alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OMB Control No. 2060-0336

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL OPERATING PERMIT, 40 CFR PART 71

FORM EMISS - EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

 INSTRUCTIONS: Use this form to calculate potential to emit (PTE) for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each 

emissions unit, control device, or alternative operating scenario identified in section I of form GIS. If form FEE does not need to be 

submitted with the application, do not calculate actual emissions.

A. Emissions Unit ID 

Unit 2 (1 of 2)

B. Identification and Quantification of Emissions

 Instructions: First, list each air pollutant that is either regulated at the unit or present in major amounts. Second, list any other regulated pollutant (for fee 

calculation) emitted at the unit that have not already been listed. Each HAP added to the list in this step may be simply listed as "HAP". 

Next, calculate PTE for applicability purposes and actual emissions for fee purposes for each listed air pollutant. Do not calculate PTE for air 

pollutants listed solely for fee purposes. Include all fugitives, including those that do not count towards applicability, when calculating actual 

emissions. At a minimum, round to the nearest tenth of a ton for yearly values or tenth of a pound for hourly values. Attach examples of 

calculations that illustrates the methodology used. 

 

 Air Pollutants (including regulated air pollutants and

pollutants for which the source is major)

Emission Rates CAS No.

Actual

Annual

Emissions

(tons/yr)

Potential to Emit

Hourly

(lb/hr)

Annual

(tons/yr)

PM/PM10/PM2.5 0.5775 2.53

HCl/CL2 0.9340 4.09

NOx NA 4.0

CO 2.31 6.6

SO2 NA 7.7

VOM 8.0 0.90

Hg 0.0026 0.00114 7439-97-6

As 0.0018 0.0081 7440-38-2

Be 0.0018 0.0081 7440-41-7

Cd 0.0046 0.0202 7440-43-9

Cr 0.0018 0.0081 7440-47-3

Sb 0.0000342 0.000015 7440-31-5
(Reap. Dec. 8298)

#### United States *v.*Wyler Watch Agency, Inc.

Entry No. 844521.

(Decided April 1, 1954)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

*Lane, Young & Fox*for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

The question of the proper dutiable value of an importation from Switzerland described on the consular invoice as “Betterway apparatus for demonstration of wrist watches Marquise” forms the subject of this appeal for a reappraisement.

The respective parties have submitted the appeal for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that at the time of exportation of the merchandise here involved, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets in the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities, and in the ordinary course of trade, either for home consumption in Switzerland or for exportation to the United States, or in the United States, as defined in section 402 (c), (d), and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c), (d), and (e)), as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938. The parties have also agreed that the cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) (1) (2) (3) and (4) of said act (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f) (1) (2) (3) and (4)), for the merchandise in issue at the time of exportation thereof was 1,127.40 Swiss francs, net, packed.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that cost of production, as that value is defined in said section 402 (f) (1) (2) (3) and (4), is the proper basis for the determination of the value of the involved merchandise, and that such value is 1,127.40 Swiss francs, net packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Third Division,

September 18, 1942

No. 47567.

#### Protest 61465-K of T. H. Lung Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain of the merchandise in question consists of drugs similar to those the subject of *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 34 was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9350)

#### Offner Electronics, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. CE 898888.

(Decided March 17, 1959)

PlaintiS not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When this appeal for a reappraisement was

called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff.

An examination of the official record discloses no reason for disturbing the presumptively correct value for the merchandise found by the appraiser.

I, therefore, find and hold the proper dutiable value of the merchandise covered by this appeal to be the value found by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 195 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas dysphagia, or difficulty with swallowing, is a medical 

dysfunction that affects as many as 15,000,000 Americans; 

Whereas the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has 

estimated that 1,000,000 people in the United States annually are diagnosed with dysphagia; 
2 

•HCON 195 EH 

Whereas the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has 

estimated that 60,000 Americans die annually from complications associated with dysphagia; 

Whereas based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mortality data, this is more than the total number 

of Americans dying from all forms of liver disease, kidney 

disease, and HIV/AIDS combined—and nearly as many 

as those dying from diabetes, the number 6 killer of 

Americans; 

Whereas the most common complication arising from dysphagia is aspiration pneumonia—caused by food or saliva 

entering the windpipe and into the lungs; 

Whereas one in 17 people will develop some form of dysphagia in their lifetime, including 50 to 75 percent of 

stroke patients and 60 to 75 percent of patients who undergo radiation therapy for head and neck cancer; 

Whereas as many as half of all Americans over 60 will experience dysphagia at some point; 

Whereas complications due to dysphagia increase health care 

costs by resultant hospital readmissions, emergency room 

visits, extended hospital stays, the necessity for long-term 

institutional care, and the need for expensive respiratory 

and nutritional support; 

Whereas the cost of managing a patient with a feeding tube, 

which for many has been the primary treatment option 

for this condition, is reported to average over $31,000 

per patient per year; 

Whereas the total annual cost to Medicare just for enteral 

feeding supplies for outpatients was more than 

$670,000,000 in 2003, nearly 6 percent of the total 

Medicare budget for that year; 
3 

•HCON 195 EH 

Whereas including the monies spent in hospitals, the total 

cost of dysphagia to the health care system is well over 

$1,000,000,000 annually; 

Whereas the condition of dysphagia is a vastly underreported 

condition and not widely understood by the general public; and 

Whereas observing June 2008 as National Dysphagia Awareness Month would raise public awareness about dysphagia and the need for early detection and treatment: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that a 

3 National Dysphagia Awareness Month should be estab4 lished. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 26, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 195 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a Natablished. tional Dysphagia Awareness Month should be es-
**OMB Control No. 2070 -**  **0178 Approval expires XX/XX/XX** 



### ATTACHMENT D **DfE Formulator Program: Form for Adding Third -**  **Party Partners and Products**

**(Private Label Companies, Licensees, or Toll Manufacturers)**

**OMB Control No. 2070 -**  **0178** The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25.5 hours per response for formulators of cleaning and non
- cleaning products and 9.5 hours per response for partners wishing to add third
- party partners and products, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering information, and completing and reviewing the application. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed application to this address.**OMB Control No. 2070 -**  **0178 Approval expires XX/XX/XX** **OMB Control No. 2070 -**  **0178 Approval expires XX/XX/XX** **OMB Control No. 2070 -**  **0178 Approval expires XX/XX/XX**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,818
<SECURITIES>                                       202
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,037
<ALLOWANCES>                                       165
<INVENTORY>                                      5,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,950
<PP&E>                                         260,239
<DEPRECIATION>                                  94,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 222,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,291
<BONDS>                                         47,234
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,259
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   222,562
<SALES>                                         21,736
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,124
<CGS>                                            9,769
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,533
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,234
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,177
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,057
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,057
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
# Amendment to the 2007 Ozone Plan to Extend the Rule Adoption Schedule for Organic Waste Operations Clean Copy REVISED TABLE 6- 1,2007 OZONE PLAN

Amendment to the 2007 Ozone Plan to Extend the Rule Adoption Schedule for Organic Waste OperationsSun Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 18,2008

For the purposes of implementing this Extreme OADP, the District is committed to adopt and implement control measures that will achieve, in aggregate, the emissions reductions specified in Table 

### 6-1. Chapter 6: District Regulatory Control Measuresfor Stationary Sources 2007 Ozone Plan
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 18, 2022.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 18, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22A0329. WORTHINGTON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. v. POOLE 

HUFFMAN, LLC.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion be hereby GRANTED, and 

jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
EXHIBIT
31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT
  Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
 
 I, Stuart
Ducote, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of United Mortgage
Trust (the "Company"), have executed this certification for furnishing to the
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the filing with the
Commission of the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2009 (the "Report"). I hereby certify 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 as of and for
the end of that period.
 UNITED
      MORTGAGE TRUSTDate: November
      13, 2009
                  By
                  /s/ Stuart
      DucotePresident
      and Chief Financial Officer
# C_2016305EN.01003101.xml

| 22.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 305/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2016 — Mozzetti v EUIPO — di Lelio (ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma)

(Case T-97/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - Figurative EU trade mark ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma - Earlier national word mark L’ORIGINALE ALFREDO - Request for proof of genuine use - Article 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2016/C 305/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ines di Lelio (Rome) (represented by: D. De Simone, G. Orsoni and R. Fecchio, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2014 (Case R 656/2014-1), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Ms di Lelio and Mr Mozzetti.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mario Mozzetti to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mario Mozzetti to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6733

EMMANUEL FLEMMING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE, Director; WILLIAM E. GUNN,

Director; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Charles E. Simons, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-3351-0-06BD)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 28, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Flemming, Appellant Pro Se. Shelton Sterling Laney, III,

HOLCOMBE, BOMAR, COTHRAN, GUNN & BRADFORD, P.A., Spartanburg, South

Carolina; Carl Norman Lundberg, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

PROBATION, PAROLE & PARDON SERVICES, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Flemming v. Moore, No. CA-96-3351-0-06BD (D.S.C. May 5,

1997). 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.

DISMISSED
United States Steel Corporation

– Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request April 24, 2012
**Item 1** Provide process flow diagrams for both the taconite iron ore mining and the taconite pellet manufacturing processes. Include in the description, at a minimum, information on the following: mining operations, ore transfer and storage, course ore crus hing, fine ore crushing, ore classification screens, ore storage bins, grinding rod/ball mills, separation, thickeners, balling drums/pellet formation, indurating furnace, pellet cooling and storage, and the process boilers. Include a detailed narrative process description and photographs to explain the indurating furnace process (separatel y for each furnace). For each photograph, provide a coded diagram/map to clearly

identify the location of the image in the photograph. Photographs must correspond to each of the process stages described.
**Person(s) : that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or were consulted in the preparation of the response:**  Teresa Simetkosky, Kraig Raiber, Chrissy Bartovich **Answer:** U. S. Steel is pr oviding both public information and confidential business information to this Request. A separate disc is provided with the responsive information that is confidential. As per the conversation during the meeting and tour on April 18, 2012, pictures categ orized as CBI are provided for Line 3. The pictures provided show the main differences of Line 3 versus the other lines which include cutter bar balling drums and scrubber s ys tem. As described, L ine 3 is the oldest and smallest of the five operating lin es at Minntac. In addition, the other lines (4

- 7) have once - through wet scrubbers installed for particulate and incidental SO2 removal. The L ine 3 scrubber is the newest (installed in 2006) and is a recirculating scrubber with a blowdown treatment s ys tem to remove sulfate and hardness. Also, drawi ngs that are CBI have been provided for the Crusher, C oncentrator, and A gglomerator p rocess , as provided on the CBI disc . An explanation of the A ggl omerator process has been provid ed that details how to review the A gglomerator process files included in this submittal

.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion sh o uld not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-30576

Summary Calendar

_________________

RAY JETER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL L. PHILLIPS, Warden; SUSAN BARBO, RN;

MOORE, Captain; CONN, RN; COLEMAN, LPN; CARLO

WILLIAM, Lieutenant,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(98-CV-503)

December 15, 1998

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ray Jeter, Louisiana prisoner # 153917, appeals the dismissal

of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e). He alleges that he received inadequate medical

treatment, that Barbo made a false report about him, that Williams

failed to li st witnesses in a disciplinary report, that Moore

denied him the opportunity to call witnesses at a disciplinary-2-

hearing and that he was denied medical treatment during the time he

was in isolation/discipli nary detention as punishment for a

disciplinary violation. We review the dismissal of claims as

frivolous for abuse of discretion. S ee Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d

174, 176 (5th Cir. 1994).

As to the allegations of inadeq uate medical treatment, the

record demonstrates that the medical care Jeter received was not in

violation of the Eighth Amendment. S ee id. (applying deliberate

indifference standard to Eighth Amendment claim alleging inadequate

medical care). That the care was unsuccessful or perhaps even

negligent or that Jeter disagreed with his treatment is not

cognizable under § 1983 as a matter of law. S ee No rton v.

Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997); Varnado v. Lynaugh,

920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).

As to the other allegations, Jeter has not identified a

liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Sandin

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-78, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2297, 132 L. Ed.

2d 418,

___ (1995). The sanction of twenty days of

isolation/disciplinary detention, which lies at the root of the

remaining charges, does not reflect the type of atypical,

significant deprivation in which a state might cre ate a liberty

interest. It reflects only a change in the condition of

confinement. S ee Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767-68 (5th Cir.

1997) (holding that thirty days of cell restriction f ails to

implicate due process concerns).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing-3-

Jeter’s claims as frivolous. Therefore, we AFFIRM. Jeter’s motion

for production of documents is DENIED.
Exhibit
    15.1    18012 Sky Park
    Circle, Suite 200
    Irvine, California 92614
    tel 949-852-1600
    fax 949-852-1606
    www.rjicpas.com     Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm    We
have issued our report dated May 14, 2019 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Integrated Media Technology
Limited and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2018, and for the year ended December 31, 2018, included in the Annual Report on
Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2018 which is incorporated by reference in this Registration Statement.  We
consent to the incorporation by reference of the aforementioned report in this Registration Statement and to the use of our name
as it appears under the caption “Experts”.    /s/
Ramirez Jimenez International CPAs Ramirez
Jimenez International CPAs   Irvine,
California May
14, 2019