alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Response to Comments by Cathy S. Woollums on

behalf of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company

“MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company Comments

on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

Information Collection Request for the Willingness to

Pay Survey for Clean Water Act Section 316(b)

Existing Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures”

(Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 139: 42438-42440; July

21, 2010) and EPA Supporting Documents

DOCKET ID No, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595

Responses to the MidAmerican Energy Holdings Comment

This comment begins with a brief summary of the background information on the company and EPA’s

Information Collection Request (ICR). The commenter then states: “without having the benefit of being

able to review the proposed survey questions, MidAmerican believes as a general proposition that the

proposed survey is flawed as it both promotes multiple assertions that are inaccurate or untrue and

contains several potential biases.” The commenter then asserts that the “proposed survey would not serve

to provide the required reliable estimates of non-use benefits” and that “EPA has not provided ample

evidence that non-use benefits would be significant and therefore justify the need for this survey.” Given

that the commenter did not have an opportunity to review the survey instrument, this comment is

irrelevant to the proposed survey instrument and simply reflects an ad-hoc opinion of the commenter.

Nevertheless, EPA believes that its responses to other Commentors sufficiently address the concerns

raised in the comment submitted by Cathy S. Woollums on behalf of MidAmerican Energy Holdings.

For additional detail, please refer to EPA’s responses to comments submitted by the Electric Power

Research Institute (Docket ID No, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595), Super Law Group, LLC (Docket ID No,

EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595), and the American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association,

American Petroleum Institute, and Utility Water Act Group (Docket ID No, EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595).
No. 47940.

#### Protest 91979-K of Samuel Stone (New York).

*379Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

From an examination of the official papers nothing was found to warrant disturbing the finding of the collector which was held presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
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

ROBERT GALLEGOS, SR.,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2741 MCE GGH P

vs.

TOM CAREY, et al.,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, filed an application

for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was stayed by order, filed on

October 17, 2005, pending exhaustion of new claims. The stay in this matter was to remain in

effect until 30 days following the entry of a final order by the California Supreme Court as to

petitioner’s state court habeas petition. Petitioner’s counsel has informed the court the petition

was denied on June 14, 2006. Therefore, the court will direct that the stay be lifted in this action,

nunc pro tunc, as of July 14, 2006.

Petitioner’s counsel has also filed an unopposed application for leave to file a

second amended petition. Based on petitioner’s representation that the motion is unopposed by

respondent the motion will be granted and the Clerk of the Court directed to deem the proposed

second amended petiton, lodged with petitioner’s August 9, 2006, motion filed as of the date of

Case 2:04-cv-02741-MCE -GGH Document 31 Filed 08/16/06 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

this order.

Finally, respondent will be granted 30 days to file either an answer or a motion to

dismiss; if the response is a motion, petitioner has 30 days to file an opposition, after which

respondent will have 15 days to file a reply, if any; if the response is to be an answer, petitioner

will have 30 days after the filing of the answer to file a reply (traverse).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The stay in this matter is lifted, nunc pro tunc, as of July 14, 2006.

2. Petitioner’s August 9, 2006, unopposed request to file a second amended

petition is granted;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to deem the proposed second amended

petition, lodged on August 9, 2006, filed as of the date of this order;

4. Respondent is granted 30 days to file either an answer or a motion to dismiss,

should respondent file a dispositive motion, petitioner has 30 days to file an opposition,

following which respondent will have 15 days to file a reply, if any; if the response to the second

amended petition is an answer, petitioner will have 30 days after the filing of the answer to file a

reply (traverse).

DATED: 8/16/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

gall2741.lft

Case 2:04-cv-02741-MCE -GGH Document 31 Filed 08/16/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 52353.

protests 500648-G, etc. (New York).

#### Frederick Loeser & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim at 50 percent *325ad valorem under paragraph 915, plus any additional duty applicable under paragraph 924, was therefore sustained.
Ex 10.25 01312015






Exhibit 10.25


EVINE Live Inc.


Compensation of Directors*




		
	1.
	Compensation for service on the Board:


		
	•
	$65,000 per annum cash compensation


		
	•
	Annual grant of 8,000 shares of restricted stock (vesting on the day immediately prior the next following annual shareholders meeting after the date of grant); grant is made immediately following each annual shareholders meeting


		
	•
	New directors receive a one-time grant of 30,000 stock options upon joining the Board.


		
	2.
	Additional Compensation for Chairman of the Board:


		
	•
	Additional cash compensation of $65,000 per annum


		
	•
	Annual grant of 20,000 stock options per annum, with the option grant made immediately following the annual shareholders meeting


		
	3.
	Additional Cash Compensation for service on Committees of the Board:


		
	•
	$12,000 per annum for serving as Chairman of Compensation, Finance or Governance Committee 


		
	•
	$20,000 per annum for serving as Chairman of Audit Committee


		
	•
	$10,000 for other members of the Audit Committee 


		
	•
	Fees as determined by the Board for service on special committees that may be established from time to time and other assignments, as required


		
	4.
	Miscellaneous


		
	•
	Stock Ownership Guidelines: Non-Management Directors are expected to hold four times (4x) their annual cash retainer and the committee fees paid by the company, to be obtained within five years from April 2011.


		
	•
	Indemnification Agreement


		
	5.
	Per Meeting Fees:


		
	•
	No per meeting fees


______________________________________________________________________    
*Directors who are a member of EVINE Live Inc. management do not receive any compensation for their service on the Board of Directors or the Committees thereof.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wesley Caines, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 94]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.), rendered July 3, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life and 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

We find the evidence of guilt to be legally sufficient, and, indeed, overwhelming. Although the trial court improperly limited the cross-examination of one of the People’s main witnesses by precluding cross-examination regarding the underlying facts of a youthful offender adjudication for armed robbery, the court did permit cross-examination regarding the witness’s subsequent conviction for armed robbery while on bail in connection with the youthful offender case, the witness’s entry of a guilty plea to criminal mischief in satisfaction of a charge of criminal possession of a stolen car, and the fact of pending charges against the witness involving possession of drugs with intent to sell. The error was thus harmless, both because of the overwhelming evidence, and because the jurors heard extensive testimony regarding the witness’s criminal history and alleged bad acts. Further exploration of his youthful offender adjudication would have had no significant impact on their ability to properly assess the witness’s general credibility *(see, People v Allen,*67 AD2d 558, 560-561, *affd*50 NY2d 898, 899; *see also, People v Chin,*67 NY2d 22, 28-29). In all other respects, the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in limiting *279cross-examination to issues properly before the jury *(People v Sorge,*301 NY 198, 201-202).

Defendant’s current claim that he was unduly prejudiced by a police witness’s inadvertent reference to defendant’s "past criminal history” is unpreserved by appropriate and timely objection *(People v Roth,*157 AD2d 494, 495, *Iv denied*75 NY2d 924). In any event, as the reference was inadvertent, brief, and vague, the overwhelming evidence against defendant renders the error harmless *(People v Cook,*42 NY2d 204, 208-209).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.

We have considered defendant’s additional claims of error and find each claim to be both unpreserved and without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Williams, JJ.
Before the First Division,

July 22, 1942

No. 47405.

#### Petition 6150-R of Ludlow Mfg. & Sales Co. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

The testimony showed that because of war conditions it was impossible to get a quotation on the merchandise in question. It appeared that the last quotation was August 31, 1939, and that the invoice price represented the correct market price on the date of the bill of lading. The importer calculated the market value to be the price stated on the invoice, but assumed, in error, the sailing date as September 4, whereas the vessel did not sail until September 9. On the latter date the merchandise had risen to the value found on appraisement. From the record it was found that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent any of the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 15, 2016.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-00217-CV

BRIDGET SKINNER, VICTOR WEBSTER AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS

OF 3015 GOLDENROD DR. LANCASTER, TX 75134, Appellants

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1,

ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-00457-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Stoddart

Before the Court is appellee’s September 1, 2016 motion to dismiss the appeal. In the 

motion, appellee asks the Court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. By postcard dated 

August 20, 2016, we notified appellants the time for filing their brief had expired. We directed 

appellants to file within ten days their brief and a motion for extension complying with Rules 

10.1(a) and 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. We notified appellants that the 

appeal would be dismissed if they failed to file their brief and an extension motion within the 

time specified. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellants have not filed their brief, an 

extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.
–2–

Accordingly, we GRANT appellee’s motion and we DISMISS this appeal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b)(c).

160217F.P05

/Craig Stoddart/

CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BRIDGET SKINNER, VICTOR WEBSTER 

AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 3015 

GOLDENROD DR. LANCASTER, TX 

75134, Appellants

No. 05-16-00217-CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR 

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN 

TRUST 2007-1, ASSET-BACKED 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-16-00457-D.

Opinion delivered by Justice Stoddart. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Lang-Miers 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 

AS TRUSTEE FOR OPTION ONE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, ASSET-BACKED 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1 recover its costs of this appeal from appellants BRIDGET 

SKINNER, VICTOR WEBSTER AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 3015 GOLDENROD 

DR. LANCASTER, TX 75134.

Judgment entered this 15th day of September, 2016.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 20, 2015

No. 04-15-00483-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.G.I., a child,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-00452

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. The State’s brief 

is due on November 18, 2015. No further extensions will be granted.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 46185.

#### Protest 787954-G/10424 of H. Grabenheimer & Sons, Inc. (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

An exhibit was received in evidence over objection of Government counsel. On the record presented there was nothing to cause the court to depart from its original decision and that decision is therefore adhered to.
WellDepth 6000 ftCasingSize 6 inchesAtm.Pressure 14.7 psiaCasingVolume=1178 ft3LowEndPressure(psig)HighEndPressure(psig)AveragePressure(psig)AverageGasVolume(scf)LowEndGasVolume(scf)HighEndGasVolume(scf)%ErrorNumberofWells0 25 13 2180 1178 3182 46.0%24,25425 60 43 4584 3182 5987 30.6%22,85160 110 85 7990 5987 9994 25.1%14,692110 200 155 13600 9994 17207 26.5%8,398NumberofWells:TotalUnloadingNon‐MarginalWells:ReportingUnloadingMarginalWells:%ReportingMarginalWells:%ofWellsRequiringUnloading:%MarginalWells:MarginalWells:70,195MinimumRange: 5Sums:Source:461,388http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrosystem/us_table.html297,371http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrosystem/us_table.html64.5%41.3%USInventory2%EPA‐HQ‐OAR‐2009‐0923‐1005‐7,http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads10/Subpart‐W_RTC_part2.pdf2,45667,739AverageTotalEmissions(scf)TotalHighEndEmissions(scf)52,870,597 77,167,746104,754,894 136,804,031117,394,659 146,831,635114,209,619 144,495,021389,229,769 505,298,434TotalError%= 29.820%

# Pressure Wells (2009) Pressure Scaled (Unloading) Source: HP D

5 700 5 3338

10 593 10 2828

15 838 15 3996

20 1341 20 6395

25 1099 25 5241

30 1331 30 6347

35 762 35 3634

40 565 40 2694

45 726 45 3462

50 452 50 2155

55 664 55 3166

60 292 60 1392

65 723 65 3448

70 245 70 1168

75 345 75 1645

80 221 80 1054

85 529 85 2523

90 133 90 634

95 221 95 1054

100 135 100 644

105 443 105 2113

110 86 110 410

115 209 115 997

120 77 120 367

125 256 125 1221

130 87 130 415

135 132 135 629

140 62 140 296

145 123 145 587

150 30 150 143

155 206 155 982

160 45 160 215

165 129 165 615

170 31 170 148

175 84 175 401

180 54 180 258

185 123 185 587

190 40 190 191

195 73 195 348

200+ 2765

Listed: 14,205

Reported: 67,739 67,739

Scaling Factor: 4.769

# D I Database
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2022 (the “Report”) of Oxford Square Capital Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Bruce L. Rubin, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Bruce L. RubinName: Bruce L. RubinDate: April28, 2022
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Louis, Appellant.

[635 NYS2d 508]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered December 20, 1993, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf, People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
Southern Star Central Corp.

Southern Star Central Gas PIpeline, Inc.

4700 Highway 56

Owensboro, KY 42301



May 10, 2010



Jerry L. Morris

4429 Hillcrest Oaks

Owensboro, KY 42303



Dear Jerry:



This letter is being presented for your consideration as respects the current Employment Agreement Agreement between Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (SSCGP), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Star Central Corp. (Company) and you, Jerry L. Morris, named Executive dated August 11, 2005, as amended January 1, 2009.



Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the original Agreement, dated August 11, 2005, language provides for its expiration concurrent with the fifth anniversary from that date, or August 11, 2010. SSCGP and Company desire to extend said Agreement until December 31, 2010.  The Agreement will expire at midnight December 31, 2010 without prior notice being required of either SSCGP and Company, or Executive.



SSCGP and Company will be in the process of reviewing potential employment terms of all SSCGP Officers beyond that date.



If the above terms are acceptable to you, please execute in the space provided below and return to Rob Carlton, Vice President, Human Resources by close of business May 13, 2010.  Otherwise, the existing Agreement terminates on August 11, 2010.



SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL CORP.



/s/ Beverly H. Griffith

Beverly H. Griffith



SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL GAS PIPELINE, INC



/s/ Robert W. Carlton

Robert W. Carlton

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:



/s/ Jerry L. Morris

Jerry L. Morris

Date:  5/11/2010



# Endnotes





Exhibit 10.28
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-465]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,705]


Syngenta Crop Protection; Pasadena, TX; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on January 4, 2007 in response to a 
petition filed on behalf of workers at Syngenta Crop Protection, 
Pasadena, Texas (TA-W-60,705).
    The petition was filed by three workers without three signatures. 
Without three signatures, the petition has been deemed invalid. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of January, 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-465 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
Exhibit 10.5


 





Champions Oncology, Inc.


March 16, 2015


 


 


Joel Ackerman


 


Dear Mr. Ackerman:


 


This letter refers to our letter agreement dated November 5,
2013 regarding your employment compensations. The letter states that, for your employment year beginning November 2014 your annual
salary of $325,000 will be paid in the form of cash to the extent of $216,000, and the balance will be paid in stock options.


 


We have agreed that for this current employment year your entire
annual salary will be paid in options. As stated in the November 5 letter, the Company will determine in good faith the number
of shares that will be subject to the options using the Black-Scholes pricing model.


 


Please countersign this letter below to acknowledge our mutual
agreement.


 





	 	 	CHAMPIONS ONCOLOGY, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	/s/ Abba David Poliakoff



	 
	 	 		Abba David Poliakoff, Chairman



	 
	 	 		of the Compensation Committee



	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Agreed and Accepted:	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Joel Ackerman	 		 
	Joel Ackerman
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5022 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5022

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 29 Franklin Street in Petersburg, Virginia, as the ``John Mercer 
                    Langston Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2024

 Mr. Warner (for himself and Mr. Kaine) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 29 Franklin Street in Petersburg, Virginia, as the ``John Mercer 
                    Langston Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. JOHN MERCER LANGSTON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 29 Franklin Street in Petersburg, Virginia, shall be known 
and designated as the ``John Mercer Langston Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John 
Mercer Langston Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```