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

DATE: August 3, 2015

TO: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2013

- 0602

SUBJECT: Change in the PM 2.5 - related Health Burden from Power Plant Emissions between 2005 and

2030

This memo documents the methods used to calculate the burden to human health from power plant
emissions in 2030 after full y implementing the Clean Power Plan (CPP) final emissions guidelines

.

The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the final CPP shows that projected emissions of precursors to

PM 2.5 (i.e., SO 2 & NO x ) from power plant s will be substantially reduced from 2005 levels by 2030 after implementation of CPP

. Using Equation 1 below, w e combine estimates of remaining emissions shown
in Table 1 with the incidence

- per

- ton estimates shown in Table 2 to approximate the burden to hum an health from exposure to PM 2.5 attributable to power plant emissions

.

Eq. 1 Health burden = Tons * Incidence/ton

Table 1. Projected Emissions from Power Plants in 2030 after Implementing CPP

Pollutant Emissions (million tons)

SO 2 0.996

NOx 1.011

Source: Table 3

- 7 of the final CPP RIA for the rate

- based illustrative plan approach

.

Table 2

. Premature Mortality Incidence

- per

- Ton Estimates for PM 2.5 Precursors for 2030

Pollutant Estimate based on Krewski et al. (2009)

SO 2 0. 0042

NOx 0.00038

Source: Table 4A

- 8 of the final CPP RIA. Based on estimates for the eastern U.S.

We estimate the burden from remaining SO 2 emissions would be 4,200 premature deaths (996,000*0.0042), and the burden from remaining NOx emissions would be 380 premature deaths (1,011,000*0.00038). In sum, w e estimate that the health burden from U.S. power plants in 2030 would be approximately 4,6 00 premature deaths. Although these estimates do not reflect premature mortality associated with other power plant emissions, such as directly emitted particles or ozone precursors, these pollutants generally have a much smaller contribution to premature m ortality. Due to inherent uncertainty in incidence

- per

- ton estimates, we consider this to be only an approximation of the mortality burden from power plant emissions.

Fann et al. (2013 ) estimated that the PM 2.5 premature mortality burden from U.S. power plants was approximately 38,000 in 2005. Comparing this estimate to the health burden remaining in 2030 after implementation of the CPP shows that this burden will be reduced by approximately 88 percent.References:

Fann, N.; Fulcher, C. M.; Baker, K. 2013. “The recent and future health burden of air pollution

apportioned across U.S. sectors.” Environ. Sci. Technol.

, 47, 3580

– 3589.

Krewski D., M. Jerrett, R.T. Burnett, R. Ma, E. Hughes, Y. Shi, et al. 2009. Extended Follow

- Up and Spatial

Ana lysis of the American Cancer Society Study Linking Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality . HEI Research Report, 140, Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA.
<PAGE>
                                   EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of TransTechnology Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
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 12, 2003                    /s/ Robert L. G. White
       ------------------------------     --------------------------------------
                                          Robert L. G. White,
                                          President & Chief Executive Officer


Date:  August 12, 2003                    /s/ Joseph F. Spanier
       ------------------------------     --------------------------------------
                                          Joseph F. Spanier,
                                          Chief Financial Officer



                                       24
NUMBER 13-14-00160-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

____________________________________________________________

DARRYLL DUANE TAYLOR, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Benavides, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Darryll Duane Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of out of time 

appeal seeking to challenge an order denying a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. 

On March 13, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the 

order from which the appeal was taken was not an appealable order, and requested 
2

correction of this defect within ten days or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellant has 

failed to respond to the Court’s directive. 

Jurisdiction to grant post-conviction habeas corpus relief in felony cases rests 

exclusively with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 

art. 11.07, § 5 (Vernon Supp. 2011); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of 

Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); In re McAfee, 

53 S.W.3d 715, 717–18 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. 

proceeding). Therefore, we are without jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

The appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

15th day of May, 2014.
# C_2008321EN.01S00301.xml

| 16.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READERThe institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

NOTE TO THE READERThe institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-3042

JOHN PAUL TURNER, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, for the Western District of Virginia; UNITED STATES POSTALSERVICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE; VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Augusta County; AUGUSTA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-95-1196-R) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).23 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). To the extentthat Appellant appeals the dismissal of his claims against the district court, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. United States Dist. Court , No. CA-95-1196-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 9, 1995). To the extent that Appellant appeals the dismissal of the remaining Defendants, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 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; DISMISSED IN PART
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00492-CV

Thomas Frank, Appellant

v.

Robin Frank, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-07-002324, HONORABLE GUS J. STRAUSS JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, stating that the parties have settled their

dispute through a meditated agreement. In response to this Court’s inquiry, appellant filed a

response stating that he no longer wished to pursue the appeal and agreed with appellee that the

cause should be dismissed. We grant appellee’s motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P.

42.1(a)(2).

___________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Henson

Dismissed on Appellee’s Motion

Filed: July 9, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 100 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 100

Disapproving the request of the President for extension, under section 
  2103(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 
        2002, of the trade promotion authorities under that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2005

     Mr. Dorgan (for himself and Mr. Byrd) submitted the following 
       resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the request of the President for extension, under section 
  2103(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act of 
        2002, of the trade promotion authorities under that Act.

    Resolved, That the Senate disapproves the request of the President 
for the extension, under section 2103(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Bipartisan 
Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002, of the trade authorities 
procedures under that Act to any implementing bill submitted with 
respect to any trade agreement entered into under section 2103(b) of 
that Act after June 30, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
No. 49338.

#### Protests 97952-K, etc., of S. Alioto & Sons et al. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that involved in *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). The protests were sustained to this extent.
No. 51148.

Suit 4525.

#### United *States*v. *Sherbrook Distributing Co.*

C. D. 935 modified March 30, 1946. C. A. D. 330.
Before the Third Division,

November 30, 1944

No. 49826.

#### Petition 6438-R of Merck *&*Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was established that the entered value was upon the basis of an increased foreign value, and this was acquiesced in by the appraiser, but after entry the results of an investigation then under progress were made known which caused the appraiser to use the United States value as a basis, which caused an increase over, the entered value and penalties. A reap-praisement appeal was decided in favor of the Government. On the record presented the court was satisfied there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19220-19221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7282]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of 
April 16, 2007:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, April 19, 2007 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and

[[Page 19221]]

(10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit 
consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Nazareth, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 
April 19, 2007 will be:

Formal orders of investigations;
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature;
Litigation matters; and
Other matters related to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: April 12, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7282 Filed 4-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
|                                      |
|--------------------------------------|
|                                      |  |
| Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas | BNY Mellon Trust of Delaware |
| As Indenture Trustee                 | As Owner Trustee |
| Attn:  Michelle H.Y. Voon  | Attn:  Kristine Gullo |
| 100 Plaza One 6th Floor         | 301 Bellevue Parkway 3rd Floor |
| Jersey City, NY 07311                | Wilmington, DE  19809 |

|                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |  |
| The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. | Ally Auto Assets LLC |
| Attn:  Robert Castle                  | Ally Financial Inc. |
| 2 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1020              | 200 Renaissance Center |
| Chicago, IL  60602                    | 10th Floor, MC 482-B10-A68 |
|                                            | Detroit, MI |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| Re:    | Ally Auto Receivables Trust 2010-5 (the “Issuer”) |
|   | Annual Statement as to Compliance |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| a. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period of January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013, and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the Trust Sale and Servicing Agreement has been under his supervision, and |

|    |
|----|
|    |  |
| b. | To the best of his knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and the Trust Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout such period. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
|   | Very truly yours, |
|   |   |
|   | /s/ David J. DeBrunner |   |
|   | David J. DeBrunner |
|   | Vice President, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Ally Financial Inc. |
# C_2008012EN.01000102.xml

| 17.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 12/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 12/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4965 — Arques/Skandinavische Actebis-Landesgesellschaften)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 12/02)

