alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Follow Up Questions for GE

Below is a list of follow up questions ERG has compiled after reviewing GE’s responses to the data request sent by ERG/EPA on February 17, 2014. These follow up questions are specific to the material included in response to the questions in the data request and do not address any questions regarding the Wateree Pilot Testing.

Climate and Heat Exchangers

1. The system being installed in Canada and operational by the third quarter of 2014, is the design temperature of 5 degrees C an air temperature or a water temperature? If this 5 degrees C is specific to water temperature, what is the lowest air temperature in this area of Canada?
2. How much larger (i.e., size and retention time) was the Canadian system designed for because
of the l ow temperatures compared to if it was operating at the temperature used for the design
used as the basis for the ELG cost curves ?

Ammonia Generation

1. GE mentioned the potential to re

- formulate the nutrient blend in an effort to minimize the
amount of ammoni a ending up in wastewater. What are the costs associated with this re

formulation of the nutrient blend? How would performance of the reformulated blend compare
to the unaltered nutrient?

Performance Data

1. What is the maximum influent selenium concentrati on in the Mining Pilot Study? We are interested in the exact influent concentrations shown on the chart titled “Total Selenium

– Mining Pilot Study.”
2. Is it possible to get the specific data point values for the “Nitrate/Nitrite Results

– FGD Pilot Study 2 ” chart?
3. Selenocyanate is Se+2 oxidation state. What data do you have showing the capability of the ABMet system to reduce this form of selenium to elemental selenium?

Increased Costs for Higher Nitrate/Nitrite

1. If it was determined that a denitrification step was desired to address high influent nitrate/nitrite concentrations , what type of denitrification step w ould you recommend
install ing ? For example, would GE install a more typical biological process such as a sequencing batch reactor or would GE inst all a two stage bio reactor treatment system with the first stage designed only for nitrogen removal ?
2. At what concentration would GE consider a denitrification step may be warranted ?
3. EPA has sampling data from two plants that consistently had nitrate levels above 100 mg/L. Could we provide you with the data from these plants for you to review and suggest an

appr opriate treatment option, as well as system costs?Capital & O&M Costs

1. ERG and EPA are investigating whether certain cost elements were included i n the cost curves provided to EPA by GE back in 2011. Please confirm whether the cost curves GE provided include the following:

a. Site prep costs,
b. S ystem s tart

- Up and operator training,

c. Insurance,
d. Electrical work, and

e. Control equipment.
2. For any of the above elements not included in the costs previously provide to EPA, please provide an estimate of those costs?
August 11, 1953

No. 57465.

Suit 4724.

#### Henry Clay and Bock & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1377 reversed January 14, 1953. (No C. A. D. number assigned.) Rehearing granted March 6, 1953. C. D. 1377 reversed June 3, 1953. C. A. D. 527. (Note: Pursuant to the granting of the petition for rehearing, the case was reconsidered and a new opinion written. The original opinion of January 14, 1953, was withdrawn and a new opinion substituted therefor.)
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 12, 2015*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.120.c State and Local Government Employee Retirement Funds Defined Contribution Plans 1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 11-1302 September Term, 2011

 FILED ON: AUGUST 21, 2012

EME HOMER CITY GENERATION, L.P.,

PETITIONER

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

RESPONDENT

SAN MIGUEL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL.,

INTERVENORS

Consolidated with 11-1315, 11-1323, 11-1329, 11-1338, 11-1340, 11-1350, 11-1357, 11-1358,

11-1359, 11-1360, 11-1361, 11-1362, 11-1363, 11-1364, 11-1365, 11-1366, 11-1367, 11-1368,

11-1369, 11-1371, 11-1372, 11-1373, 11-1374, 11-1375, 11-1376, 11-1377, 11-1378, 11-1379,

11-1380, 11-1381, 11-1382, 11-1383, 11-1384, 11-1385, 11-1386, 11-1387, 11-1388, 11-1389,

11-1390, 11-1391, 11-1392, 11-1393, 11-1394, 11-1395

On Petitions for Review of a Final Rule

 of the Environmental Protection Agency

Before: ROGERS, GRIFFITH and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

These causes came on to be heard on the petitions for review of a Final Rule of the

Environmental Protection Agency and were argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Transport Rule and the Transport Rule FIPs be vacated

and this proceeding be remanded to EPA, in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this

date. EPA must continue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement. 

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:

/s/

Jennifer M. Clark

Deputy Clerk

Date: August 21, 2012

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Kavanaugh.

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Rogers.

USCA Case #11-1302 Document #1390310 Filed: 08/21/2012 Page 1 of 1
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 20, 2013

NO. 03

- 09

- 00736

- CV

Officer Robin Talley, Appellant

v.

The City of Killeen, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 169TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PEMBERT ON, GOODWIN AND FIEL D
REVERSED AND RENDERED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD ; JUSTICE GOODWIN DISS ENTING WITHOUT OPINI ON

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court t hat there was error in the trial court’s

judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is reversed; judgment is rendered that appellant timely filed her disc iplinary appeal with the

City of Killeen’s Civil Service Commission. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellee pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be

certified below for observance.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.68

                    AMENDMENT TO WAIVER AND CONSENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Waiver and Consent Agreement, dated June 23, 1993 (the
"Agreement") is made and entered into effective the 28th day of May, 1996 by and
between HOB Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), Judith
Belushi Pisano ("Pisano"), Daniel E. Aykroyd and Isaac B. Tigreet.

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

     The parties hereto have agreed to certain amendments to that certain Blues
Brothers Licensing Agreement. As partial consideration for Pisano's agreement to
such amendments, the Company has agreed to extend the exercise period of an
option to acquire 212,963 shares of Class A Convertible Preferred Stock granted
to Pisano under the Agreement.

     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto
agree as follows;

     l.    Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirely to
hereafter read as follows:

           "3.   Pisano Option. HOB hereby grants Pisano the right to purchase
                 -------------
     up to 212,963 shares of its Class & Convertible Preferred Stock, at the
     same purchase price offered to other investors in the Private Placement.
     Such right may be exercised by Pisano at any time, in whole or in part,
     until June 30, 1999."

     2. The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, is ratified and affirmed.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
executed effective as of the date first above written.

                                             HOB ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

/s/ J. Belushi Pisano                        BY: /s/ Nathaniel J. Lipman
--------------------------------                --------------------------------
Judith Belushi Pisano                        ITS:
                                                --------------------------------
/s/ Danniel E. Aykroyd
--------------------------------
Danniel E. Aykroyd

/s/ Isaac B. Tigrett
-------------------------------
Isaac B. Tigrett
No. 58724.

protest 209342-K/4714 (Chicago).

#### National Carloading Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the items described as “ivory colored cabbages” on the invoice are not artificial flowers, fruits, or vegetables, but are, in fact, manufactures wholly or in chief value of ivory, not specially provided for, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 63422.

protests 313145-K, etc. (New York).

#### G. A. Westphal Co., Inc., and Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*366Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of gift tags, composed wholly or in chief value of paper, lithographically printed, not over twelve one-thousandths of an inch in thickness, which are not gift or social cards, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Aidan Hwuang, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bakhu Holdings Corp.
      for the year ended July 31, 2010 (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 Bakhu Holdings Corp.                                                           

Dated: October 22, 2010

| | /s/
      Aidan Hwuang                                             
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Aidan Hwuang                                                       
| | Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial
      Officer and Director
| | (Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer    
| | and Principal Accounting Officer)                                  
| | Bakhu Holdings Corp.                                               



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Bakhu Holdings
Corp. and will be retained by Bakhu Holdings Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 18, 2014*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical data | Technical Q&AsCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.122 Closed-End and Exchange-Traded Funds** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         3,557,477
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,473,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,337,612
<INVENTORY>                                    257,255
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,996,798
<PP&E>                                         40,577,572
<DEPRECIATION>                                 21,614,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 28,557,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,417,894
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       7,721,293
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,500,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   28,557,664
<SALES>                                        22,337,684
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,528,713
<CGS>                                          17,278,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,278,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,388,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               167,186
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             995,017
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                866,656
<INCOME-TAX>                                   43,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            823,356
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   823,356
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.10



</TABLE>
No. 53309.

protests 137131-K, etc. (New York).

#### Pan American Import-Export Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 56783.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States,

protest 155890-K (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of a zinc die-casting alloy similar in all material respects to the product passed upon in *M. W. Zack Metal Company*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 91, C. D. 1306), which the court held to be classifiable under paragraph 397 as articles in chief value of zinc, not specially provided for. However, inasmuch as the plaintiff in the cited case did not claim classification under paragraph 397, the protest therein was overruled without affirming the collector’s classification. On the record presented herein, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0967. CALVIN THOMAS FURLOW v. THE STATE.

In 1989, Calvin Furlow pled guilty as a first offender to violating the Georgia

Controlled Substances Act, and the trial court imposed a sentence of three years of

probation. When Furlow subsequently violated the terms of his probation, the trial

court revoked his probation and first offender status and sentenced him to two years

in prison.

In 2015, Furlow filed a motion to vacate a void sentence, raising several

challenges to his probation revocation proceedings. The trial court dismissed

Furlow’s motion in an order entered on October 14, 2016. On January 19, 2017,

Furlow filed this direct appeal.

1 Pretermitting whether any challenges to Furlow’s

sentence may be moot,

2

 we lack jurisdiction for multiple reasons.

First, because the underlying subject matter of Furlow’s appeal is the

revocation of his first offender probation, he was required to file an application for

discretionary appeal to obtain review in this Court. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (5);

Jones v. State, 322 Ga. App. 269, n. 2 (745 SE2d 1) (2013); Zamora v. State, 226 Ga.

1 Furlow’s notice of appeal is dated October 26, 2016, but was not filed in the

trial court until January 19, 2017.

2 See Jayko v. State, 335 Ga. App. 684 (782 SE2d 788) (2016) (dismissing as

moot appellate challenge to sentence because the entire sentence had been served). 

It is unclear whether Furlow has served his prison sentence in this case. It appears

that he currently is incarcerated in federal prison in North Carolina.

February 14, 2017
App. 105 (485 SE2d 214) (1997). Hisfailure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over

this appeal.

Second, even if Furlow had a right of direct appeal here, this appeal is

untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the trial court

order sought to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a

notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. 

Rowland v. State, 264 Ga. 872 (1) (452 SE2d 756) (1995). Furlow’s notice of appeal

is untimely, as it was filed 97 days after entry of the trial court’s order.3

For these reasons, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

3 Even if we were to construe Furlow’s earlier filed “Designation of Appellate

Record” as a notice of appeal, it would still be untimely, as it was filed on November

29, 2016, 46 days after entry of the trial court’s order.

02/14/2017
```

[Federal Register: August 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 150)]
[Notices]               
[Page 47260]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05au10-35]                         

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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

 
Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: United States Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

Date and Time: Friday, August 13, 2010; 9:30 a.m. EDT.

Place: 624 9th St., NW., Room 540, Washington, DC 20425.

Meeting Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public.
I. Approval of Agenda.
II. Program Planning.
     NBPP Enforcement Project--Some of the discussion of this 
agenda item may be held in closed session.
     Consideration of Discovery Plan and Project Outline for 
Report on Sex Discrimination in Liberal Arts College Admissions--Some 
of the discussion of this agenda item may be held in closed session.
     Consideration of FY 2011 Enforcement Report Topic.
     Consideration of Timelines for Completion of the Health 
Care Disparities Briefing Report.
     Update on the National Conference.
III. State Advisory Committee Issues.
     Consideration of Additional Nominee to the New Jersey SAC.
IV. Approval of Minutes of July 30 Meeting.
V. Announcements.
VI. Staff Director's Report.
VII. Adjourn.

Contact Person for Further Information: Lenore Ostrowsky, Acting Chief, 
Public Affairs Unit (202) 376-8591. TDD: (202) 376-8116.
    Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an 
interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Pamela Dunston at 
least seven days prior to the meeting at 202-376-8105. TDD: (202) 376-
8116.

    Dated: August 3, 2010.
David Blackwood,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-19442 Filed 8-3-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 14, 2016

No. 04-15-00806-CR

Michael Wilfred LAFLAMME,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CRW160-D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file their brief is granted. The 

appellant’s brief is due on July 13, 2016. 

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 14th day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. P67/107.

#### Louis Marx *&*Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/15132, etc. (San Francisco).

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “B” or “C” covered by the foregoing protests *881consists of HO equipment similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Polk's Model Craft Hobbies, Inc., et al.*(47 CCPA 137, C.A.D. 746), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.

(Note : The following protests were decided by a special first division consisting of OliveR, WatsoN, and Rao, Judges.)
STIPULATION FOR ORDER OF 

NATURALIZATION - 1 

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 

615 2nd Ave, Suite 400 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 957-8611 

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 

 Judge Lasnik 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

MIKHAIL STEPCHUK, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. C06-570RSL 

 

 ORDER REGARDING 

 NATURALIZATION OF PLAINTIFF 

 FALIHA AL SHUKRY 

 

This Court, having reviewed the stipulation of the parties regarding the naturalization 

application of Plaintiff Faliha Al Shukry, A28-130-141, finds that Plaintiff Al Shukry meets all the 

requirements for citizenship and ORDERS the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service to 

naturalize Ms. Al Shukry. 

 Robert S. Lasnik 

 United States District Judge

Dated this 16th day of May, 2006. 

A
STIPULATION FOR ORDER OF 

NATURALIZATION - 2 

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project 

615 2nd Ave, Suite 400 

Seattle, WA 98104 

(206) 957-8611 

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 

Submitted on May 16, 2006, by: 

 /s/ Kristin B. Johnson 

 Kristin B. Johnson 

 Assistant U.S. Attorney 

 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 

 Seattle, WA 98101-1271 

 Telephone: 206-553-7970 

Kristin.B.Johnson@usdoj.gov 

/s/ Christopher Strawn 

Matt Adams 

WSBA No. 28287 

Kristen Kussmann 

WSBA No. 30638 

Emily Headings 

WSBA No. 33106 

Christopher Strawn 

WSBA No. 32243 

NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT 

RIGHTS PROJECT 

615 2nd Ave #400 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Telephone: (206) 957-8611 

Fax: (206) 587-4025 

E-mail: matt@nwirp.org 

 kristen@nwirp.org 

 emily@nwirp.org 

 chris@nwirp.org
No. 64630.

#### Bacardi Imports, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/32559 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.