alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Notes on a Meeting Discussing FGD Operations 

In June 2015, EPA met with representatives from a company that owns a coal-fired power plant in the 

mid-Atlantic. The power plant operates both a wet FGD system and a dry FGD system and is able to 

recycle and reuse FGD wastewater from the wet FGD system in combination with the cooling tower 

blowdown to supply a dry FGD system, thereby resulting in no liquid discharge to a permitted outfall 

from the wet FGD system. The company requested that their identity be held CBI.

Following the meeting, the company provided details on the system operation via email which included 

a general flow diagram depicting how its coal-fired power plant is able to operate with no discharge of 

FGD wastewater (SE06338A1 and SE06338A2).
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23331]



[[Page 46496]]

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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1186-DR]


Colorado; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Colorado, (FEMA-1186-DR), dated August 1, 1997, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Colorado, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of August 1, 1997:

    Clear Creek and Phillips Counties for Public Assistance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
Lacy E. Suiter,
Executive Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 97-23331 Filed 9-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
## LI Kuri

~ 

## q"

ia Kvri a) a-ol -com
EPA Testimony —

Hi, my name is Lia Kurihara and I am a Global Warming Program intern at Environment America. I am here today because I want the EPA to know why the Clean Power Plan is so important to myself, my family and my generation.

When I was 8 years old Hurricane Isabel ripped branches from my neighborhood trees and drowned my house with rain. That was 11 years ago and I still remember being scared so I can't even imagine what the people affected by Katrina or Sandy went through. Nature is more powerful than us and we don't get to see that from day to day. When it over takes our infrastructure and our lives it is overwhelming and provides us a reminder that we cannot mess with the environment because being out of control and at the will of extreme weather systems does not leave us with a bright future.

The EPA should finalize its proposed Clean Power Plan. We have knowledge that past generations didn't have, we have support that past generations didn't have and the future generations will be even more united in this cause. We can't let the politics that dirty polluters and climate deniers play get in the way of trying to save this planet! We need this proposedl

~ an, to become a reality so that we can become a part of the ecosystem rather than an intruder.

Besides reductions in carbon pollution, the Clean Power Plan will also promote investments in efficiency and renewable energy sources like wind and solar, creating the jobs of the future and building an energy infrastructure that is safer and healthier. Yes, the coal industry provides many jobs but those jobs are not sustainable! People my age don't want to enter a dying industry. People my age want to be working in the next big thing. I expect the green industry to expand even more by the time my class is starting on their career path.

Growing up in Maryland, I would go almost every summer to my grandpa's bay house right on the Chesapeake Bay in southern Maryland. We'd go crabbing and fishing every time I visited. The bay area is threatened by flooding and inundation from climate change. The crabs and fish that I used to enjoy catching and feasting on won't be able to live in the warmer and saltier water that is predicted to plague the East Coast unless we do something. I don't want my childhood haven to become a swampy mess. I don't want my favorite Maryland blue crabs to disappear. The Clean Power Plan needs to be finalized not only for my children but for my generation. The effects of climate change have already started and I am not even 20 years old yet. My generation was given this world, this problem, and while we did not make the decisions that got us in this situation, it will be up to us to get us out. Help my generation and my kids' generation clean this mess up now. Finalize the Clean Power Plan.

Thank you.
September 29, 2016 

VIA CERTIFIED MAIVRETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management Facility 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

James M. White 

Director of Operations 

Compass Airlines, LLC 

7500 Airline Dr., Ste 130 

Minneapolis, MN 55450 

612.713.6891-0 

314.497.9836-C 

Re: Request for Extension ofOE Exemption No. 10196 

Docket Number: FAA-2010-1165 

To Whom It May Concern: 

This letter is to request an extension of Exemption No. 10 196A which is set to 

expire January 31, 20 1 7. In Exemption No. 1 0 196A, Compass Airlines was granted an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 121.652(a) to the extent necessary to substitute crosswind 

component and braking action restriction, along with a requirement to utilize automatic 

landing and approach coupler (ALAC) equipment, at the destination and alternate airports 

in place of the existing restrictions to decision height (DH) and visibility minimums of 

Category I precision approaches for pilots in command (PIC) who have not yet 

accumulated 100 hours (50, if reducible) in their aircraft type. Since the time of the 

exemption, Compass has abided by the conditions and limitations described therein and 

the exemption has not previously been superseded or rescinded. An extension of the 

exemption is necessary to Compass' operation. Any lapse of the extension will result in 

significant delays in Compass' pilot training program which will result in staffing issues 

that will, in tum, affect Compass' entire operation. 

Further, Compass does not seek to change the conditions and limitations of the 

current exemption which was originally granted in January, 2011 and extended in 

January, 2013 and again in January, 2015. This exemption has been in use for nearly six 

(6) years with no known compromise of safety. The renewal of this exemption is not a 

controversial issue. Rather, the existence of the exemption is well known and widely 

accepted. Good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the request for extension in 

the Federal Register because the requested extension of exen1ption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in action on this request would be detrimental to Compass' 

operations. 

Thank you for your consideration of our request for extension of this exemption. 

If you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (612) 713-6891. 

Re~ tfully, . ~ 

.:~ r£z~ 

Director of Operations
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Willie P. BLOCKMAN.

No. 61662.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 1978.

Robert J. Zibilich, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Brian G. Meissner, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Daniel Lee SWANSON, a minor, by his next friend, Frank Swanson, Donna Pauline Swanson and Frank Robert Swanson, Individually, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO., etc., Gerald Lee Pinder, Dorothy Lee Pinder, et al., Appellees.

No. 75-907.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 26, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1977.

Arthur J. Morburger, Weinstein & Bavly, P. A., Miami, and Carl M. Collier, Palm Beach, for appellants.

Thomas A. Hoadley, West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Upon review and due consideration of the appellate issues we are of the opinion that the record on appeal reflects several errors, the totality of which warrant the granting of a new trial. In particular, admission into evidence of a Mary Carter agreement in a modified and excised form and later referred to by counsel as a “secret agreement” was prejudicial and contrary to the holdings in *Imperial Elevator Co., Inc. v. Cohen,*311 So.2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); *General Portland Land Development Co. v. Stevens,*291 So.2d 250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); *Weinstein v. National Car Rentals,*288 So.2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); *Ward v. Ochoa,*284 So.2d 385 (Fla.1973). Accordingly, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial or such other proceedings as may be consistent herewith.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

MAGER, C. J., ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

Jan uary 9, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00608

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.S. AND A.S.A, CHILDREN,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 01788 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 13, 2018, the Bexar County District Clerk filed a second supplemental
clerk’s record that contains , inter alia, a one

- page document of trial court notes and a five

- page permanency hearing order

. The hearing was held and b oth documents were signed on October 23, 2018, after the trial court signed its September 26, 2018 final order terminating Appellant’s parental rights to her child.

On December 21, 2018, Appellant moved to strike pages 3

– 8 of th e second supplemental
clerk’s record

— which contain the trial court’s notes and the permanency hearing order

— because the notes and order occurred after the trial court signed its final order.
The motion to strike pages from the second supplemental clerk’s r ecord is DENIED. However, this court will not consider the six pages (i.e., 2 SCR 3

– 8) in the second supplemental clerk’s record that pe rtain to the October 23, 2018 hearing.

It is so ORDERED on this 9th day of January, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_ ________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
No. 9091.

#### The City of Mt. Vernon *v.*Harper.

(Decided April 10, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Knox county.

*Mr. J. M. Butler*and *Mr. J. B. Graham,*for plaintiff in error. - ; •, r ..

*Mr. Frank O. Levering and Mr. F. V. Owen,*for defendant in error. . , , . ■ . ,

Judgment of the .circuit couft. reversed and that of the common pleas affirmed: An authority of..; the *City of Wellston*v. *Morgan,*65 Ohio St., 219.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Summers'and Spear, JJ., concur. ■
# L_2013277EN.01001301.xml

| 18.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 277/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 277/13

---

DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES

of 16 October 2013

appointing a Judge to the General Court

(2013/509/EU)

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 254 and 255 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The terms of office of 13 Judges of the General Court expired on 31 August 2013. New appointments should therefore be made for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The terms of office of 13 Judges of the General Court expired on 31 August 2013. New appointments should therefore be made for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2019.

| (2) | It has been proposed that the term of office of Ms Irena PELIKÁNOVÁ as Judge of the General Court be renewed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It has been proposed that the term of office of Ms Irena PELIKÁNOVÁ as Judge of the General Court be renewed.

| (3) | The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Ms Irena PELIKÁNOVÁ to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The panel set up under Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Ms Irena PELIKÁNOVÁ to perform the duties of Judge of the General Court,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Ms Irena PELIKÁNOVÁ is hereby appointed Judge of the General Court for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2019.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 16 October 2013.

The President

R. KAROBLIS

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       9
<CIK>                           0000723878
<NAME>                          Lake Ariel Bancorp, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                          9,288
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>          120
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                7,700
<TRADING-ASSETS>                0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>     56,545
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>          58,245
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>            59,008
<LOANS>                         210,345
<ALLOWANCE>                     2,109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  368,073
<DEPOSITS>                      280,450
<SHORT-TERM>                    200
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>             3,952
<LONG-TERM>                     47,656
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        956
<OTHER-SE>                      34,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>  368,073
<INTEREST-LOAN>                 16,907
<INTEREST-INVEST>               7,470
<INTEREST-OTHER>                273
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                24,650
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>              10,395
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              3,130
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>           11,125
<LOAN-LOSSES>                   780
<SECURITIES-GAINS>              214
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                 9,210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 4,536
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>      3,431
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    3,431
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.88
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                  0
<LOANS-NON>                     534
<LOANS-PAST>                    1,453
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                1,987
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                 2,100
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                1,830
<CHARGE-OFFS>                   583
<RECOVERIES>                    82
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>               2,109
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>            2,109
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>             0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>         2,109



</TABLE>
#### Eddie Lee CORNILEUS, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. The MUSIC FACTORY, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 77-2064.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 9, 1978.

*273Richard Abramowitz, Margate, for appellants.

Forrest, Ruffner, Traum & Hagen, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and KE-HOE, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

This interlocutory appeal is from an order of the trial court denying the motion of defendant, Eddie Lee Cornileus, Jr., to abate the action against him as a defendant. The issue presented is one of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The relevant facts are set out in two orders of the trial court.

The first order, dated June 13, 1977, found:

> “1. That the Defendant, EDDIE LEE CORNILEUS, JR. never received Service of Process in this Action and that STEVEN L. BERZNER, ESQ., entered an unauthorized appearance on behalf of the Defendant, EDDIE LEE CORNILEUS, JR. in this Action.

> “2. That the Defendant EDDIE LEE CORNILEUS, JR., received no Pleadings filed in this Action until after a Final Judgment for Partial Damages was entered against him on December 16, 1976.

> “3. That this Court lacks jurisdiction over the person of the Defendant, EDDIE LEE CORNILEUS, JR.”

Thereafter, the same order provided:

(1) that motion to vacate final judgment of the defendant Eddie Lee Cornileus, Jr., was granted; and (2) that the defendant should file a responsive pleading to the plaintiff’s amended complaint within 20 days. The defendant properly pointed out the inconsistency in the order in his motion to abate. The trial court entered its second order, which denied the motion to abate.

It is apparent that if the trial court did not have jurisdiction of the defendant, it could not order him to proceed with a defense of the cause. The plaintiff urges that the failure to serve the defendant personally is not fatal if a court acquires jurisdiction by the defendant’s voluntary appearance and submission to the jurisdiction of the court. Citing *McKelvey v. McKelvey,*323 So.2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The record submitted is devoid of any action of this defendant which can be construed as a voluntary appearance and submission to the jurisdiction of the court. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.140(b).

Reversed with directions to grant defendant Eddie Lee Cornileus, Jr.’s, motion to dismiss him from this action.
CH

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0548

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

BRYAN HUGH HINDMAN, 

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 May 22, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 11 2023

04/11/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0548
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 176 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 42
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 176

                          [Report No. 109-29]

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
             hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2005

 Ms. Murkowski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                             March 10, 2005

              Reported by Mr. Domenici, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
             hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT.

    Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 11480, the 
Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the project, and 
after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the 
Commission's procedures under that section extend the time period 
during which the licensee is required to commence the construction of 
the project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods beyond the date that is 4 
years after the date of issuance of the license.
                                                        Calendar No. 42

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 176

                          [Report No. 109-29]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
             hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 10, 2005

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Darrell Glenn SHRINER v. Henrietta Domangue SHRINER.

No. 11-433.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

July 11, 1977.

Cleveland J. Marcel, Jr., Houma, for defendant and appellant.

Jerry H. Schwab, Houma, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before SARTAIN, COVINGTON and LOTTINGER, JJ.

COVINGTON, Judge:

The appellant neither filed a brief nor appeared when the case was called for argument. Therefore, under Rule VII, Section 5(b), the appeal is considered abandoned and it is dismissed at the appellant’s cost.

DISMISSED.