alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
State Implementation Plan Revision: 2011 Base Year Inventory for 

the Pennsylvania Portion of Five 2008 Ozone Nonattainment Areas:

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Lancaster, 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Reading

Appendices 

Appendix A: Point Sources 

Appendix A-1: 2011 Point Source Annual Inventory 

Appendix A-2: 2011 Point Source Ozone Season Inventory 

Appendix B: Nonpoint Sources 

Appendix B-1: 2011 Nonpoint Source Annual Inventory 

Appendix B-2: 2011 Nonpoint Source Ozone Season Inventory 

Appendix C: Nonroad Sources 

Appendix C-1: 2011 Nonroad Source Annual Inventory 

Appendix C-2: 2011 Nonroad Source Ozone Season Inventory 

Appendix D: Onroad Sources 

Appendix D-1: 2011 Onroad Source Annual Inventory 

Appendix D-2: 2011 Onroad Source Ozone Season Inventory

These appendices are emission inventory files in Microsoft EXCEL. 

Many of these files have multiple tabs, some of which have thousands of 

entries. Because of the format of these files, they are not available for 

download from www.regulations.gov. Copies of the files are available 

for public inspection at the EPA Region III address listed in the Federal 

Register Proposed Rule document. For further information, EPA Region 

III's point of contact (POC) is listed in this docket.
# C_2012057EN.01S00301.xml

| 25.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/s3

---

NOTICE

On 25 February 2012, in Official Journal of the European Union C 57 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — second supplement to the 30th complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Image

---
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09-18-00034-CV



### ____________________ GEORGE DANNER, Appellant V. KATHRYN DANNER, Appellee

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ On Appeal from the 418th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 17-03-04143-CV

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION George Danner filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s January 4, 2018 Order Finding Alleged Partition and Exch ange Agreement Unenforceable. On January 30, 2018, the a ppellee, Kathryn Danner, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order was interlocutor y and not subject to accelerated appeal. Appellant did not file a response to the motion to dismiss. Generally, temporary orders in a di vorce case may not be immediately appealed. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.507 (West 2006). Because the order does2 not dispose of all issues before the trial court and it has not been severed, it is an interlocutory order not subject to immediate appeal . See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellee requests that we award her “just damages” in an unspecified amount because the appeal is frivolous. See Tex. R. App. P. 45. “R ule 45 does not mandate that this court award just damages in ev ery case in which an appeal is frivolous; rather the decision to award such damages is a matter within this court’s discretion, which we exercise with prudence a nd caution after careful deliberation.” Glassman v. Goodfriend , 347 S.W.3d 772, 782 (Tex. App.—H ouston [14th Dist.] 2011, pet. denied). We deny Appe llee’s request for Rule 45 damages.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

_______ _________________________ CHARLES KREGER

Justice Submitted on March 7, 2018 Opinion Delivered March 8, 2018 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kr eger and Horton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      1,227,527
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    35,561
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         257,080
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       330,979
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,851,147
<COMMON>                                       281,559
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      (204)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            172,506
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 453,861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    4,299
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           564,641
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      113,195
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  74,574
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    16,596
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               345
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 623,636
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  1,851,147
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      520,867
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           47,128
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     392,426
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     439,554
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        81,313
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             4,406
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 85,719
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       42,142
<NET-INCOME>                                   43,577
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    151
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  43,447
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       30,284
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      39,718
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         63,285
<EPS-BASIC>                                  3.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  3.10



</TABLE>
Case No. 13,309.

#### STARKWEATHER v. CLEVELAND INS. CO.

[4 Chi. Leg. News, 175; 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 59.]

Circuit Court, W. D. Ohio.

Jan., 1872.

Insurance — Bankruptcy or Party Insured — Right of Assignee to Recover for Loss.

[Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Northern district of Ohio.]

This was a case where a policy of insurance had been issued by the defendant to the bankrupt several months before any proceedings in bankruptcy. Proceedings in bankruptcy were commenced, the insured was declared a bankrupt, and all his property transferred to and vested in said assignee, the property covered by said policy included. Some months after the transfer of the .property to the assignee in bankruptcy, the building insured was destroyed by fire. Suit brought for amount of policy.

[See Case No. 13,308.]

Griswold & Buckingham, for assignee.

Willey, Cary & Terrell, for insurance company.

EMMONS, Circuit Judge,

held: That at common law the termination of all interest of the insured in the property, defeated the policy; and that the transfer to the assignee in bankruptcy terminated all interest of the bankrupt in the property insured. That a transfer to an assignee in bankruptcy was within the terms of that provision of the policy which declared that the policy should be void in case of any change or transfer of the title to the property insured. That the fact that the bankruptcy was involuntary was immaterial, as was also the • fact that the transfer was made by operation of law.

Judge EMMGNS went into an elaborate analysis and review ■ of all the English and American authorities bearing upon this and analogous questions.

*1094Policy held void for the above reasons, and case remanded for further proceedings.

In pronouncing the opinion in this case, Judge EMMONS discussed the effect, of the recent decision of the supreme court in reference to summary proceedings in bankruptcy, in cases properly cognizable in law or equity, according to their respective forms of procedure; concluding to remand such cases to the district court for re-formation of the pleadings, advising that the greatest liberality should be allowed in relation to amendments, especially where hearings had been had upon the merits, without objection as to form.
Prepared in cooperation with the   Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District 

**Principal Faults in the Houston,   Texas, Metropolitan Area**

By Sachin D. Shah and Jennifer Lanning-Rush   

U.S. Geological Survey   Scientific Investigations Map 2874 

----

Document Accessibility: Adobe Systems Incorporated has information about PDFs   and the visually impaired. This information provides tools to help make PDF   files accessible. These tools convert Adobe PDF documents into HTML or ASCII   text, which then can be read by a number of common screen-reading programs that   synthesize text as audible speech. In addition, an accessible version of Acrobat   Reader 5.0 for Windows (English only), which contains support for screen readers,   is available. These tools and the accessible reader may be obtained free from   Adobe at http://access.adobe.com/.

pdf of plate (87 MB, 35" X 23")

----

**Contents**

Introduction

Previous Fault Mapping in the Houston Metropolitan   Area

Principal Faults in the Houston Metropolitan Area

Summary

Selected References

**Figures**

| 1.   | Map showing location of study area                                                                                                                       |
|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.   | Principal faults in the Houston metropolitan area as       observed from 15-foot bare-earth Lidar-derived digital elevation model (DEM)                  |
| 3.   | Segment of the hillshaded 15-foot bare-earth Lidar-derived       digital elevation model of the area of Harris County showing the Long Point       fault |

**Table**

| 1.   |   | Named faults mapped in previous studies |
|-----------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
# C_2007315EN.01001802.xml

| 22.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — J.C. Blom v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-344/06 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking - SLOM 1983 producers - Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)

(2007/C 315/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: J.C. Blom (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.C.H Molin, advocaten)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-M. Colaert, Agent), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and M. van Heezik, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2006 in Case T-87/94 J.C. Blom v Council and Commission by which the Court dismissed an application for compensation under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant's being prevented from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11)

J.C. Blom

Council and Commission

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Blom to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Blom to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 261 of 28.10.2006.

1

---
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 133053 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133053 COA: 273343 Calhoun CC: 05-000160-FC MILO LORENZO BURTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 20, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-11226 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ABEL MALDONADO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CR-116-R

- - - - - - - - - - November 26, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Abel Maldonado appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for trafficking in stolen motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts with altered vehicle identification numbers, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2321. He argues that the district court erred in calculating his criminal history score and in calculating the amount of loss attributable to the scheme.No. 95-11226 - 2 - The district court did not err in awarding a two-level increase in Maldonado’s criminal history score for being under a criminal justice sentence at the time he committed the instant offense. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(l). The district court did not err in determining that the amount of loss exceeded $70,000. See United States v. Wimbish , 980 F.2d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 508 U.S. 919 (1993); U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n.8). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 4.1


 


DESCRIPTION OF CAPITAL STOCK


 


Common Shares


 


Western Uranium & Vanadium Corp.’s class of Common Shares
is registered under Section 12(g) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.


 


An unlimited number of Common Shares is authorized for issuance.


 


Holders of Common Shares are entitled to one vote per share. Holders
of Common Shares are entitled to receive ratably such dividends, if any, as may be declared the Board of Directors out of legally available
funds.


 


Upon the liquidation, dissolution, or winding up of the Company, holders
of Common Shares are entitled to share ratably in all assets of the Company that are legally available for distribution.


 


Our authorized capital consists of 400,000,000 shares of common stock
with a par value of $0.001 per share.


 


Holders of our common stock have no preemptive
rights to purchase additional shares of common stock or other subscription rights. The common stock carries no conversion rights and is
not subject to redemption or to any sinking fund provisions. All of our issued common stock is entitled to share equally in dividends
from sources legally available, when, as and if declared by our Board of Directors, and upon our liquidation or dissolution, whether voluntary
or involuntary, to share equally in our assets available for distribution to security holders.


 


Our Board of Directors is authorized to issue
additional shares of common stock not to exceed the amount authorized by our Articles of Incorporation, on such terms and conditions and
for such consideration as the Board may deem appropriate without further security holder action.


 


Voting Rights


 


Each holder of our common stock is entitled to
one vote per share on all matters on which such stockholders are entitled to vote. Since the common stock does not have cumulative voting
rights, the holders of more than 50% of the shares voting for the election of directors can elect all the directors if they choose to
do so and, in such event, the holders of the remaining shares will not be able to elect any person to the Board of Directors.


 


Dividend Policy


 


Holders of our common stock are entitled to dividends
if declared by the Board of Directors out of funds legally available for the payment of dividends. Since our inception as a company on
February 9, 2007, we have not declared any dividends, nor do we intend to issue any cash dividends in the future. Our foreseeable
plans include retaining earnings, if any, to finance the development and expansion of our business.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 35961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14755]

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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

PLACE: Commission Meeting Room on the First Floor of the EEOC Office 
Building, 131 ``M'' Street NE., Washington, DC 20507.

STATUS: The meeting will be closed to the public.

Matters To Be Considered

Closed Session

    Review of select pending charges, investigations and litigation.

    Note: Any matter not discussed or concluded may be carried over 
to a later meeting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC 
Commission meetings in the Federal Register, the Commission also 
provides a recorded announcement a full week in advance on future 
Commission sessions.)

    Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at 
any time for information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernadette B. Wilson, Acting Executive 
Officer on (202) 663-4077.

    Dated: June 13, 2012.
Bernadette B. Wilson,
Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2012-14755 Filed 6-13-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```
# C_2016475EN.01000801.xml

| 19.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 475/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 475/8

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia v European Commission

(Case C-426/15 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - State aid - Article 108(3) TFEU - Commission decision declaring aid to be unlawful - No prior notification - Determination of the date of award of the aid - Agreements granting aid - Unconditional commitment to award aid - Taking into account of national legislation - Formal investigation procedure - Principle of sound administration - Rights of the defence)

(2016/C 475/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, abogado)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Němečková and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Diputación Foral de Bizkaia shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Diputación Foral de Bizkaia shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.

1

---
# C_2020191EN.01000601.xml

| 8.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 28 January 2020 — UAB ‘P’ v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Białymstoku

(Case C-48/20)

(2020/C 191/08)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UAB ‘P’

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Białymstoku

Question referred

Must Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax ... (1) [,as amended,] and the principle of proportionality be interpreted as precluding the application, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, of a national provision such as Article 108(1) of the Ustawa z dnia 11 marca 2004 r. o podatku od towarów i usług (Law of 11 March 2004 on [the] tax on goods and services) ... (2) to invoices with VAT incorrectly indicated that were issued by a taxable person acting in good faith, if:

| — | the taxable person’s actions did not involve tax fraud, but resulted from an erroneous interpretation of the law by the parties to the transaction, based on an interpretation given by the tax authorities and a common practice in that respect at the time of the transaction, which incorrectly assumed that the issuer of the invoice was supplying goods when in fact it was providing a VAT-exempt financial intermediation service; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the taxable person’s actions did not involve tax fraud, but resulted from an erroneous interpretation of the law by the parties to the transaction, based on an interpretation given by the tax authorities and a common practice in that respect at the time of the transaction, which incorrectly assumed that the issuer of the invoice was supplying goods when in fact it was providing a VAT-exempt financial intermediation service; and

| — | the recipient of the invoice with the VAT incorrectly indicated would have been entitled to claim a VAT refund if the transaction had been correctly invoiced by a taxable person who was actually supplying the recipient with goods? |
| --- | --- |

—

the recipient of the invoice with the VAT incorrectly indicated would have been entitled to claim a VAT refund if the transaction had been correctly invoiced by a taxable person who was actually supplying the recipient with goods?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2)  Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2011, No 177, item 1054, as amended.

---