alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
P.1 

OAR Box 1787 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

57) ll-C-15 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/2008 10:22:19 AM Sheet 57 of 147 
P.2 

'*,_ 

rr-c-15 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION II 

JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING 

NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278-0012 

JUL 191993 

iEEv '"' Z'r " \ 

- i' •' / !,-'L ) 

I 

T

IOO' I 

—JL^ 

Mr. Norman Boyce, P.E. 

Regional Air Pollution Control Engineer 

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

Region 7 

615 Erie Blvd. W. 

Syracuse, NY 13204-2400 

Re: New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) Jennison Station 

Use of Tire-Derived Fuel (TDF) 

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)/Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Applicability Review 

Dear Mr. Boyce: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region II, has 

reviewed your letter, dated May 18, 1993, requesting EPA 

concurrence with the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) determination that the use of TDF at 

NYSEG's Jennison Station does not constitute a modification under 

either NSPS or PSD regulations. After discussions with 

Headquarters staff at the .Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, EPA has determined that NYSDEC's non-applicability 

determination for both PSD and NSPS is correct for the reasons 

stated below. 

Your letter stated that this project should not be reviewed as a 

major modification since it was NYSDECs belief that the project 

qualified for an exemption under PSD regulations at 4 0 CFR Part 

52.21(b)(2)(iii)(d) and (e) . Paragraph .(d), which refers to an 

exemption for the use of an alternative fuel that is generated 

from municipal solid waste (MSW), is not applicable to the 

proposed project. While NSPS regulations include tires under the 

definition of MSW at 40 CFR Part 60.51a, EPA guidance does not 

support extending this definition to new source review programs 

(see enclosed guidance memo for more information). However, EPA 

believes that paragraph (e), which refers to an exemption for 

switching to an alternative fuel that the source was capable of 

accommodating before January 6, 1975, is indeed applicable to the 

Jennison Station. Since there are no federally enforceable 

permit conditions restricting the operation of this source, the 

use of TDF meets the requirements of this exemption. 

MINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
P.3 

Further, EPA concurs that the similar exclusion under NSPS at 40 

CFR 60.14(e)(4) also applies to this project. 

It is my understanding that this determination has been already 

communicated to your staff. I hope the enclosed guidance memo is 

of assistance in future determinations regarding TDF. If you 

have any questions, please contact Maria Stanco of my staff at 

(212) 264-4726. 

Sin ly yours, 

Cenneth Eng7~Clrlef 

Air Compliance Branch 

Air and Waste Management Division 

Enclosure 

cc: Arthur Fossa, NYSDEC Albany (w/enclosure) 

Reggie Parker, NYSDEC Region 7 (w/enclosure)
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72777-72778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29806]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 212, 227, 246, and 252

RIN 0750-AG62

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Patents, Data, 
and Copyrights (DFARS Case 2010-D001)

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for comments; extension of comment 
period.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update text on patents, data, and 
copyrights. The comment period is being extended an additional 30 days 
to provide additional time for interested parties to review the 
proposed DFARS changes.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted to the address 
shown below on or before December 27, 2010, to be considered in the 
formulation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2010-D001, 
using any of the following methods:
    [cir] Regulations.govhttp://www.regulations.gov.
    Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting 
``DFARS Case 2010-D001'' under the heading ``Enter keyword or ID'' and 
selecting ``Search.'' Select the link ``Submit a Comment'' that 
corresponds with ``DFARS Case 2010-D001.'' Follow the instructions 
provided at the ``Submit

[[Page 72778]]

a Comment'' screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), 
and ``DFARS Case 2010-D001'' on your attached document.
    [cir] E-mail: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2010-D001 in the 
subject line of the message.
    [cir] Fax: 703-602-0350.
    [cir] Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Ms. Amy 
Williams, OUSD (AT&L) DPAP (DARS), Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, 
Washington, DC 20301-3060.
    Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To 
confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to 
verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted 
by mail).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, 703-602-0328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on September 
27, 2010 (75 FR 59412), with a request for comments by November 26, 
2010. DoD is extending the comment period for 30 additional days to 
provide an additional time for interested parties to review the 
proposed DFARS changes.

Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2010-29806 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P
```
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 annual report of Attune
RTD (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Shawn Davis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|1. | The annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|/s/
    Shawn Davis                                                               | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Shawn Davis
        Chief Executive Officer
        (Principal Executive Officer)



Dated: November 15, 2012
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 25, 2013

s0617

Order 

Clerk

June 25, 2013

146226

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146226

COA: 308348

Genesee CC: 07-021560-FC

DELANDRICK SHERARD CLARK, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 4, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             185
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,110
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,762
<PP&E>                                           5,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,248
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        187
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,775
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,775
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,315
<CGS>                                            4,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    702
<INCOME-TAX>                                       260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       424
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Fundo de Assistência ao Aluguel da Cidade de Boston

Autocertificação de renda atual (últimos 60 dia

Preencha este formulário se, nos dois meses anteriores, você tiver recebido renda de trabalho que não

pode ser comprovada com documentação, como recibos de pagamento (ex.: profissional autônom

salários pagos em dinheiro, renda de um negócio encerrado, etc.).

Selecione a opção a seguir que melhor descreve a sua situação:

❏ Profissional autôno

❏ Renda em dinheiro

❏ Salários de uma empresa encerrada

❏ Sem rendimentos (incluindo as seguintes fontes: lucros, horas extras, emprego a tempo parcial,

Remuneração da Administração de Veteranos (VA), rendimento bruto de aluguel ou arrendamento,

benefícios em dinheiro, benefícios de seguridade social)

Se você for um profissional autônomo ou tiver recebido renda em dinheiro ou salários de uma empre

encerrada, declare os valores totais abaixo:

Mês Valor Fonte/Empregador

1.

2.

3.

4.

Estou ciente de que estou informando a minha renda anterior e atual para o Fundo de Auxílio ao Aluguel da

Cidade de Boston com o objetivo de estabelecer minha elegibilidade e a determinação do valor da assistência

necessária. Declaro, sob pena de perjúrio, que as representações anteriores da renda de minha família são

verdadeiras, corretas, precisas e completas em todos os aspectos.

Nome ____________________________________ Data _______________________________________

Assinatura Eletrônica ________________________ Endereço __________________________________
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32252]


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

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Notice of Cancellation of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission which was to have 
convened at 12:00 p.m. and adjourned at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 
December 17, 1997, the Library of Virginia, 800 East Broad Street, 
Richmond, Virginia, has been canceled. The original notice for the 
meeting was announced in the Federal Register on December 2, 1997, FR 
Doc. 97-31476, 62 FR 63696, No. 231.
    Persons desiring additional information should contact Ki-Taek 
Chun, Director of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-
376-8116).

    Dated at Washington, DC, December 4, 1997.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 97-32252 Filed 12-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1000
       
<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   441
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           9248
<ALLOWANCES>                                             506
<INVENTORY>                                            12098
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       22535
<PP&E>                                                 51349
<DEPRECIATION>                                          9727
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         67430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  21646
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                  76
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                           (11555)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           67430
<SALES>                                                28370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       28370
<CGS>                                                  24250
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          26104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         231  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          27
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      1859
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          149
<INCOME-TAX>                                              43
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      149
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                             106
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .02
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.2





**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 CIB Marine Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edwin
      J. Depenbrok, as 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 my knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.




Date:
              April 1, 2008
            By:
            /s/
              Edwin J. DepenbrokEdwin
              J. DepenbrokChief
              Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32135]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-72-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

December 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 1, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets 
proposed to become effective on January 1, 1998:

39 Revised Sheet No. 50
39 Revised Sheet No. 51
37 Revised Sheet No. 53

    Northern states that this filing establishes the 1997-1998, System 
Balancing Agreement (SBA) cost recovery surcharge to be effective 
January 1, 1998.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing 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 Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such petitions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. All 
protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make Protestant a party to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32135 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Gordon WILKINSON v. Charles VICCINELLI et al.

No. 11945.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 1, 1978.

William H. Cooper, Jr., Baton Rouge, of counsel for plaintiff-appellant Gordon Wilkinson.

Arthur H. Andrews, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellee Charles Vic-cinelli.

Daniel R. Atkinson, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellee Stanley A. Ponson.

L. Michael Cooper, Baton Rouge, of counsel for defendant-appellee Saia Elec. Co., Inc.

Before BLANCHE, COVINGTON and CHIASSON, JJ.

BLANCHE, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant, Gordon Wilkinson, is appealing the granting of a motion for summary judgment by the trial court which dismissed his suit based on the “officer-executive” tort theory, against defendants-ap-pellees, Charles Viceinelli, Lawrence Roppo-lo and Bituminous Casualty Company.

Neither written nor oral reasons were given by the trial judge, but the judgment has the obvious effect of holding that Act 147 of 1976, which precludes “officer-executive” suits, was retrospective in effect. The Act was approved by the Governor on July 16, 1976, and published in the Official Journal of the state on July 30, 1976, becoming effective October 1, 1976.

Plaintiff alleges in his petition that he suffered an injury on June 16, 1975, and claims that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the supervisory personnel of his employer. He names these supervisors along with their insurer as defendants.

It is a general rule that all legislative acts are prospective in effect, absent an explicit expression in the act that it is (1) retroactive, (2) remedial in purpose or (3) involves procedural matters. None of these are applicable to Act 147 of 1976.

The identical issue was raised in *Green v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,*352 So.2d 366 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1977); writs denied, 354 So.2d 210 (La.1978). Our brethren of the Fourth Circuit found that Act 147 of 1976 was not retrospective in effect for reasons with which we concur.

Accordingly, we reverse and set aside the judgment of the trial court and render judgment herein in favor of plaintiff, denying the motion for summary judgment. This case is remanded to the trial court for trial on the merits. The costs of this appeal are to be paid by defendants-appellees.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Mailing: The News Journal PO Box 15505 Wilmington, DE 19850 Street 111e News Joumal 950 W. Basin Road New Castle, DE 19720 (302l324-2500 

# TheNewsJournal Sunday News Journal l11e News Journal



# AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF DELAWARE COUNTY OF NEW CASTLE Personally appeared before me this 24th day ofAugust, 2009: I, Kristin Segner, ofthe NEWS JOURNAL COMPANY, a dailynewspaperprinted and published in the County of New Castle County, State ofDelaware, who, being duly sworn states that the advertisement of 

### SID DNREC Air OualityManagement Section

- Legal Notice-Notice ofPublic Hearing was published in THE NEWS JOURNAL on and/or THE SUNDAY NEWS JOURNAL on N/A August 23, 2009 Legal Coordinator

# QM~. ame Title Sworn to before me this 24th day ofAugust, 2009
Notary Public 

### Wanda James Notary Public State of Delaware Commission expires 11102/2012
256 La. 905

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ronald J. VEILLON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50923.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1970.

In re: Ronald J. Veillon applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writs refused. The rule of law announced in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) is not retroactive. The showing in the application is insufficient to show that the guilty plea was involuntary.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7771

In Re: JOHN WEST,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis. (CR-93-89)

Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John West, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John West petitions this court for a writ of error coram

nobis, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (1994), seeking to invalidate his Virginia conviction for grand larceny. To the extent that West seeks

review of the Virginia Supreme Court’s denial of his state petition

for a writ of mandamus, we do not possess jurisdiction to review

that court’s decision. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-1296 (1994). Furthermore, this court lacks jurisdiction under § 1651(a) to alter the

judgment of the Virginia Supreme Court. Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679

F.2d 513, 514-15 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, we deny West’s petition and West’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis. 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.

PETITION DENIED