentence. The district court held that it was without jurisdiction to consider the motion. Rec., Yol. I, Tab 26, at 2 (Dist.Ct.Order). Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure gives courts discretion to “correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record....” Fed.R.Crim.P. 36. However, Defendant’s claim of clerical error is somewhat misleading because the gravamen of his complaint asserts that he is not receiving credit for one day he served while in federal custody; Defendant seeks “credit for time detained in federal custody from 2-22-96 to 6-13-97, and not from 2-23-96.” Aplt. Br. At 2.

Defendant effectively requested that the district court compute the amount of time he served in federal custody.1 The federal judiciary is without jurisdiction to correct such complaints. Credit for time served “must be made by the Attorney General, through the Bureau of Prisons, after sentencing.” *See United States v. Jenkins,*38 F.3d 1143, 1144 (10th Cir.1994) (citation omitted); *see also United States v. Brann,*990 F.2d 98, 104 (3d Cir.1993) (explaining that “district courts do not have jurisdiction to grant credit for prior custody”).2 The district court did not abuse its discretion in so holding.3

AFFIRMED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1

. On two separate occasions Defendant requested that this court supplement the record on appeal. We grant both of his requests.

2

. In addition, Defendant failed to establish through record evidence that the Bureau of Prisons treats Defendant’s time spent in federal custody as beginning on February 23, 1996, as opposed to February 22, 1996. This is a fatal defect in Defendant’s appeal. *United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre,*108 F.3d 1228, 1237 n. 8 (10th Cir.1997) (refusing to consider an argument on appeal because the appellant failed to reference the record in his brief and "the court [would] not 'sift through’ the record to find support for the claimant's arguments”) (citing *SEC v. Thomas,*965 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir.1992)).

3

. Defendant's Motion to Expedite Appeal is denied as moot.