alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Date: October 12 , 201 4

Subject: Secondary ( Environmental and Energy ) Impacts for Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

NESHAP

– Area Sources

40 CFR 63, Subpart NN

– Final Rule

EPA Contract No. EP

- D

- 11

- 084 ; EPA Work Assignment No. 3

- 0 9

RTI Project No. 021 3199 .00 3 .00 9

From: Dave Reeves

To: Susan Fairchild, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

I. Introduction

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the estimated environmental and energy impacts

associated with the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP ) 40 CFR 63,

Subpart NN

- Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing for area sources

. Secondary impacts include the solid

waste, water, wastewater generated and the electricity required to operate air pollution control devices

, as well as, the resu ltant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from controls or work practices required by

the NESHAP.

II. Water, Wastewater , and Solid Waste Impacts

The EPA estimates that three gas

- fired glass

- melting furnaces at area source wool fiberglass

manufacturing facilities will need to replace the (chromium) refractory lining of those furnaces earlier

than usual to remain compliant with the chromium compound emission limit for Subpart NN

. Therefore,

there are no significant water or w astewater impacts.

One of the control options that may be used to comply with the proposed chromium compound emission

limits would involve rebuilding the glass

- melting furnaces earlier than usual (e.g., after 7 years instead

of 10 years). The average cost of disposing of all the old refractories in a furnace rebuild is estimated to

be 200 tons x $300/ton = $60,000. 1 Using the 7

- year scenario, the annualized solid waste cost impact

would be $2,570 per furnace and $7,700 for the three furnaces combined.

III. Energy Impacts and GHG Emissions from Electricity Usage

Since the compliance option being evaluated to meet the chromium compound emission limit does not

involve any add

- on air pollution control devices, there are not significant energy/ electricity or GHG

emission impacts.

1 Letter from A. Crane, NAIMA to D. Reeves, RTI, dated September 26, 2014.
#### Charles HINES, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-503.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, Bradenton, and Ellen M. Condon, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal from that judgment was affirmed.1

Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and sentence pursuant to CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A. The trial judge properly conducted an evidentiary hearing upon the allegations relating to whether perjured testimony occurred at appellant’s trial and whether the prosecution knowingly used that perjured testimony as a means of convicting the appellant. While the testimony on these issues was in conflict, there is more than enough evidence to support the judge’s holding against the appellant.

We have reviewed the other points raised by appellant and conclude that they are without merit. The order denying motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed.

MANN, C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

1

. Hines v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1971, 243 So.2d 434.
|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   November      5, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Patricia K. Collawn               |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|                                         |   | Patricia      K. Collawn                   |
|                                         |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                         |   | Texas-New      Mexico Power Company        |

----
#### Andrew BARBERIS, Petitioner, v. TARPON ZOO & WILD CARGO, Continental Casualty Insurance Company, and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38329.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 22, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1969.

John H. Lewis, of Meyer, Leben, Fixel & Gaines, P. A., Hollywood, for petitioner.

Charles T. Kessler, of Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist *&*Davant, Miami, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida *489Industrial Commission bearing date January 22, 1969. Our consideration of the petitions, the records and briefs, and oral argument having been heard, leads us to conclude that the petition for certiorari and the petition for attorney fee should be and they are hereby denied.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

CARLTON, J., dissents with opinion.

ERVIN, C. J., dissents and agrees with CARLTON, J.

CARLTON, Judge

(dissenting).

I must respectfully dissent.

The primary question here is whether the petitioner-claimant was an employee of the respondent at the time of the accident. The evidence submitted regarding this question was admittedly rather tenuous in nature due to the fact that the person who allegedly hired petitioner was killed in the accident in which petitioner was injured. There were no witnesses to the hiring. In view of this unfortunate fact situation, the litigants were forced to advance conflicting inferences as their primary mode of argument.

The Judge of Industrial Claims weighed the evidence advanced and concluded that petitioner had been employed by the deceased agent of respondent. The Full Commission majority, with a dissent, reversed. Because of the nature of the facts in this cause, I fail to see how the Commission majority could have reversed the Judge without having simply substituted its judgment for his. Competent, substantial evidence did exist sufficient to support the finding of the Judge, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence was admittedly tenuous. For this reason, I would vote to reverse the Commission.

ERVIN, C. J., concurs.
ffg_ex102.htm

EXHIBIT 10.2

 

Binding Director Term Sheet

 

Effective December 26, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) Hershel Weiss (the “Director”) and First Foods Group, Inc. (the “Corporation”), represented by the majority of the Board of Directors of the Corporation (collectively the “Parties”), enter into this Binding Term Sheet (the “Term Sheet”) as follows:

 

Responsibilities and Consideration:

 


	- 	The Director will continue to serve on the Board of Directors of the Corporation and be responsible for day to day duties for the benefit of the Corporation.
	
 
	
 

	- 	The Director’s compensation may consist of cash-based and/or share-based compensation.
	
 
	
 

	- 	The Director’s cash-based compensation for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 will be $10,000 per quarter paid on a date determined by the majority vote of the Board of Directors.
	
 
	
 

	- 	The Director’s share-based compensation for the period January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 will be a one-time award of warrants (the “Warrants”); the terms of which will be detailed in a forthcoming Warrant Agreement (the “Warrant Agreement”). In principle, the Warrant Agreement will include the following terms:



 


	
 
	
o
	Number and Type – The Director is entitled to a one-time award of Warrants for 200,000 shares of Series B Preferred Stock (the “Preferred Stock”) of the Corporation, as equal to five (5) shares of the Corporation’s Common Stock (the “Common Stock”), including liquidation preference over Common Stock.
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
o
	Duration – The Warrants entitle the Director to purchase the Preferred Stock from the Corporation, after January 1, 2018 (the “Original Issuance Date”) and before December 31, 2024.
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
o
	Purchase Price - The Purchase Price is $0.51 per share of Preferred Stock.
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
o
	Vesting - The Warrants are subject to a 12-month period whereby the Warrants vest in equal monthly increments from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Vesting Period”).
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
o
	Ratio of Ownership – For the duration of the Vesting Period, the owners of the Corporation’s Preferred A Stock shall not issue share-based compensation that would alter the ratio of share-based compensation that existed among and between the directors and/or officers of the corporation at the inception of the Vesting Period.



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Term Sheet as of the Effective Date.

 


	
 
			
FIRST FOOD GROUP, INC. 
	
 

	
 
			
 
		
 

	
By:
	
/s/ Hershel Weiss 
		
By: 
	
/s/ Mark J. Keeley 
	
 

	
 
	
Hershel Weiss
	
 
	
 
	
Mark J. Keeley
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
By:
	
/s/ Abraham Rosenblum 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Abraham Rosenblum
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan 

Checklist Item #15 

Does the application include a description of the efforts that are being taken to contact participants, 

beneficiaries in pay status, and alternate payees? See Section 4.05(2). 

Attached as Document 15.1 is a narrative description of the efforts of the Board of Trustees of the 

Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan to contact participants, beneficiaries in pay 

status, and alternate payees regarding this application for benefit suspension. 

Document 415 

SWORCCPP-000128
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan 

Document 15.1 

The notices informing participants, beneficiaries and alternate payees required by Internal 

Revenue Code §432(e)(9)(F) and the regulations thereunder will be delivered solely by United States 

mail. The Board of Trustees held two informational seminars to discuss the proposed Pension Recovery 

Plan. The first was held on December 1, 2016 at the local union hall of the Indiana I Kentucky / Ohio 

Regional Council of Carpenters located at 204 Garver Road, Monroe, Ohio. The second was held on 

March 16, 2017 at the Savannah Center in West Chester Township, Ohio. Notice of these informational 

seminars on the Plan's proposed Pension Recovery Plan was mailed to all participants, beneficiaries in 

pay status, and alternate payees. As a result, the Board of Trustees third party administrator has an early 

indication of the amount of potential individuals for which additional efforts will be necessary to locate 

and contact. 

The Plan's third-party administrator will work with the local union officials for additional 

information on any missing individuals, as well as utilize internet search tools to attempt to locate such 

individuals. In addition, the Board of Trustees has engaged the services of a commercial locator service, 

Pension Benefit Information (www.pbinfo.com), to assist in the location of any remaining missing 

individuals using commercial and credit reporting databases. 

Finally, the Board of Trustees established an informative website 

http://sorccpensiottrecovery.orW to provide information to participants, beneficiaries and alternate payees 

through Frequently Asked Questions, a copy of the Summary presentation from the March 16, 2017 

informational seminar, additional graphic and factual documentation, and informational videos. 

Document #15 

SWORCCPP-000129
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 213 (Tuesday, November 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets the schedule for the forthcoming meeting of 
the Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission. Notice of this meeting is 
required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).

DATE, TIME, AND ADDRESS: Tuesday, December 2, 1997, 5:15 p.m. to 6:30 
p.m., Innerwest Priority Board conference room, 1024 West Third Street, 
Dayton, Ohio 45407.
    This business meeting will be open to the public. Space and 
facilities to accommodate members of the public are limited and persons 
accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis. The Chairman will 
permit attendees to address the Commission, but may restrict the length 
of presentations. An agenda will be available from the Superintendent, 
Dayton Aviation, 1 week prior to the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Gibson, Superintendent, Dayton 
Aviation, National Park Service, P.O. Box 9280, Wright Brothers 
Station, Dayton, Ohio 45409, or telephone 513-225-7705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Dayton Aviation Heritage Commission was 
established by Public Law 102-419, October 16, 1992.

    Dated: October 24, 1997.
William W. Schenk,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. 97-29130 Filed 11-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

37 38 39 

### ★ ▲

▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 08/30 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 30 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
#### JOHN R. COLLINS & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant, v. CERRO CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 71-902.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 6, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 13.1





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 Tasman Metals Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending August 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark Saxon, 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:





(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.





/s/ Mark SaxonMark SaxonChief Executive Officer
 
 November 30, 2015
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

Add the work hours, parts cost, and number of U.S. registered products to the table below. When you are 

finished, click on the .. Update Fields" bull on to automatically fill in the totals. 

Update Fields I 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircra ft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Under Work Instruction 

- Part 4: 

a) Inspect for properly 

manufactured and 

installed spray shields 

at location 4 for Groups 

( 1-3, 9, II) -

Con figuration 2, that 

have accomplished 10.2 $330 136 

either SB rev Original 

or rev I. 

b) Perfonn leak test, 

repair leaks, identify 

bad spray shie lds and 

replace with good 

shie lds based on 

f1ndings in a). 

I 

I ,, 

} 

I 
I I I I I 

The known number of products in compliance: Number 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 162,792.00 

Costs covered under warranty (!f known) $Wa rranty 

On-Condition Costs: • 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

I 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to eYplain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action ?~ 

YES* D NO IZI 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? · 

YES* D NO IX! 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. · 

YES D NO IZI 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? -

YES* D NO IX! 

*Explanation:
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000020

30-AUG-2013

07:56 AM
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 62296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30575]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4586-000]


De Pere Energy L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

November 17, 1997.
    De Pere Energy L.L.C. (De Pere Energy) filed an application for 
authorization to engage in wholesale power sales at market-based rates, 
and for certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, De Pere 
Energy requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 
CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liabilities by De Pere Energy. On October 31, 1997, the Commission 
issued an Order Conditionally Accepting for Filing Proposed Market-
Based Rater (Order), in the above-docketed proceeding.
    The Commission's October 31, 1997 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering Paragraphs (F), (G), and (I):
    (F) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by De Pere Energy 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
    (G) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (F) above, De Pere Energy is hereby authorized to 
issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as guarantor, 
indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another 
person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful 
object within the corporate purposes of De Pere Energy, compatible with 
the public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such 
purposes.
    (I) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of De Pere 
Energy's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities * * *.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is December 1, 1997.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30575 Filed 11-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
* 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

November 26, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40571

Summary Calendar

DIONEL DE LA CRUZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

AVANCE,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(M-02-MC-54)

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dionel de la Cruz appeals the district court’s 11 April 2003

order denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and

instructing him on the procedures for complying with the court’s

prior sanction order. “[A]n order denying an application to

proceed in forma pauperis is appealable as a final decision”.

Caston v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Hattiesburg, Miss., 556 F.2d 1305,

1307 (5th Cir. 1977). 
2

De la Cruz’s sole contention on appeal is that the district

court erred when it denied his IFP application. De la Cruz does

not address any other aspect of the court’s order. Accordingly,

any assertions pertaining to the court’s instruction regarding the

prior sanction are waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

The record is unclear whether the order was a denial of de la

Cruz’s motion to proceed IFP in district court or a denial of his

motion to proceed IFP on appeal. To the extent that the order can

be construed as a denial of leave to proceed IFP in district court,

the appeal is without merit. In the light of the fact that de la

Cruz failed to appear at the hearing addressing his IFP request, he

cannot show that the district court abused its discretion by

denying IFP. See Flowers v. Turbine Support Division, 507 F.2d

1242, 1244 (5th Cir. 1975). (To the extent that the order can be

construed as a denial of the motion to proceed IFP on appeal, the

appeal is moot. See Rocky v. King, 900 F.2d 864, 866-67 (5th Cir.

1990). The district court ultimately granted de la Cruz leave to

proceed IFP on appeal.)

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a)
AND 15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



I, Thomas D. Vitro, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of STR Holdings, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







|Date: April 26, 2019 | /s/ Thomas
D. Vitro
|-------------------- | -------------------
|                     | Name:              
|                     | Title: