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

Plant ID 01731

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 01731\01731_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01731\01731_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

x 01731\01731_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01731\01731_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01731\01731_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01731\01731_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01731\01731_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

01731\07131_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

01731\Certification Statement Plant ID 01731.pdf Plant certification statement

x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part A_A5-2 AERIAL MAP_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part A_A5-2 BOUNDARY_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part A_A5-2 FERN VALLEY MAP_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part A_WB-1_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_PART D Attachment Email to Comment for D2-g.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part D_POND-1_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_Part D_WWT-1_Elrama.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01731\Supplemental Documents\01731_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
No. 54768.

#### Schlumberger Well Surveying Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 150021-K and 150024-K.

Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Gryphon Gold Corporation, (the Company) does hereby
certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) that:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                 
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

|                      |                                                                                  
|--------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 13, 2010 |                                                                                  
|                      | /s/ Matthew A.
      Fowler                                                      
|                      | Matthew A. Fowler                                                                
|                      | Interim Chief Financial Officer, Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

---
#### The People v. John McKinney.

Where exceptions in a criminal case are transmitted to the Supreme Court for review before sentence, the Supreme Court has no power to admit the defendant to bail.

*Heard and decided January 7th.*

Error to Ingham Circuit. Defendant having been convicted on a criminal charge, and exceptions having been duly taken and settled, the same were transmitted to this Court for review before sentence, in pursuance of chapter 197 of the Compiled Laws. The Circuit Court at the same time made an order that defendant give bail in the sum of $14,000 in pursuance of the fifth section of said chapter, and he having failed to give the bail, was committed.

*O. M. JBarnes,*

now moved that this court admit defendant to bail. He cited 1 *Met.*428.

*C. TPpson, Attorney General,*contra.

The Court

held that it had no power to grant the motion. Notwithstanding the exceptions, the cause still remains in the Court below; and as the statute does not confer upon this Court the power to take bail, it does not possess it. The authority over that subject remains in the Circuit Court.
Case: 2:10-cv-00967-EAS-TPK Doc #: 30 Filed: 05/05/11 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-07T16:15:08-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-24-00029-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023-007664-1

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

YVONNE COLLINS, Appellant

V.

PATRICIA WARD, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant’s brief was filed on May 2, 2024. On May 6, 2024, we notified 

appellant that her brief did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i) 

and 38.1(b), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j). We asked that appellant file an amended 

brief that complied with the above rules by May 16, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 9, 38, 

and 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1. We indicated that the failure to do so may 

result in striking the brief and dismissal of the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 

38.9(a), 42.3. We have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file an amended brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to do so, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: June 20, 2024
(Reap. Dec. 10200)

#### E. H. Ashley & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. C-718, etc.

(Decided March 15, 1962)

*Jacob S. Temkm*for the plaintiff.

*William S. Orriok, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

BichaedsoN, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in the schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into by counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court, that the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in the Schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof are the same in all material respects as the issues in *Paramount Import Co., Inc. et al.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 9697 and that the record in said case may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised values of the merchandise involved in the cases listed in the Schedule hereto annexed less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances made by the *585Appraiser in similar cases is equal to the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Czechoslovakia in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, packed ready for delivery, and that the foreign values of such or similar merchandise were no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

In the incorporated case, it was held that the amount paid a foreign commissionaire for services rendered in connection with the purchase of merchandise in the foreign market and which amount did not inure to the benefit of the seller was a buying commission, and, therefore, was not a part of the dutiable value of the merchandise.

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the Form 10-Q filed by New Century Bancorp, Inc. (the Issuer) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the periods
presented therein.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                         
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: November 16, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ Lisa F. Campbell                                    
|                        |  |     |  | Lisa F. Campbell                                        
|                        |  |     |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Operating Officer
##### 



Asset Acceptance Capital Corp.  2007 Annual Incentive Compensation Plan for Management
 General
      Financial Objectives
    1




---



##### 



plus
 multiplied by
     plus
 multiplied by
   plus
 multiplied by
 Personal Performance Objectives
 measurable
  2




---



##### 





AACC 2007 BONUS PLAN


Name:
    
    Insert NameTitle:
    
    Insert TitleEstimated Salary:
    
    2007 Base Comp.Target Bonus Rate
    
    Insert Target Bonus %


Bonus as %Objectives
    
    
    % of Target
    
    
    of Salary
    
    
    $Bonus% Based on Company ObjectivesMinimum
    
    
    50.0
    %
    
    As determined
    
    
    0.0%
    
    
    $
    Target
    
    
    50.0
    %
    
    
    100.0
    %
    
    50% of Target Bonus Rate
    
   
    ComputedMaximum
    
    
    50.0
    %
    
    
    110.0
    %
    
    100% of Target Bonus Rate
    
    
    Computed% Based on Personal ObjectivesTarget
    
    
    50.0
    %
    
    
    
    
    
    50% of Target Bonus Rate
    
    
    ComputedTotal Bonus OpportunityMinimum
    
    
    
    
    
    As determined
    
    Computed
    
    
    ComputedTarget
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100.0
    %
    
    Computed
    
    
    ComputedMaximum
    
    
    
    
    
    
    110.0
    %
    
    Computed
    
    
    ComputedPersonal Objectives
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    %of Personal Bonus(1) Insert Goal 1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Goal 1 Weight(2) Insert Goal 2
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Goal 2 Weight(3) Insert Goal 3
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Goal 3 Weight(4) Insert Goal 4
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Goal 4 Weight(5) Insert Goal 5
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Goal 5 WeightTotal
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    100.0%


3



---



##### 



Exhibit 1
 EBITDA provided however
 4
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00207

- CR

Jonathan Michael Cadena a/k/a Jonathan Cadena v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 156th District Court of Live Oak County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. LCR220022

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF AP PEALS, having conside red this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
November 16 , 2023
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Santana, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 297]

—Judgment, *176Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.), rendered June 4, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court properly discharged a juror as "grossly unqualified” (CPL 270.35) when, in response to the court’s inquiry as to why she did not want to serve, she stated that she lived and worked in neighborhoods where there was drug activity, and, while she did not know defendant or his associates personally, she was frightened that "the people in this drug thing may know me”. This unequivocal expression of fear of retribution by local drug dealers made it obvious that the juror’s state of mind was such as to prevent her from rendering an impartial verdict *(People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290, 298). Any further questioning along those lines was unnecessary. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.
No. 50170.

#### Protest 77561-K of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the harmonicas in question are-similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Abstract 49930, which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the claim at 40-percent under paragraph 1541 was sustained.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0352 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-SW-063-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: SP1639BO-R

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
**CH** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0 337 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. ISAIAH JAMES PEHRINGER ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including February 12 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 6 2023

01/06/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0337
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Joway Health Industries Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jinghe Zhang, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

Date: May 15, 2011



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ Jinghe Zhang                         
|Jinghe Zhang, Principal Executive Officer
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

SARA GONZALEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 13-0348

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2012-137145-001

The Honorable John R. Ditsworth, Judge

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender's Office, Phoenix

By Louise Stark

Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. GONZALEZ

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Chief Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge John C. Gemmill joined.

J O H N S E N, Judge:

¶1 Sara Gonzalez was convicted of second-degree burglary, a 

Class 3 felony. The superior court suspended imposition of sentence and 

imposed a two-year term of probation. In its written judgment, the court 

also ordered Gonzalez to "submit to DNA testing for law enforcement 

identification purposes and pay the applicable fee for the cost of that 

testing in accordance with [Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.")] § 13-610." 

¶2 On appeal, Gonzalez does not dispute her conviction nor the 

term of probation the superior court imposed. She argues only that the 

court erred by ordering her to pay for DNA testing pursuant to A.R.S. § 

13–610 (2014).1 The State confesses error, acknowledging that in State v. 

Reyes, 232 Ariz. 468, 472, ¶ 14, 307 P.3d 35, 39 (App. 2013), this court held 

that A.R.S. § 13–610 does not authorize the court to impose a DNA 

collection fee on a convicted defendant. We agree that pursuant to Reyes,

which was issued after Gonzalez was sentenced, the court erred by 

imposing the collection fee. We therefore modify the judgment of 

conviction to omit the requirement that Gonzalez pay the cost of DNA 

testing.

 1 Absent material revision after the alleged offense, we cite a statute's 

current version.
Table of Contents

EXHIBIT32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of QuantaCapital Holdings Ltd. (the ‘‘Company’’) onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September  30,  2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the ‘‘Report’’) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, I, Peter D. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, certify that to thebest of my knowledge:

|  |          |                                                                                                                     |
|--|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 1.  | The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|  |          |                                                                                                                                                    |
|--|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | 2.  | The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

Date: November  9,2006

/s/ Peter D.Johnson                                                PeterD. Johnson(Principal Executive Officer)

Thiscertification is not deemed to be ‘‘filed’’for purposes of section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, orotherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certificationis not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except tothe extent that the Company specifically incorporates it byreference.

----
!"		
##	

	
	
	 !"#$%" &!"# "#'!()#*&!"&"+(,& !+(*!"&#',+-'' !##,"*%,,& ./'+!.,!"&- )"# %!!##'+,#%	!%,#' 0#'	!# #, #%0!%,#'#, !+,#1,&,%(, 23456' '&" &	 !"#17, #%!(!,+% &+,+!"##	,# 52/565%#'0!&%,  "!8,&+,/' !! % &+,+!"##0! +%	!#8,&+,+95/5/ !#&(,543456 #%+*+( ##&	

 
/5:936944$%&'$()*+#(,
'-
	--&.' ;3;7#
,!&#,#0!,.!"!0!26645 <=49>2=33453 !0?<=49>2=334@6  ./'+!.,A#0.+!/,-
	
/ ,# %*!#,+!"&,,#*%#'!() # %	!!%,!,&&##'
 +"#*0! #, #	##,"*(*%  "-"#'  54#'&!*%(,3456/	

 Filed 12/11/2015 10:55:29 AM Billy Fox District Clerk Bowie County, Texas Teresa Tipps, Deputy
Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 1 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 2 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 3 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 4 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 5 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 6 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 7 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 8 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 9 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 10 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 11 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 12 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 13 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 14 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00119-EAS-TPK Doc #: 15 Filed: 11/23/10 Page: 15 of 15  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T14:53:18-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO