alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

June 15, 2016

MEMORANDUM

From: Andy Steckel, Chief

Air Division Rules Office

To: Kerry Drake, Associate Director

Air Division

Re: Summary of our 6/10/16 Discussion with Kevin Abernathy, Milk Producers 

Council 

Here are my notes from our discussion with Kevin Abernathy regarding dairy practices 

in California. We initiated the call with Kevin, a long-time representative of the dairy 

industry in the San Joaquin Valley and a member of the USDA Agricultural Air Quality 

Task Force. You explained that we are collecting information to help respond to 

comments received on our proposed action on the San Joaquin Valley’s (SJV’s) PM2.5

Plan. All notes below are Kevin’s responses to our specific questions.

1. He believes 99.9% of South Coast Air Quality Management (SCAQMD) dairies are 

dry scrape and not flush. 

2. There is not crop land associated with SCAQMD dairies where they could apply 

manure.

3. When SC dairies moved to SJV, they became flush dairies, partly because flush is 

more convenient than walking in large piles of manure, so long as you have nearby 

crop land to dispose of the flushed manure.

4. Most dairies in SJV are flush, and Kevin doesn’t know any that don’t at least flush 

where the cows eat, which is also where most manure is produced.

5. SC dairies mostly don’t have free stall barns like they do in SJV, partly because of 

the different weather – it’s bad to leave dairy cows out in extended rainy seasons.

6. SJV has a combination of corrals and barns; SC is predominantly corrals. 

7. The majority (maybe 75%) of cows in SJV are in free stall barns.

8. SC dairies mostly send manure outside the District to be land applied, including to 

Imperial and SJV.

9. It is generally not feasible to transport SJV manure outside of SJV, because the 

manure is a valuable fertilizer for agricultural lands.

10.Manure flushing in SJV is all electric, while manure removal in SC is done with 

trucks and tractors.

11.Some SJV dairies stockpile their manure on-site for months. Most is composted and 

then used as bedding for the cows or land applied later.

12.Most stockpiles you see outside of corrals have been composted.

13.Dairies compost manure to create a pathogen-free bedding.
14.Kevin doesn’t believe any SJV dairies send manure to a manure processing facility.
Jaguar Cars Limited EMISSION DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT No. J09014D1A 

Causal part name: SENSOR-OXYGEN 

Causal part number: C2S38497 

Issued: 09 January 2010 

Page 1 of 2 

Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40. Part 85. Subpart T. 

§85.1903 - Emissions Defect Information Report 

(c)(1) The manufacturers corporate name. 

Jaguar Cars Limited. 

(c)(2) A description of the defect. 

Drivers of X-type vehicles are prompted to return the vehicle to a Jaguar dealer for service by a check engine 

light, the dealer finds a defective oxygen sensor and replaces it. 

Engineering analysis revealed that oxygen sensors were damaged by moisture contamination during June, July 

and part of August 2007 production months. 

The damaged stock was cleared to ensure affected vehicles are repaired with robust parts. 

(c)(3) A description of each class or category of vehicles potentially affected by the defect including make, 

model, model year, and such other information as may be required to identify these vehicles. 

See table in section (c)(4)(i) below. 

(c)(4) For each class or category of vehicle or engine described in response to paragraph (c)(3) of this section, 

the following shall also be provided: 

(c)(4)(i) The number of vehicles or engines known or estimated to have the defect and an explanation of the 

means by which this number was determined. 

MODEL YEAR TEST GROUP MODEL SALES DEFECTS 

2008 8JCXV03.0DNH X-TYPE 3.0; SPORTWAGON 807 61 

The above data was taken from Jaguar's warranty tracking report dated 2009 Q3. 

(c)(4)(ii) The address of the plant at which the potentially defective vehicles or engines were produced. 

Jaguar Halewood Plant, Liverpool, England. 

(c)(5) An evaluation of the emissions impact of the defect and a description of any driveability problems which a 

defective vehicle might exhibit. 

There is no adverse impact on emissions associated with this issue. The function of this oxygen sensor does not 

directly affect tailpipe emissions. 

There is no adverse impact on driveability associated with this issue. 

This defect illuminates the M.I.L. 

EPA 3976

Received 2/10/2010
Jaguar Cars Limited EMISSION DEFECT INFORMATION REPORT No. J09014D1A 

Causal part name: SENSOR-OXYGEN 

Causal part number: C2S38497 

Issued: 09 January 2010 

Page 2 of 2 

(c)(6) Available emissions data which relate to the defect. 

There is no data available quantifying the impact on emissions of this defect. 

(c)(7) An indication of any anticipated manufacturer follow-up. 

Oxygen sensor stock damaged by moisture contamination during June, July and August 2007 was cleared to 

ensure affected vehicles are repaired with robust parts. 

This issue is regarded as self campaigning, MIL illumination plus uneven engine running will prompt drivers to 

return the vehicle to a Jaguar dealer for rectification. 

EPA 3976

Received 2/10/2010
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report
of Graham Packaging Company Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Burgess, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 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 Graham Packaging Company Inc.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 5, 2010



By:

/S/    MARK S.
BURGESSMark S. Burgess Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Colonial
  Commercial Corp. (the "Company") for the three months and six months ended
  June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
  hereof (the "Report"), I, James W. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the
  Company, certify, pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to
  section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:


        (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.




  By: /S/ JAMES W. STEWART
      --------------------

  Name:  JAMES W. STEWART
         -----------------
         Chief Financial Officer



  February 19, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63197-63198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31059]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,519]


Hayes Wheels International, Incorporated, Romulus, Michigan; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application of July 11, 1997, the United Automobile-Aerospace-
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding worker eligibility to apply for trade 
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The 
denial notice was signed on June 13, 1997 and will be published in the 
Federal Register.
    Pursuant to CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the 
following circumstances:

[[Page 63198]]

    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) if it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The request for reconsideration claims that the workers are facing 
a plant closing and job loss as the result of Hayes Wheels 
International, Inc. moving work and awarding new work to their Europe, 
Mexico, Venezuela plants.
    In order for the Department to issue a worker group certification, 
all of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade 
Act must be met. Review of the investigation findings show that 
criterion (3) was not met.
    Sales and production at the subject firm increased from 1995 to 
1996 and from January through September 1997 over the corresponding 
1996 period. The company is in the process of shifting work performed 
at the subject firm to two other domestic corporate facilities. The 
decision to close the facility down is attributed to corporate excess 
capacity and an outmoded manufacturing facility. The investigation 
further revealed that although the company imported wheels, the 
quantity was not significant and was not the contributing factor in the 
terminations at the subject firm.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 17th day of November 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-31059 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CARLOS S. BENITEZ,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Nos. 112-116 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of October, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF BENEFITS UNDER

 IRONWORKERS LOCAL UNION 16 PENSION FUND

 EIN/PN: 52-6148924 / 001

 Exhibit 7.07 (Checklist Item #38)

 Excerpts from Collective Bargaining Agreement

IW16-0275

IW16-0277
IW16-0278
IW16-0279
IW16-0280
IW16-0281
IW16-0282
IW16-0283
IW16-0284
IW16-0285
IW16-0286
IW16-0287
#### Pugh v. The Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railroad Company, *Appellant,*

Division Two,

December 7, 1893.

The doctrine announced in the case of *Moss v. Mailroad,*111 Mo. 18,. reaffirmed.

*Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court.*— Hon. Henry M„. Ramey, Judge.

Reversed.

*Spencer & Mosman*for appellant.

*James W. Boyd*and *Ben. Phillip*for respondent.

Burgess, J.

The plaintiff brought this suit to recover the statutory penalty of three times the amount of alleged overcharges paid by him to defendant for-hauling several hundred car loads of wood from different points to the city of St. Joseph.

The case is in every essential particular a parallel case to that of *Ross v. Railroad,*111 Mo. 18, and, for-the reasons expressed by this court in that case, the; judgment in this case is reversed.

All concur.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Computer Horizons Corp. (the "Company") for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Periodic Report"), I, Michael J. Shea, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the Periodic Report fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Date: May 14, 2003 |  | /s/ MICHAEL J. SHEA
Michael J. Shea
Chief Financial Officer
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
**
**Exhibit 31.3**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, EvertB. Schimmelpennink, certify that: 

 
 1.I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pfenex 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 suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 
Date: June 6, 2018 

 

/s/ Evert B. Schimmelpennink
Evert B. SchimmelpenninkChief Executive Officer, President and Secretary(*Principal Executive Officer*)**
<PAGE>  23


                                                                EXHIBIT 99.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Coachmen Industries,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I,
Claire C. Skinner, Chairman of the Board 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, based on my knowledge:

         (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 period(s) covered in the Report.


                          By:  /s/ CLAIRE C. SKINNER
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Claire C. Skinner
                               Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 13, 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

LAMONT ZAMICHIELI,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (HUNTINGDON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS),

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 3 MM 2024

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14 th day of May , 2024, the Application for Leave to File Original

Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and the “Motion for Leave

to Supplement” are DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of CompuDyne Corporation (the "Company")
on Form  10-Q  for  the  period  ended  September  30,  2006  accompanying  this
certification and filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Martin  Roenigk,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  to the  best of my  knowledge,  pursuant  to ss.  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, 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.


Date:  November 14, 2006

                                            /s/ Martin Roenigk
                                            ------------------
                                            Martin Roenigk
                                            Chief Executive Officer

                                       40
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Louis MITCHELL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 53752.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 7, 1973.

In re: Louis Mitchell, applying for writ of certiorari and writ of habeas corpus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<CIK>     0000741612
<NAME>    TNP ENTERPRISES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      921,388
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,258
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          43,634
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        24,950
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 995,230
<COMMON>                                       191,120
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            107,716
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 298,836
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,240
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           347,936
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  130,100
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 215,118
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  995,230
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      269,350
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             6,086
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     226,584
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     232,670
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         36,680
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 523
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  37,203
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        27,156
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,859
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         76
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    3,783
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         7,145
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       25,039
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          28,917
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        


</TABLE>
#### PAN AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc., Appellants, v. HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY and Reserve Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 75-1708.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 9, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1977.

Preddy, Haddad, Kutner, Hardy & Josephs, Miami, and Stephen G. Hertz, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Sam Daniels, Jack E. Thompson, Miami, for appellants.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. See *Insurance Co. of North America v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc.,*Fla., 348 So.2d 1149, filed on May 12, 1977.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

July 16, 2010

Marathon Legacy Securities GP, LLC

One Bryant Park

New York, NY 10036

RE: UST Notification

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of Marathon

Legacy Securities Public-Private Investment Partnership, L.P., dated as of November 25, 2009 (as the

same may be amended, modified or supplemented from time to time, the “Partnership Agreement”).

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Partnership Agreement.

UST hereby informs the General Partner that notwithstanding the proviso in the definition of

“Final Closing Date” in Article I of the Partnership Agreement, Section 3.3 of the Partnership Agreement

or that certain letter agreement between UST and the General Partner dated March 22, 2010 relating to a

UST Reallocation, UST will not consent to (i) an extension of the Final Closing Date or (ii) any

additional Subsequent Closings, following the date hereof. For the avoidance of doubt, as of the date

hereof, the Capital Commitment of UST is $474,550,000.00 and the maximum amount of UST debt that

may be drawn down in accordance with the Loan Agreement is $949,100,000.00.

* * * *
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.31



ADDENDUM TO JULY 21, 2017 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Addendum to the July 21, 2017 Employment Agreement is entered into by and between the athenahealth, Inc. (“Athena”) and John A. Kane. (“Employee”).
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises and covenants, Athena and Employee agree as follows:
The July 21, 2017 Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) between Athena and Employee shall remain in full force and effect, and shall continue to govern the employment relationship between the parties pursuant to its terms, except that the Agreement shall be modified as follows:
		
	1)
	Section 3(g) of the Agreement is amended by replacing Section 3(g) in its entirety with the following: 


Equity.  In connection with Employee’s service as Interim Chief Financial Officer, Athena will grant to Employee, as a director of Athena, a restricted stock unit (“RSU”) equity award on August 1, 2017 (the “Grant Date”), consisting of such number of whole RSUs closest in value to $400,000 on the Grant Date, as calculated using the closing market price of Athena’s common stock on the Grant Date (the “Interim CFO RSU Award”).  The Interim CFO RSU Award shall vest over a six-month period in equal installments on each one-month anniversary of the Grant Date; provided, however, that Employee must remain employed by and/or serve as a director of Athena in order for any such installment to vest.  Any vested shares of Athena’s common stock underlying the Interim CFO RSU Award shall be subject to a two-year holding period, the first date of which shall be the last date on which the Interim CFO RSU Award vests pursuant to the vesting schedule set forth herein.  The Interim CFO RSU Award is additionally subject to (i) the determination by the Board of Directors of any other conditions applicable to the Interim CFO RSU Award, and (ii) the terms and conditions in Athena’s equity incentive plan under which the Interim CFO RSU Award is made, as in effect from time to time, and the applicable grant agreement form, as in effect at the time of approval.  Regardless of any agreement to the contrary, any grant of a right to acquire shares of Athena stock will be solely an incentive to potential future performance from the date of vesting forward, and Employee will have no right to acquire such stock except as explicitly set forth in Athena’s applicable equity incentive plan and agreement. 
This Addendum is effective as of January 2, 2018.


  /s/ John A. Kane                          /s/ Dan Haley                
John A. Kane                            Dan Haley
for athenahealth, Inc.