alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Johnson, Steffan 

Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:44 PM

To: rtysar@btecinc.com

Cc: Fairchild, Susan; Angus Crane; tims.rockwool@gmail.com

Subject: RE: Rock Wool Method 316 Testing

Randy,

Thank you very much for your prompt attention and response. I appreciate the level of detail your letter 

provides and given that no further information is available regarding what the lab actually measured (or 

just what was submitted to them), I agree with your findings.

Thank you, also, for providing the revised emissions calculations from your 2012 testing.

Should any other questions arise regarding the 2012 test results we will, again, contact you through 

Rockwool and NAIMA.

Sincerely,

Steffan Johnson

Environmental Scientist

OAQPS SPPD Measurement Policy Group

109 TW Alexander Drive

Mail Drop D243-05

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

919-541-4791

johnson.steffan@epa.gov

From: rtysar@btecinc.com [mailto:rtysar@btecinc.com] 

Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 1:23 PM

To: Johnson, Steffan

Cc: Fairchild, Susan; Angus Crane; tims.rockwool@gmail.com

Subject: Rock Wool Method 316 Testing

Mr. Johnson,

Attached is a letter summarizing the issues with the Method 316 testing conducted at the 

Rock Wool Manufacturing facility in Leeds, Alabama. If you have any questions or need any 

additional information, please call me.

Sincerely,

 

Randal J. Tysar

Senior Environmental Engineer

BT Environmental Consulting, Inc. (BTEC)

4949 Fernlee Avenue

Royal Oak, Michigan 48073

DIRECT: (248) 548-8070

FAX: (248) 548-8073

CELL: (313) 308-6891
018-I5"

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 03-13-00037-CR OFFENSE: 21.1

Eddie Matthews v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Bastrop

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 21st District Court

DATE: 12/23/14 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 13992

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Eddie Matthews v. The State of

STYLE: Texas CCA#: oq*-;^

A?P£/ lAa/T-'s Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: njl/SI^O/S'

JUDGE: &kL ^ct^**-"—

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
5200

5000

5200

5200

5100

5100

5300

5100

5300

5200

5200

5000

5000

5200

5400

5400

4900

5100

5300

5100

5100

5100

5200

5000

5300

Four Corners

Reservoir

East Horse

Basin Reservoir

Little Juniper

Basin Reservoir

Four

Corners

Whitehorse

Butte

Horse

Basin

32'

30'

42°

30'

32'

07'30"

37'

37'

42°

30"

42°

30" 35'

00'

116°

30"

35'

116°

00'

116°

42°

30"

30"

116°

07'

30" 2'30"

5' 5'

2'

5

E

000m

5 5

46

46

5

46

5 5

46

46

5

46

46

46

46

46

5

46

5

46

000m

5

46

5

000m

46

46

46

46

5 5

46

46

46

46

46

46

46

46

5 5

46

5

46

34 35 37

61

58

39

54

37

55

62

59

63

56

36

60

33

40

N

41

50

62

52

33 41

57

39

36

63

55

53

50 N

35

51

60

61

57

54

51

59

58

34

56

53

40

FEET

FEET

160 000

2 000

2

FEET

130 000

FEET

420

390

5

000

32 E 000m

State

Line Camp

Four

Corners

Piute

Basin

West

Bull

Camp

Butte

Piute

Basin East

Hat Peak Rubber

Hill

Jarvis

Pasture

Juniper

Basin

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

IDAHO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

FOUR CORNERS, ID

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

FOUR CORNERS QUADRANGLE

IDAHO

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 11T

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Idaho Coordinate System of 1983

(west zone)

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2009

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2001

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

M

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2 N

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

0° 18 ́

5 MILS

14° 6 ́

251 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

11T

NG

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
(Reap. Dec. 10811)

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L.A. *v.*United States

Entry No. 5723, etc.

(Decided August 25, 1964)

*Tomplcms £ Tomplcms*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*395Rao, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, annexed to this decision and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for tbe Plaintiff and tbe Assistant Attorney General for tbe United States, Defendant, that tbe automobiles specified on tbe invoices accompanying tbe entries covered by tbe re-appraisement appeals listed in tbe attached Schedule A, which Schedule A is made a part of this stipulation, that were appraised at a value of $1240.00 each, net (Canadian dollars), consist of automobiles manufactured in England, and imported into tbe United States from Canada, prior to February 27,1958.

> That there was no “foreign value”, or “export value”, or “United States value”, as defined in Sections 402 (e), (d), and (e) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, for tbe automobiles under appeal at tbe time of exportation thereof.

> That in determining the “cost of production” value as defined in Section 402(f) of said Act, tbe Appraiser included in his above value $1240 each, net, a cost of $95.00 (Canadian dollars) representing a Canadian excise tax, as well as a cost of $230.00 (Canadian dollars) representing a Canadian sales tax. That said Canadian excise tax ($95) and sales tax ($230) were paid to tbe Canadian government prior to exportation to the United States, but they were refunded after exportation, under tbe same circumstances and conditions involved in the case of *John V. Carr & Son, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 10442, and that the record in said *John V. Carr & Son, Inc.*case may be incorporated as a part of tbe record in this case.

> Plaintiff limits its appeals to the claim that said excise tax of $95.00, and tbe said sales tax of $230.00 should not be included as a part of tbe cost of production dutiable value.

> Tbe appeals set forth in tbe attached Schedule A are submitted for decision upon this stipulation.

Upon the agreed facts and the record in the cited case, which is incorporated herein, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402(f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the automobiles covered by these appeals for reappraisement and that such value is the appraised value of $1,240 each, net (Canadian dollars), less $95 (Canadian) representing a Canadian excise tax, less $230 (Canadian) representing a Canadian sales tax.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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 ORDER – 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CITICAPITAL COMMERCIAL CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

M/V EXECUTIVE EXPLORER, Official No.

697964, her engines, machinery, furnishings,

equipment, tackle, apparel appurtenances,

freights, etc., in rem,

Defendant.

CASE NO. C06-138C

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the motions to intervene filed by Harbor Enterprises, Inc.

d/b/a Petro Marine Services (“Petro Marine”) (Dkt. No. 14) and Delta Western Inc. (“Delta Western”)

(Dkt. No. 17). Having fully reviewed the motions, together with all the papers filed regarding the

motions and the remainder of the Court’s files and the record in this matter, the Court finds and rules as

follows.

Both motions are unopposed. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and Local Admiralty Rule

131 govern these motions. 

Petro Marine is hereby GRANTED leave to intervene as a Plaintiff-Intervenor and to file and

serve its Verified Complaint in Intervention (see Dkt. No. 14) lodged with its motion. 

Case 2:06-cv-00138-JCC Document 35 Filed 03/27/06 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 ORDER – 2

Delta Western is hereby GRANTED leave to intervene as a Plaintiff-Intervenor and to file and

serve its Verified Complaint in Intervention (To Foreclose Maritime Lien In Rem) (see Dkt. No. 17)

lodged with its motion.

Pursuant to Local Admiralty Rule 131(d), the Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to deliver uncertified

copies of (1) this Order permitting intervention by Petro Marine and Delta Western and (2) copies of the

Verified Complaints in Intervention, after such complaints are properly filed on the Court’s Docket in this

matter, to the marshal who shall deliver the copies to the custodian of the property upon the parties’

payment of applicable fees. The parties in intervention are reminded that they are responsible for all filing

fees and marshal fees associated with intervention and for ensuring service.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2006.

 /s/ James L. Robart 

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00138-JCC Document 35 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT AND RULE 13A-14(A) OR 15D-14(A) UNDER THE**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

I, Richard N. Phegley, certify that: 

 

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Smart & Final Inc. for the quarter ended October 3, 2004. 

 

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 thestatements 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 thefinancial 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 officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits 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 and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 10, 2004
   
/s/ Richard N. Phegley
    
Richard N. Phegley
    
Chief Financial Officer

 

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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) CASE NO. 06-92M

)

v. )

)

) DETENTION ORDER

MYRON COSMO CURRY, )

)

Defendant. )

______________________________)

Offense charged:

Count 1: Conspiracy to Distribute Oxycodone;

Count 2: Carrying a Firearm During and in Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime.

Date of Detention Hearing: March 8, 2006

 The Court, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §

3142(f), and based upon the factual findings and statement of reasons for detention hereafter

set forth, finds that no condition or combination of conditions which the defendant can meet

will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any

other person and the community. The Government was represented by Vince Lombardi.

The defendant was represented by Robert Leen.

Case 2:06-mj-00092-MJB Document 14 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -2-

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DETENTION

(1) There is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the drug

offense. There is therefore a rebuttable presumption against the 

defendant’s release based upon both dangerousness and flight risk, under

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).

(2) Defendant poses a risk of danger due to the nature of the instant offense,

inasmuch as he was arrested in possession of a semiautomatic weapon. 

This fact, alone, placed him in violation of state release conditions on

pending King County Superior Court charges. Accordingly, presumption

against release has not been overcome.

It is therefore ORDERED:

(l) The defendant shall be detained pending trial and committed to the

custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a correction facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving

sentences or being held in custody pending appeal;

(2) The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private

consultation with counsel;

(3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for

the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which

the defendant is confined shall deliver the defendant to a United States

Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court

proceeding; and

//

//

//

Case 2:06-mj-00092-MJB Document 14 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

DETENTION ORDER

PAGE -3-

(4) The clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United

States, to counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to

the United States Pretrial Services Officer.

DATED this 13th day of March, 2006.

AMONICA J. BENTON

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:06-mj-00092-MJB Document 14 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 48 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 48

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                      restoring religious freedom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 June 4 (legislative day, June 2), 1998

 Mr. Inhofe introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                      restoring religious freedom.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``To secure the right of the People to acknowledge God according to 
the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State 
shall establish any official religion, but the right of the People to 
pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions 
on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither 
the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in 
prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, 
discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on 
account of religion.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13
                                   UROCOR, INC.
                                    1999 MICP


-    Target parameters to include total revenues at 33.3% weighting, operating
     income at 33.3% and performance to strategic parameters (ex. Capital
     formation, new products, corporate partnerships, new ventures, etc.) at
     33.3%.

-    Provision for over achievement included as additional incentive.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

                                   ASSIGNMENT
                                   ----------

          Creative BioMolecules, Inc., a Delaware corporation, having a place of
business at 35 South Street, Hopkinton, MA, in consideration of One Dollar and
other valuable consideration paid to it by Stryker Corporation, a Michigan
corporation, having a principal place of business at 2725 Fairfield Road,
Kalamazoo, MI, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby sell,
assign and transfer unto said Stryker Corporation, its successors and assigns,
its entire right, title and interest for the United States of America and all
foreign countries, including all rights of priority under the International
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, in the inventions and
improvements disclosed in the U.S., foreign, and PCT applications listed in
Schedule A attached hereto, and in all Letters Patent of the United States and
all foreign countries which have been or shall be granted on said inventions, or
any parts thereof, or on said applications, or any divisions, continuations,
reissues, extensions or other applications based in whole or in part thereon.
And CBM agrees, for itself and its successors and assigns, with said Stryker
Corporation and its successors and assigns, but at its or their expense and
charges, hereafter to execute all applications, amended specifications, deeds or
other instruments, and to do all acts necessary or proper to secure the grant of
Letters Patent in the United States and in all other countries to said Stryker
Corporation, with specifications and claims in such form as shall be approved by
the counsel of said Stryker Corporation and to vest and confirm in said Stryker
Corporation, its successors and assigns, the legal title to all such patents and
to otherwise give full effect to and perfect the rights of said Stryker
Corporation under this Assignment.

          And it does hereby authorize and request competent authorities to
issue such Letters Patent as shall be granted upon said applications to said
Stryker Corporation, its successors and assigns.

          WITNESS its hand and seal this 20th day of November, 1998.

                                        Creative BioMolecules, Inc.


                                        By: /s/ Michael M. Tarnow
                                            ----------------------------
                                            Michael M. Tarnow
                                            President
State of Massachusetts
County of Suffolk


          Then personally appeared the above-named Michael M. Tarnow, to me
known and known to me to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged it to be his free act and deed, before me, this 19th day of
November, 1998.


                                        /s/ Gabrielle A. Brousseau
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Notary Public
                                        My Commission Expires: 6/23/2000
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 98

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns

3 at the close of business on Thursday, May 21, 1998, Fri4 day, May 22, 1998, Saturday, May 23, 1998, or Sunday,

5 May 24, 1998, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority

6 Leader or his designee in accordance with this concurrent

7 resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on

8 Monday, June 1, 1998, or until such time on that day

9 as may be specified by the Majority Leader or his designee

10 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the

11 second day after Members are notified to reassemble pur12 suant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

13 occurs first; and that when the House adjourns on the

14 legislative day of Friday, May 22, 1998, or Saturday, May

15 23, 1998, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority

16 Leader or his designee in accordance with this concurrrent

17 resolution, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Wednes18 day, June 3, 1998, or until noon on the second day after
2

SCON 98 ES

1 Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section

2 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

3 SEC 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the

4 Speaker of the House, acting jointly after consultation

5 with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority

6 Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Sen7 ate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

8 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Passed the Senate May 21, 1998.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 98

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess

of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
No. 60234.

protest 289229-K (New York).

#### Seaboard Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*360Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid flowers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 59302, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. P67/168.

#### Dumont Handkerchiefs, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 65/10832 and 65/18198 (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of silk handkerchiefs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Ashear Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(55 Cust. Ct. 238, C.D. 2582), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.