alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Parabolic Trough Worksh

Cooling for Parabolic Trough Pow

Overview

Incline Village, Nevada

Feb 14, 2006

NREL/PR-550-40025Presented at the 2006 Parabolic Trough Technology Workshop held on February 14-16, 2006
Disclaimer and Government License

This work has been authored by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) under Contract No. DE-AC36Department of Energy (the “DOE”). The United States Government (the “Government”) retains athe work for publication, acknowledges that the Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrepublish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for Government puNeither MRI, the DOE, the Government, nor any other agency thereof, nor any of their employeeor implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulnesproduct, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe any privately owned ri

specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or othimply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Government or any agency thereof. authors and/or presenters expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of MRI, the agency thereof. 
Plant Type

Steam 

Condensing

Auxilla

H

Stand-alone steam plant 720(1) Simple-cycle gas turbine 0 Combined-cycle plant(2/3 CT + 1/3 steam)

240

(1/3 x 720)

(2/3 x 

Combined-cycle plant with dry cooling 0 Stand-alone steam plant with dry cooling 0 Parabolic Trough with wet cooling 920(4) Parabolic Trough with dry cooling 0 

(in Gallons per MWh of Plant Outpu

Wat

Wa

for P

for 

(1) evaporation + blowdown = 12 gpm/MW(2) estimated at ~5% of evaporation + blowdown(3) mid-range of 75-200 gal/MWh for turbine cooling, emissions control an(4) based on historical data from SEGS (higher than conventional becaus

efficiency of SEGS, in part due to HTF pumping and night time parasitics 

(5) Includes make-up water requirements for steam cycle (60 gal/MWh) a

gal/MWh) data from KJCOC.
100 MWe T

At Kramer Junction Radiation 

8.05 kWh/m2/day

Wet

Cooling 

In Service 2006 

Solar Field Area (m2) 684,717 Cooling System 

Tair,d (oF) na 87 75 ITD (Tcond –Tair,d) (oF) na 22 34 Capital Cost ($/kWe) 40a 288 193 Fan Design Point Parasitics (MWe) 1.9b 5.6 2.8 Annual Cooling Parasitics (MWh) 5,297 11,847 7,022 Dry Cooling Penalty (MWh) na 1,912 3,502 Total Plant Parasitics (% of gross) 12.4% 14.5% 13.1% Annual Net Capacity Factor 29.3% 28.4% 28.8 Plant Capital Cost ($/kWe) 3080 3328 3233 Operating Costs (k$/yr)c 5292 5201 5201 Insurance 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Levelized Cost of Energy ($/kWh)d 0.119 0.131 0.126 

100% 110% 106% 

Relative Factors 

Capital Cost 100% 108% 105% Operating Costs 100% 98% 98% Annual Performance 100% 97% 98% Water Use (gal/MWh) 1000 80 80 

NREL Wet/Dry 

NREL Wet/Dry 
[1] California Energy Commission, 2002, “Comparison Cooling Technologies for California Power Plants Econand Other Tradoffs,” CEC 500-02-079F, Feb 2002. http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/final_project_reports/50[2] KJC Operating Company, 2002, “SEGS AcquaintanBoron, CA.
# C_2017283EN.01003401.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Basic Net v EUIPO (Representation of three vertical stripes)

(Case T-612/15) (1)

1

((European Union trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing three vertical stripes - Absolute ground for refusal - Not distinctive - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 283/50)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Basic Net SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 August 2015 (Case R 2845/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing three vertical stripes as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Basic Net SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Basic Net SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 7, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60865

Summary Calendar

 

GUSTAVO SEGUNDO QUINTERO-RESTREPO,

 

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

 

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A79 471 197

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gustavo Segundo Quintero-Estrepa (“Quintero”) hasfiled a petition for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application

for withholding of removal. He argues that substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s

determination that Quintero was not credible and that he was not eligible for withholding ofremoval.
 

-2-

We may review the IJ’s decision, given that the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings. See Chun v.

INS, 40 F.3d 76, 77 (5th Cir. 1994). Both the IJ’s credibility finding and the determination that

Quintero was not eligible for withholding ofremoval are supported by substantial evidence; certainly

the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482

(1992); Mikkael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5thCir. 1997);see also Lopez De Jesus v. INS, 312 F.3d

155, 161 (5th Cir. 2002); Chun, 40 F.3d at 78.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
### Chemicals of Concern Not In DRAS Database Chemical Specific Inputs for 1 - Methylnaphthalene (90 - 12 - 0) Parameter Reference and Explanation Value Chemical/Physical Properties MW (g/mole) CRC Handbook ( 2008 - 2009 ) 142. 197 T m (K) CRC Handbook ( 2008 - 2009 ) 2 42.72 Vp (atm) Handbook of Physical Properties of Organic Chemicals. 1997. CRC Press 8.8 2 E - 05 S (mg/l ) Handbook of Physical Properties of Organic Chemicals. 1997. CRC Press 2 . 58 E+01 H (atm •m3 /mol) Handbook of Physical Properties of Organic Chemicals. 19 97. CRC Press 2 . 60 E - 04 D a (cm

2/s) Chemical - specific input value for 2 - Methylnapthalene 4.80E - 02 D w (cm2/s) Chemical - specific input value for 2 - Methylnapthalene 7.84E - 06 K ow (unitless) AT SDR Toxicological Profile for Naphthalene, 1 -

Methylnaphthalene and 2 - Methylnaphthalene, August 2005 3.87E+00 K oc (ml/g) ND Kd s (cm3 /g) ND Kd s w ( l/kg) ND Derm al Exposure Factors Kp (cm /hr) Chemical - specific input value for 2 - Methylnapthalene 1.42E - 01 t Chemical - specific input value for 2 - Methylnapthalene 6.44E - 0 1 t * Chemical - specific input value for 2 - Methylnapthalene 4.87E+00 B Chemical - specific input value for 2 - Methylnapthalene 7.24E - 01 Biotransfer Factors for Animals BCF fish (l/kg FW tissue) ND BCF fish (l/kg FW) NDParameter Reference and Explanation Value Health Benchm arks RfD (mg/kg/day) Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund (PPRTV) Database 7.00E - 03 Oral CSF (mg/kg/day) - 1 Provisional Peer Reviewed Toxicity Values for Superfund (PPRTV) Database 2.92E - 02 RfC (mg/m3 ) ND Inhalation CSF (mg/kg/day) - 1 ND MCL ND Aquatic TRV ( μg/l) ND Dilution/Attenuation Factors DAF for LF DRAS Value for 2 - methylnapthalene 1.66E+01 DAF for SI DRAS Value for 2 - methylnapthalene 1.04E+0 1 Note: NA = Not Applicable ND = No Data Available
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARRYL YOUNG,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 16

- 17019

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 00663

- CMK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Craig Kellison, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2019 **

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN , Circuit Judges.

Darryl Young (Mr. Young) appeals the district court’s affirmance of the

Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of his application for disability insurance

benefits under Title I I of the Social Security Act

. We have jurisdiction under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circu it Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 17019

U.S.C. § 1291 and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). We review de novo, Attmore v. Colvin , 827

F.3d 872, 875 (9th Cir. 2016), and we affirm. The administrative law judge’s

( ALJ’s ) allegedly insufficient development of the record is the only issue now

raised on appeal.

The ALJ discharged his “duty to fully and fairly develop the record.”

Tonapetyan v. Halter , 242 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) . The duty to develop

the record is triggered when the evidence is ambiguous or the ALJ finds the record

“inadequate to allow f

or proper evaluation of the evidence.” Id. “The ALJ may

discharge this duty in several ways, including: subpoenaing the claimant’s

physicians, submitting questions to the claimant’s physicians, continuing the

hearing, or keeping the record open after the hearing to allow supplementation of

the record.” Id. When the ALJ here determined he needed more evidence to

consider the credibility of Mr. Young’s symptom testimony, he instructed Mr.

Young to consult with a cardiologist to determine why Mr. Young was taking

multiple diuretics, whether Mr. Young’s report ed frequency of urination was a

common effect of the medication, and if anything could be done to reduce the

frequency. The ALJ further provided the cardiologist’s report to Mr. Young’s

counsel, invited him to question the cardiologist , an d left the recor d open for Mr.

Young to provide additional evidence. The district court correctly found no error.

AFFIRMED

.
EXHIBIT 32







OPPORTUNITY ACQUIS CORP.



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 Annual Report of Opportunity Acquis Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned herby certifies in his capacity as an officer of the Company, 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 Exchange Act of 1934; as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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







/s/Robert A. Lerman

Robert A. Lerman

President, Chief Executive Officer

Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer



Date: July28, 2017









This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.
<PAGE> 1


                               EXHIBIT 32a

                        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 Twin Disc, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending September 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Michael E. Batten, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

    (1)    the Report fully complies with Section 13(a) 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.


November 14, 2005                    /s/ MICHAEL E. BATTEN
                                     ----------------------
                                     Michael E. Batten
                                     Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
Case No. 14,618.

#### UNITED STATES v. BOGGS.

[Hoff. Land Cas. 109.] 1

District Court, N. D. California.

Dec. Term, 1855.

Mexican Land Grant — Validity of Claim.

No objections urged to the confirmation of this claim.

Claim [by L. W. Boggs] for six hundred and forty acres in Napa county, confirmed by the board, and appealed by the United States.

S. W. Inge, U. S. Atty.

Halleek, Peachy & Billings, for appellee.

HOFFMAN, District Judge.

The claim in this case is for a portion of the tract called “Napa,” originally granted to Salvador Vallejo by Governor Alvarado on the twenty-first ■of September, 1S38. The claim was confirmed by the board, and the case has been submitted to this court without argument or the statement of any objection on the part of the United States. The documentary and other evidence shows that the original grant was duly issued by the governor, and approved by the departmental assembly on the twenty-third of September, 1838. Judicial possession of the tract was given to the grantee in 1844, but before that time, and at or about the period he obtained his grant, he occupied the land, built a house upon it and corrals, and had cattle and horses upon it. Shortly after the war, the appellee purchased of the original grantee the portion now claimed. He immediately commenced making improvements, and has continued to occupy until the present time. There seems to be no doubt as to the validity of this claim. A decree of confirmation must therefore be entered.
Exhibit 12.1

United Air Lines, Inc. and SubsidiaryCompanies
Computation of Ratio of Earningsto Fixed Charges    Six Months Ended June 30    20022001 (In Millions)Earnings:    Earnings (loss) before income taxes and     cumulative effect of accounting change$ (1,345)$   (973)  Fixed charges, from below399 460   Undistributed (earnings) losses of affiliates- (3)  Interest capitalized    (17)    (45)         Earnings$   (963)$   (561) ===== =====    Fixed charges:       Interest expense$   296 $   262   Portion of rental expense representative        of the interest factor   103   198         Fixed charges$   399 $   460  ===== =====    Ratio ofearnings to fixed charges       (a)           (a) ===== =====       
________
(a) Earnings were inadequate to coverfixed charges by $1.4 billion in 2002 and $1.0 billion in 2001.
# C_2019187EN.01005802.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/58

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2019 — Close and Cegelec v Parliament

(Case T-259/15) (1)

(Public works contracts - Tender procedure - Construction of an energy unit - Extension and refurbishment of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Financial and economic capacity - Technical and professional capacity - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

(2019/C 187/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: SA Close (Harzé-Aywaille, Belgium), Cegelec (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers and J.-L. Teheux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by M. Rantala and M. Mraz, and subsequently by J.-M. Stenier, B. Schäfer and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 19 March 2015 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicants in the context of the call for tenders INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-AO 4, relating to public works contracts in respect of Lot No 73 (energy unit) for the project to extend and refurbish the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg and awarding that lot to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders SA Close and Cegelec, on the one hand, and the European Parliament, on the other, each to bear their own costs, including the costs relating to the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders SA Close and Cegelec, on the one hand, and the European Parliament, on the other, each to bear their own costs, including the costs relating to the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

---
**Exhibit 35.3**

OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE 

I, Karen Montbach, aManaging Director of Citibank, N.A. (the “Company”), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2016 (the “Agreement”), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage SecuritiesInc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer, C-III Asset Management LLC, as special servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as operating advisor, Citibank, N.A., ascertificate administrator (the “Certificate Administrator”), and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as trustee, the following: 

1.     A review of the Company’s activities as Certificate Administrator during the reporting period endingDecember 31, 2016 and its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision. 

2.    To the bestof my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for the reporting period ending December 31, 2016, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period. 

This statement is given by the undersigned as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigned’s individual capacity. 

Date:    February 27, 2017 

 

CGCMT 2016-P3
Before the Third Division,

September 8, 1943

No. 48741.

#### Protest 94954-K of Philip Levy (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared from the record that the two cases of coconut in question were short in two other entries. The case was later settled by agreement, the importer abandoning his claim as to the merchandise in one case, the defendant conceding that the merchandise in case 5491 was the product of the Philippine Islands. On the record presented and the exhibit showing certificate' of origin as to one case (5491) being a product of the Philippine Islands, the protest was sustained as to that case only.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

RICHARD MICKMAN,

Respondent

v.

ELAINE MICKMAN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 386 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of November, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
# C_2016314EN.01002401.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/24

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission

(Case T-732/15 R II)

((Application for interim measures - Environment - Consumer protection - Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - New application - No new facts - No urgency))

(2016/C 314/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ICA Laboratories Close Corp. (Century City, South Africa); ICA International Chemicals (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City); ICA Developments (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Crespi and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, pursuant to Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, for suspension of the operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for guazatine in or on certain products (OJ 2015 L 280, p. 2).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---