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

Plant ID 08069

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

08069\08069_Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08069\08069_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

x 08069\08069_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08069\08069_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

08069\08069_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08069\08069_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08069\08069_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08069\08069_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_CCT COVERMEMO.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_EA Combustion Turbine.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_Environmental Assessment.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_fonsi.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_INFO TABLE - NEPA CT Capacity Purchases - Cogentrix Caledo.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_SCC ICR Flow Schematic Source Diagram August 2010.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08069\Supporting Documentation\08069_SCC ICR Flow Schematic Source Diagram August 2010.pptx 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.
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 TAXATION OF COSTS -- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

PETER TILTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC.,

d/b/a “BUSINESS WEEK” and MICHELLE

CONLIN,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-98RSL

TAXATION OF COSTS

Having considered briefs in support of, and in opposition to, the cost bill herein, costs in the cause

indicated above are hereby taxed against PLAINTIFF PETER TILTON , and on behalf of

DEFENDANTS in the amount of $22,510.03 as follows:

Requested Disallowed Allowed

I. DEPOSITION COSTS $19,480.92 $1,693.43 $17,787.49

Clerk allowed as taxable costs those expenses incurred for depositions actually used by counsel in lieu

of live testimony, to impeach or the prepare for a witness that actually testified at trial. Costs to

expedite delivery were not allowed. Deposition costs requested for Baldesty and Thomashefsky were

not allowed.

II. TRANSCRIPT $1,096.80 $1,096.80 0

Cost of trial transcript is not taxable.

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 273 Filed 01/23/08 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

Requested Disallowed Allowed

TAXATION OF COSTS -- 2

III. COPY COSTS $22,958.14 $4,722.54 $18,235.60

Clerk allowed copy costs for production of materials presented at trial. These included notebooks,

exhibits and $2,000 in copying charges. Additional costs requested are considered general copying

expenses in support of litigation and are not taxable.

Dated this 23rd day of JANUARY, 2008 .

A

Bruce Rifkin

Clerk, U.S. District Court

Case 2:06-cv-00098-RSL Document 273 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 2
Before Chief Judge Rao,

March 27, 1969

No. R69/10.

reappraisement R62/6261 (New York).

#### Lollytogs, Ltd. *v.*United States,

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as those in Lollytogs, *Ltd.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 608, Reap. Dec. 11073), the court found and held that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the value of merchandise (children’s wearing apparel) and that such value was the appraised unit value, net packed, less the commission of Swedish Trading Co., Ltd., of Hong Kong as indicated on the invoices.
No. 60236.

protests 229516-K and 243991-K (New York).

#### Colonial Bead Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of colored glass stones, valued at less than 20 cents per dozen pieces, wholly or in chief value of glass, cut, the claim at 50 cents each, but not less than 30 percent nor more than 50 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 218 (f), as modified by T. D. 51802, supplemented by Presidential proclamation (T. D. 51898), as glass articles, valued at less than $1, was sustained. Items marked in the letter “B,” stipulated to consist of opaque white glass stones of different sizes and shapes, faceted, similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59105, were held dutiable at 10 percent under the provision in paragraph 1528, as modified by the Torquay Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (T. D. 52739), supplemented by Presidential proclama^ tion (T. D. 52836), for imitation semiprecious stones, faceted.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7495
LAWRENCE W. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PARKER EVATT; RICKIE HARRISON; JOHN DOE; ANNIE ADDY; JOE HILTON, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge; Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-2545-3-21-BC) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 22, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence W. Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Lee Reeves, Amy Dare Lohr, LEWIS, REEVES & STONE, Columbia, South Carol ina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order denying Appellant's objections to the removal of this case from state court. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny Appellant's motion for a stay of the district court's proceedings and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  for the period ended  September 30,
2008 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Senior
Vice-President  and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates,  Inc.,  general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/s/Thomas J. Riha.
------------------
Thomas J. Riha
Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
August 12, 2009
From: glenmass@san.rr.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:26:18 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,

Glen Massimino

Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Before the Second Division,

April 29, 1964

No. 68493.

protests 61/14612, etc. (New York).

#### The Lafayette Brass Mfg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that: the merchandise consists of rotary lawn sprinklers or metal parts -thereof similar-in all material respects to those the subject of *The Durst Mfg. Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(50 CCPA 56, C.A.D. 820), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 9, 2015

No. 04-15-00565-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.C.M., a child,

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CVW000960-C3

Honorable Roel Canales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Roxann G. Soto’s notification of late record is GRANTED. The reporter’s record is due 

on October 23, 2015. No further extension of time will be allowed.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

            In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alkermes, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
M. Frates, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my
knowledge:

      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/  James M. Frates
                                        -----------------------
                                        James M. Frates
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        August 13, 2003
Before the First Division,

April 4, 1957

No. 60601.

#### Tuck High & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 275499-K (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 60311, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

October 10, 1967

No. P67/341.

#### The Amalgamated Sugar Company *v.*United States, protest 64/938 (Los Angeles).

Eord, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of Weibull sugar blending and conditioning machinery and parts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Union Sugar*Div., *Consolidated Foods Corp.*(54 CCPA 1, C.A.D. 892), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Case No. 14,873.

#### UNITED STATES v. COTTOM.

[1 Cranch, C. C. 55.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Jan. Term, 1802.

Criminal Procedure—Capias—Trial—Argument op Counsel.

1. A capias may be issued as the first process against a person for unlawful gaming.

2. The court will not suffer counsel in a criminal prosecution to argue to the jury, a point of law which has been decided by the court.

[Cited in Stettinius v. U. S., Case No. 13,-387.]

Indictment for gaming, contrary to the act of Virginia. A capias had issued upon the indictment, as the first process.

Mr. Swann, for defendant,

moved to quash it, as being illegal and oppressive. But THE COURT overruled the motion.

Mr. Taylor began to address the jury on the points of law heretofore decided by the court, that the offence was not committed within the jurisdiction of the court, being before the first Monday of December, 1800; and that an indictment is not the proper and legal process in such cases.

Mr. Jones, for defendant,

tendered a bill of exceptions.'

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

stopped him, and said they had before prevented Mr. Jones from arguing points of law to the jury, which the court had decided against him, (see Virginia v. Zimmerman [Case No. 16,968]), and they bad not altered their opinion on that subject.
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

JERRY E. SPICER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LEHMAN,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5132FDB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s filing of a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is

currently detained at the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services’ (“DSHS”) Special

Commitment Center (“SCC”), located at McNeil Island. To file a complaint and initiate legal proceedings,

plaintiff must pay a filing fee of $250.00 or file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis.

On March 7, 2006, the Clerk received plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff states in his motion that he earns $214.00 every two weeks working for

DSHS at the SCC. He also states that he has greater than $4,000.00 in total current debts. Plaintiff does

not explain, however, what those debts are, or to what extent he is legally obligated to re-pay those debts

and in what amounts and how often he is required to make such payments, if any. As such, the

Case 3:06-cv-05132-FDB Document 3 Filed 04/10/06 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

ORDER

Page - 2

undersigned is unable to determine his eligibility for in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff, furthermore, did

not print his name in the blank space provided therefore on the first page of his motion, in which he

declares the truth and correctness of the information contain therein. 

Accordingly, this Court orders the following:

(1) Plaintiff shall seek to cure these deficiencies by filing no later than May 10, 2006, a new

motion and/or application to proceed in forma pauperis completed in full (including setting

forth his name where appropriate), and containing a detailed explanation of the nature and

extent of his current total debts as discussed above. 

Failure to cure these deficiencies by the above date shall be deemed a failure to

properly prosecute this matter and the Court will recommend dismissal of this

matter.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05132-FDB Document 3 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfredo DIAZ-DE LEON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50501.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Aug. 17, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Alfredo Diaz-De Leon raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Before the Second Division,

December 5, 1966

No. P66/358.

#### Radio Corporation of America et al. *v.*United States, protests 60/1592, etc. (New York).

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of echo-sounding equipment similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Kelvin & Hughes America Corp. v. United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 21, C.D. 2468), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 31.1





Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





I, Wayne A Doss, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BookMerge Technologies Inc.





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I; are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.





6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant efficiencies and material weaknesses.








Date: October 26, 2010








/s/ Wayne A Doss


Wayne A Doss Chief Executive Officer and


Chief Financial Officer
##### 



Focus Media Holding Limited
    
    DIRECT LINE: 2842 955628-30/F Zhao Feng World Trade Building
    
    E-MAIL: christopher.bickley@conyersdillandpearman.com369 Jiangsu Road
    
    OUR REF: RH/M#670853/D#214021(HK)Shanghai 100032
    
    YOUR REF:China
 Attention: Mr. Alex Yang
 
  
   Cc:
    
    Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLPAttn: Mr. Daniel FertigE-mail: Dfertig@stblaw.com
EXHIBIT 32




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



The certification set forth below is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b)
or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and with Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Nicole Funk,
the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer of NorthTech Corporation hereby certifies that:

1. our Annual Report on Form 10K-SB 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 our Annual Report on Form 10K-SB  fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of NorthTech Corporation

Sincerely,

/s/ Cecelia Pineda                            Dated: March 26, 2006
-------------------------------
By: Cecelia Pineda
Chief Executive Officer,
President, Treasurer, Chief
Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer