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

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

1800 Washington Boulevard • Baltimore MD 21230 

410-537-3000 • 1-800-633-6101 • www.mde.maryland.gov 

Larry Hogan 

Governor 

Boyd Rutherford 

Lieutenant Governor 

VIA EMAIL AND FEDEX 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director 

Office of Air Program Planning (3AP30) 

Air Protection Division 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reg ion III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2023 

January 15, 2016 

Ben Grumbles 

Secretary 

RE: Air Dispersion Modeling of Sulfur Dioxide Pollution from Maryland's 

ff.A. Wagner, C.P. Crane and Brandon Shores Electric Generating Plants 

Dear Ms:-Fernaooez:' L /t S h,,... .:.' 

Attached for your information is a copy of air dispersion modeling that Raven Power, subsidiary of 

Talen Energy, has conducted through contractor AECOM. This will be part of the modeling package 

described in the November 20, 2015, Maryland Governor's recommendation letter to EPA. The 

attached modeling supports the conclusion from the November 20 letter that the H. A. Wagner 

Generating Station area is attaining the I-hour sulfur dioxide (S02) national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). The area shows a modeled design value of 186 micrograms per meter cubed 

(μglm3), equal to 71 pph, which is below the 75 ppb 80 2 standard. 

Also attached for your information are our initial comments on the modeling package that Sierra 

Club sent to us in June 2015. We continue to have concerns that the Sierra Club modeling was 

limited and overly simplistic for an issue as important as designations. 

If I may provide further Information, please contact me at 410-537-3255 or by email at 

george.aburn@maryland.gov. 

Sincerely, 

~ 

--- George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr. 

Director of Air and Radiation Management Administration 

Enclosures 

~ Recycled l'-aJ'k'f www .mde.maryland.gov ITY Ul!CI'!\ llflll·7] 251! 

Via Maryland Relay Service
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANDRA DEANNE SHAYNE, No. 2:04-cv-1492-MCE-DAD-P

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

DEBORAH JACQUES, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On July 21, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither party has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01492-MCE -DAD Document 32 Filed 08/25/06 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 21, 2006, are adopted in full;

2. Respondents’ November 21, 2005 motion for reconsideration is granted;

3. Upon reconsideration, respondents’ October 13, 2004 motion to dismiss this action as

time-barred is granted; and

4. This action is dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.

DATED: August 24, 2006

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01492-MCE -DAD Document 32 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 47864.

#### Protest 51830-K of Ernst Bremermann & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Peat Import Corp.*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 181, C. D. 319) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1685 was sustained.
No. 50053.

#### Protests 96708-K, etc., of Dodge & Olcott Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE>
                                                          Exhibit 23-b
                                                                      
                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Kansas City Power & Light Company on Form S-3 (File Nos.
33-51799, 333-17285 and 333-18139) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-45618
and 333-49353) of our report dated January 29, 1999, except with
respect to the second paragraph of Note 14, as to which the date is
February 17, 1999, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Kansas City Power & Light Company and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for the years ended December 31, 1998,
1997, and 1996, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.

                                       /s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                          PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
March 15, 1999
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.3
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
2011 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO 2011 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN (this “First Amendment”) is effective as of September 22, 2016.
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors and stockholders of DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) adopted the 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) on May 25, 2011; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 5.3 of the Plan, the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of the Company adopted the following amendment to the Plan, and the Board did not condition the effectiveness of such amendment on the approval of the Company’s stockholders, and approval of such amendment by the Company’s stockholders is not required by Applicable Laws or by the applicable rules of any Stock Exchange on which the Stock is listed (as such terms are defined in the Plan).
		
	1.
	The seventh sentence of Section 19.3 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:




The maximum number of shares of Stock that may be withheld from any Award to satisfy any federal, state or local tax withholding requirements upon the exercise, vesting, lapse of restrictions applicable to such Award or payment of shares of Stock pursuant to such Award, as applicable, cannot exceed such number of shares of Stock having a Fair Market Value equal to the maximum statutory tax rates in a Grantee’s applicable jurisdictions.


		
	2.
	Unless specifically modified herein, all other terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in effect.
EXHIBIT 31.B
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Dane E. Whitehead, certify that:
1. I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of El Paso Exploration& Production Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this Report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisReport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisReport based on such evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
Date: August 7, 2006          /s/ Dane E. Whitehead    Dane E. Whitehead    Senior Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer(Principal Financial Officer)El Paso Exploration& Production Company
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5098

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus CORTEZ LEON FISHER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR04-288-RDB) Submitted: April 6, 2005 Decided: April 25, 2005 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joanna Beth Silver, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Baltimore, Maryland; James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Paresh S. Patel, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas Michael DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Charles Joseph Peters, Sr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Fisher does not attack the voluntariness of his guilty plea. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Cortez Leon Fisher pled guilty to possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). * Fisher was sentenced to forty-six months’ imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. The district court also specified an alternative sentence of thirty-six months’ imprisonment pursuant to this court’s recommendation in United States v. Hammoud , 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir. 2004) (order), opinion issued by381 F.3d 316, 353-54 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc), cert. granted and judgment vacated , 125 S. Ct. 1051 (2005). Fisher now moves for an expedited remand of this case to the district court in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We grant Fisher’s motion for remand to allow the district court to reconsider Fisher’s sentence in light of Booker . Fisher states that the sentencing issue is the only one he would pursue on appeal. Therefore, we affirm his conviction, vacate the sentence imposed by the district court, and remand for reconsideration of the sentence. 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. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
Before the Third Division,

September 5, 1945

No. 50450.

#### Protests 25323-K, etc., of Foster Canning Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of dog food similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Corporacion Argentina de Productores de Carnes*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 175, C. A. D. 304), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
Cathe Kalisz, API

February 25, 2016

Background Ozone across the U.S.

(5 pages) 
EPA Analysis of Background Ozone

• Focused on seven months from April to October 

2007 when background ozone levels are highest

• Determined seasonal mean background ozone 

concentrations rather than using 4th highest 

maximum daily 8 hour average, which is form of 

the standard. 

Example: CASTNET Pinedale Monitor - 2014

Seasonal Mean MDA8 – 32.9 ppb

4

th Highest MDA8 – 57 ppb

Difference of 24.1 ppb

1
• Langford et al. (2014) conducted a study 

in Clark County, Nevada that found that:

• Stratosphere-troposphere transport 

directly contributed in excess of 30 

ppb ozone to the three ozone NAAQS 

exceedances observed over six weeks 

of study. 

• International transport from Asia 

contributed > 10 ppb on two of those 

occasions. 

• If the ozone NAAQS was 70 ppb, there 

would have been 14 exceedances in 

the 43 day study

(Langford et al. 2014)

Las Vegas Ozone Study

2
• Increasing emissions from Asia are outpacing reductions in the U.S.

• Asia NOx emissions increased 44% (55% in China) during 2001-2006 while ozone precursors from 

the U.S. decreased by more than a third in 1985-2008.

• Lin et al. (2012) found that enhancements from international transport of Asian emissions 

were associated with 53% of NAAQS exceedances at a standard of 75 ppb in the south 

western US. 

• This figure shows the 15-day transport history of air masses with high ozone values (67-99 

percentile) (Cooper, 2010). 

It shows that air descending on the western US spent a significant period of time in the western Pacific 

and East Asia, where ozone and ozone precursors were picked up and lofted to the United States.

Asian Influence on US Ozone 

3
Aura Satellite Measurement of 

Increase In Asian Emissions

Verstraeten et al. (2015) review of 

Aura satellite measurements using 

the Tropospheric Emissions 

Spectrometer (TES) for ozone and 

the Ozone Monitoring Instrument 

(OMI) for NO2found:

• Ozone concentrations over China have 

increased 7% between 2005 and 2010 

because

– Chinese emissions have increased 21% 

– Increased Stratosphere-troposphere transport 

• Transport from China of ozone and its 

precursors has offset 43% of the 0.42 

DU reduction in free tropospheric ozone 

over the western US that was expected 

between 2005-2010 due to regulations.

(Verstraeten et al., 2015)

4
5

MDA8 – Maximum daily average 8-hour ozone concentration

OBS - Observed MDA8 ozone 

BC - Modeled Boundary Conditions (BC) around the 36 km CONUS domain. BC is comprised of international 

transport and stratospheric intrusion.

NAT - Natural Emissions that include biogenic, lightning NOx, sea salt and windblown dust

FIR - Open land fires including Wildfires, Prescribed Burns and Agricultural Burning.

MCO - Mexico, Canada and Offshore shipping anthropogenic emissions

US ANT - U.S. Anthropogenic emissions.

Ozone Exceedances Can Result due to Contributions 

from Multiple Background Sources

(Western Air Quality 

Study - 2011 Source 

Apportionment 

Modeling)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 9, 20 18

No. 04

- 18

- 00633

- CV

CITY OF RIO GRANDE, TEXAS , et al.

,

Appellants

v.

BFI WASTE SERVICES OF TEXAS, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 15

- 604

Honorable Migdalia Lopez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellants ’ unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby

GRANTED IN PART. Time is extended to October 29, 2018.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 9th day of October, 201 8

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
November 7, 1960

No. 64868.

#### Sommers Fabrics Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 285075-K, etc.

Protests abandoned September 29, 1960. (Not published.) (Initial No. 58/8679.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1330 DFL PAN P

vs.

J. BURLESON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner without counsel seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Pursuant to the August 9, 2005, schedule, plaintiff had until April 28, 2006, to file and

serve a pretrial statement, defendants have until May 12, 2006, to file and serve a pretrial

statement, pretrial conference is set for May 19, 2006, and trial is set for August 7, 2006.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is pending.

Accordingly, IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that the above dates are vacated.

DATED: May 11, 2006.

\004; \brow1330.vac shed

Case 2:04-cv-01330-DFL-EFB Document 53 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Sherwood Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending January 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher J. Willi, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S)1350, asadopted pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 

Dated: March 14, 2003

 

 
|   | /s/ Christopher J. Willi              |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Christopher J. Willi                  |   |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |   |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RONALD C. MOTLEY, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

15 USCMA 61, 35 CMR 33

No. 17,610

September 18, 1964

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk,*and *Captain Charles W. Schiesser*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.1

*Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper*and *Captain Charles M. Pallesen, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

1

. Brief under Article 38(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, filed by Trial Defense Counsel, Captain Jack A. Mullins.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused was convicted of rape and assault and battery, in violation of Articles 120 and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 920 and 928, respectively. When the case was before the board of review, the accused contended the method by which the enlisted members of the court-martial were selected arbitrarily excluded enlisted persons in the lower ranks. The contention rests exclusively on statistics as to the composition of courts-martial with enlisted persons within the convening authority’s command, and Army figures for the period from 1959 to 1963. In some of the cited cases, the statutory preference for court members senior in rank to the accused clearly supports the appointment of senior noncommissioned officers. In any event, the proof falls far short of the charge of discrimination in the selection process. Our opinion in United States v Crawford, 15 USCMA 31, 35 CMR 3, provides a full answer to the accused’s challenge.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Kilday, Judge

(concurring in the result) :

I concur in the result.

For the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Crawford, 15 USCMA 31, 35 CMR 3, I concur in the affirmance of the decision of the board of review.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

The affidavits and other materials filed in this case indicate that the “request from the Staff Judge Advocate normally requests from 4 to 6 noncom-missioned officers in grade of E-7 or above.” The copies of orders appointing other courts-martial bear out the defense contention that nominations for court membership have systematically been limited to senior noncommis-sioned officers. For the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Crawford, 15 USCMA 31, 35 CMR 3, I disagree with the affirmance of accused’s conviction. I would reverse the decision of the board of review and order another trial before a properly constituted court-martial.
Case No. 13,770.

#### TAYLOE v. TURNER.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 203.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term, 1820.

Damages — Meascke op — Stock.

The rule of damages for not transferring stock according to contract, is the price of the stock on the day on which it ought to have been transferred.

Debt on bond conditioned to transfer stock of the Washington Bridge Company.

THE COURT

(nem. con.), at the prayer of the plaintiff’s counsel, instructed the jury that the rule of damages was the price of the stock on the day on which it ought to have been transferred according to the contract. See Shepherd v. Hampton, 3 Wheat. [16 U. S.] 200.
K-tel International, Inc.
                                                                  1996 Form 10-K
                                                                      Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Subsidiaries of the Company and the jurisdiction in which each company was
incorporated are listed below. Unless otherwise indicated, all of the voting
securities of each subsidiary are owned by K-tel International, Inc. or one of
its subsidiaries. A number of subsidiaries not important to an understanding of
K-tel's business have been omitted. Such subsidiaries in the aggregate would not
constitute a significant subsidiary.

K-tel International (USA), Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

Dominion Entertainment, Inc.
Minneapolis, MN (a Minnesota corporation)

K-tel Ireland Limited
Dublin, Ireland (an Ireland Corporation)

K-tel International Finland OY
Helsinki, Finland (a Finland Corporation)

K-tel Entertainment (CAN) Inc.
(formerly ERA International, Ltd.)
Winnipeg, Manitoba (a Canada corporation)

Dominion Vertriebs GmbH
Karben, Germany (a Germany corporation)

K-tel Entertainment (U.K.) Ltd.
London, England (an England corporation)

K-tel International (France) S.R.L.
Paris, France (a France corporation)

K-tel (Australia) Pty. Limited
Southport, Queensland, Australia (an Australian corporation)

U.S. Distribution Services, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

E-Direct, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

K-tel, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)

K-tel Direct, Inc.
Minneapolis, Minnesota (a Minnesota corporation)
# sec5_sbr_2023

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2023-11	&"Arial,Bold"&10V SBR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10September 2023