On 18 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4965. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4965. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
2:31:52 PM 12/18/2014 J:\2011\2011-059\Drawings\Working Drawings\Structural\2011-059-ET-1509.dwg

90% DESIGN SUBMISSION
 2:26:58 PM 12/18/2014 J:\2011\2011-059\Drawings\Working Drawings\Structural\2011-059-ET-1430.dwg

90% DESIGN SUBMISSION
 2:14:34 PM 12/18/2014 J:\2011\2011-059\Drawings\Working Drawings\Structural\2011-059-ET-1364.dwg

90% DESIGN SUBMISSION
 2:12:05 PM 12/18/2014 J:\2011\2011-059\Drawings\Working Drawings\Structural\2011-059-ET-1325.dwg

90% DESIGN SUBMISSION
 2:10:52 PM 12/18/2014 J:\2011\2011-059\Drawings\Working Drawings\Structural\2011-059-ET-1307.dwg

90% DESIGN SUBMISSION
Before the First Division,

April 11, 1950

No. 54221.

#### Barclay Import Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 130124-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Exhibit 4.16.2



| |  |  |  |                                                        
| |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | LOGO                                                   
| |  |  |  | Level 7, 151 Macquarie Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Australia

Ms Deanne Miller

General
Counsel & Company Secretary

Prima BioMed Limited

30 July 2014

Dear Deanne

Variation to Executive Employment Agreement dated 13 October 2012 (Agreement) and Variation Letter dated

Further to our recent discussions, Prima BioMed Limited (Prima) agrees to vary your Agreement as set out in the attached Schedule.

This variation is effective from Friday 1 August 2014. Your new Remuneration will start being paid to you from the next payroll run, with any back pay
backdated to 1 August 2014 paid on this day as well.

All other terms and conditions of your Agreement remain the same.

Please indicate your acceptance of this variation by signing (in duplicate) this letter and returning one executed copy to me.

Prima looks forward to your ongoing assistance.

Yours
faithfully,



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Marc Voigt         
|Marc Voigt             
|Chief Executive Officer
|Prima BioMed Ltd       

I accept the variation to the Agreement



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/ Deanne Miller
|Deanne Miller    



---

Schedule

Agreed amendments to Agreement:



|       |  |                                 
|------ |  | --------------------------------
|Clause |  | Agreed Amendment                
|       | 
|5(a)   |  | Replace $160,000 with $180,000
**Exhibit No. 32.2**

**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 Texas Pacific Land Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), David M. Peterson, Chief Financial Officer of the Trust, certifies, to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 Trust.

|               | TEXAS PACIFIC LAND TRUST                    |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|               | (Registrant)                                |
|               |
| Date:  May 4, 2007 | By:   /s/  David M. Peterson |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America 

-vsJames E. Mills

________________________________ 

Case No. 2:12-cr-189 (1) 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY 

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 

11, F.R.Cr.P. and has entered a plea of guilty to Count one (1) of the 

Information. After examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of 

the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determine that the defendant is 

competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that the guilty plea 

is knowingly and voluntary made and that the offenses charged are supported 

by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements 

of such offense. 

I therefore RECOMMEND the plea agreement and the plea of guilty should 

be accepted and the Defendant should be adjudged guilty and sentenced 

accordingly. Otherwise, the plea agreement should be rejected and the 

defendant should be allowed to withdraw the guilty plea. 

The Defendant remains in the custody of the U.S. Marshal pending 

sentencing. 

Date: October 5, 2012 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation 

within fourteen (14) days from the date of its service shall bar an aggrieved 

party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned 

United States District Judge. 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B). 

Case: 2:12-cr-00189-JLG Doc #: 25 Filed: 10/05/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>