alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Jordan, Ronald

To: Frank, Stephen

Cc: Jacklin, Mark J ; Thomas Finseth ; Flanders, Phillip ; Schroeder, Cuc ; Yan Zhuang

Subject: Effluent data for Keystone Generating Station

Date: Monday, May 05, 2014 2:06:43 PM

Steve,

Thank you for the very productive call on May 1 st

. That helped answer many of the questions we

had about the data you have provided for the FGD wastewater treatment system at Keystone

Generating Station. To follow up on that conversation and confirm some actions we discussed:

1. EPA requests NRG Energy to provide the available influent and effluent data for samples

analyzed using EPA Method 200.8, as mentioned in your February 21 email and discussed on

May 1 st

. We understand that such data includes results for arsenic, selenium and other trace

metals. In addition, please provide the laboratory reports for these data and confirm

whether the laboratory was using a collision cell or dynamic reaction cell as part of the

analysis (and if that was so, please confirm which type was used). We do not need you to

obtain “J-value” information from the laboratory for these samples.

2. Please provide the laboratory report associated with the 2/21/13 arsenic analysis using

Method 6020.

3. Please provide the laboratory report for the 4/10/12 analysis showing 1,390 ug/L arsenic in

the FGD influent.

4. Please review process/operational data for July 2012 and August 2013 to evaluate whether

there were any unusual process changes that may be linked to the arsenic results for

7/24/12 and 8/12/13.

5. Please review process/operational data (including TSS data) for October 2012 to evaluate

whether there were any unusual process changes that may be linked to the mercury results

for 10/24/12 and 10/30/12, such as issues with either the clarifier or the gravity filters.

EPA requests that you provide the requested information by May 16, 2014. If you anticipate that will

be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible.

Again, thank you for providing the data and your assistance in resolving our questions.

Regards,

Ron

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

Ron Jordan

EPA Office of Water

Engineering & Analysis Division (4303T)

(202) 566-1003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________

 )

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 13-1247

v. )

)

)

CERTEGY CHECK SERVICES, INC., a )

Delaware corporation, )

Defendant. )

)

__________________________________________)

MOTION TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiff, the United States of America, hereby requests that this Court enter the 

Consent Decree that accompanies this Motion. All parties have agreed to the terms of the 

Consent Decree, as evidenced by their signatures thereon. The government believes that 

the entry of this Consent Decree would most efficiently further the ends of justice in this 

case.

//

//

//

1

Case 1:13-cv-01247 Document 2 Filed 08/15/13 Page 1 of 3
DATED: August 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

STUART F. DELERY

Assistant Attorney General

Civil Division

United States Department of Justice

MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH 

FRIMPONG

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Civil Division

MICHAEL S. BLUME

Director

Consumer Protection Branch

By: s/ Ann F. Entwistle

ANN F. ENTWISTLE

Trial Attorney

Consumer Protection Branch

U.S. Department of Justice

PO Box 386

Washington, D.C. 20044

Phone: 202-305-3630

Ann.f.entwistle@usdoj.gov

2

Case 1:13-cv-01247 Document 2 Filed 08/15/13 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 13th day of August, 2013, the undersigned caused a 

true and correct copy of the above-entitled MOTION TO ENTER CONSENT DECREE 

to be served via FedEx upon the following:

D. Jean Veta

Covington & Burling

1201 Pennsylvania Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20004

s/ Ann F. Entwistle 

ANN F. ENTWISTLE

TRIAL ATTORNEY

3

Case 1:13-cv-01247 Document 2 Filed 08/15/13 Page 3 of 3
#### Robert SCHAFFER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-682.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 17, 1973.

*94Paige & Catlin and James D. Acosta, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ. '

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is by the defendant below from conviction in a single trial of conspiracy to commit a felony, to-wit: burglary, breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit grand larceny, and robbery.

The appellant presents two points on appeal. The first is a contention the trial court committed reversible error by allowing, over objection, testimony of alleged co-conspirators with reference to a drawing which had been prepared by one of them showing the floor plan of the premises to be robbed and indicating places therein of certain items. Second, the appellant contends the court erred in denying his motion for new trial predicated on the ground just mentioned.

In addition to other evidence submitted to establish the alleged conspiracy, one of the persons involved in the conspiracy who was presented as a witness for the state, testified that such a diagram had been made on a legal size sheet of paper, and testified to its contents to the extent of a general statement that it showed a floor plan of the residence and indicated location of items therein which were to be taken. It was further testified that the diagram no longer was available because it, and some copies which were made had been discarded after the transaction. The appellant argues that where the diagram was not produced, the allowance of such testimony relating to it was error in that it was a violation of the best evidence rule.

The state has presented sound arguments against that contention. First, the state submits that the admission of secondary evidence relating to the diagram was authorized by reason of the unavailability of the original, and that the reason for its unavailability, under the circumstances, was not such as to preclude the use of the secondary evidence. Second, the state cites Hancock v. State, 90 Fla. 178, 105 So. 401, holding that where the document or its contents are merely collateral, parol testimony referring thereto is not necessarily incompetent. Here, the contents of the diagram were not in issue or material, and the fact of the existence of such a diagram was only cumulative evidence of the conspiracy.

No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

December 10, 2001

George S. Cary, Esquire

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton
2000 Peansylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006

Re: Lafarge S.A,, et al.
Docket No. C-4014

Dear Mr. Cary:

This letter responds to the October 11, 2001, Petition of Lafarge S.A. for Approval of
Proposed Divestiture, that you filed on behalf of the respondents in the above-referenced matter
seeking prior approval by the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) of the divestiture of
Blue Circle’s Lime Assets (“Lime Assets”) to Peak Investments, L.L.C., as required by the order
in Docket No. C-4014 (“Order”). The Order requires the respondents to divest the Lime Assets
with the Commission’s prior approval,

The Commission has determined to approve the respondents’ proposed divestiture.
In according its approval to the divestiture, the Commission has relied upon the information
submitted and representations made in connection with the respondents’ application for prior
Commission approval of the proposed divestiture, and has assumed them to be accurate and
complete,

The Commission has also determined to appoint William M. Troutman to serve as the
Independent Auditor for the Lime Assets pursuant to Paragraph VL of the Order,

By direction of the Commission.

ns €

wi rhe
Benjamiyg I. Berman
Acting Secretary

ce: William M, Troutman
411 East MacEwen Drive
Osprey, FE 34229
*

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 22, 2011

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

In re: KENT EDWIN FICKEN;

ROBERTA PAULINE FICKEN,

Debtors.

___________________________

No. 10-1276

KENT EDWIN FICKEN; ROBERTA

PAULINE FICKEN,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

 v.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

(BAP No. 09-042-CO)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

The dispositive legal issue in this appeal has been resolved by this court’s

opinion in United States v. Dawes, No. 09-3129, 2011 WL 2450930 (10th Cir.
-2-

June 21, 2011). We REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND

for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Harris L Hartz

Circuit Judge
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4748]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Request For Public Comment

    Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, 
Washington, DC 20549.
    Reapproval:

Rule 24b-2
SEC File No. 270-153
OMB Control No. 3235-0127

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is publishing the following summary of 
collection for public comment.
    Rule 24b-2 (17 CFR 240.25b-2) provides a procedure, whereby persons 
filing documents with the Commission may request confidential treatment 
of information contained in such documents, and may request Commission 
review of adverse staff determinations regarding the confidential 
treatment request.
    Approximately 630 requests for confidential treatment are made per 
year. Applications pursuant to the rule are generally prepared in 
conjunction with the document for which confidential treatment is being 
requested. Based upon our review of the applications we have received, 
we believe that not more than 30 minutes of the time spent in preparing 
the entire filing may be attributed to the application required under 
Rule 24b-2. Thus, the total compliance burden is 315 hours. The 
approximate cost per hour is $100, resulting in a total cost of 
compliance for respondents of $31,500 per year (315 hours @$100).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in 
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Direct your written comments to Michael E. Bartell, Associate 
Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: February 19, 1997.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4748 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4440]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission to OMB for Review; Comment Request

February 11, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1237
    Regulation Project Number: CO-24-96 (formerly CO-78-90) NPRM and 
TEMP
    Type of Review: Extension
    Title: Consolidated Returns--Limitations on the Use of Certain 
Losses and Deductions
    Description: Section 1502 provides for the promulgation of 
regulations with respect to corporations that file consolidated income 
tax returns. These regulations amend the current regulations regarding 
the use of certain losses and deductions by such corporations.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,000
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 10 minutes
    Frequency of Response: Annually
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 1,000 hours
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-4440 Filed 2-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Danny MOLINA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-288.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 16, 1977.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Douglas A. Wallace, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

The sentence of the court, while indicating appellant was to receive credit for time served in jail, does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1) Florida Statutes (1975). *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).

The record also indicates appellant was sentenced to prison “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing statute provides for imprisonment at hard labor as a sentence for any crime. *McDonald v. State,*321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

Remanded for correction of the sentence to reflect the precise period of credit time to which the appellant is entitled, and to strike the phrase “at hard labor” from the sentence; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and HOBSON and OTT, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
	

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
	

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
	

07 03 2012 

In the Matter of ) 

) PUBLIC 

MCWANE, INC., ) 

a corporation, and ) DOCKET NO. 9351 

) 

STAR PIPE PRODUCTS, LTD., ) 

a limited partnership. ) 

NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT 

McWane respectfully requests oral argument on the pending motions for summary 

disposition. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Joseph A. Ostoyich 

Joseph A. Ostoyich 

William C. Lavery 

Baker Botts LLP 

The Warner 

1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004-2400 

Tel: (202) 639-7905 

Fax: (202) 639-1163 

Email: joseph.ostoyich@bakerbotts.com 

Counsel for Respondent McWane, Inc 

DC01:657785.1 1 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on July 3, 2012, I filed the foregoing document electronically in 

PDF format using the FTC’s E-Filing System, which will send notification of such filing to: 

Donald S. Clark 

Secretary of Commission 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H113 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

I also certify that I delivered via overnight mail a copy of the foregoing document to: 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-106 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

I further certify that I served via electronic mail a copy of the foregoing document to: 

Edward Hassi 

Linda M. Holleran 

Michael J. Bloom 

Geoffrey M. Green 

J. Alexander Ansaldo 

Jeanine K. Balbach 

Michael L. Bloom 

Thomas H. Brock 

Monica Castillo 

Andrew K. Mann 

/s/ Joseph A. Ostoyich 

Joseph A. Ostoyich 

DC01:657785.1
EXHIBIT 15INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT

Board
of Directors and Shareholders
Cubic Corporation

We
have reviewed the accompanying consolidated condensed balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of June 30, 2002, and the related consolidated condensed statements of income and
cash flows for the three-and nine-month periods ended June 30, 2002 and 2001. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We
conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information consists
principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit in
accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, which will be performed for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion regarding the financial statements
taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based
on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying consolidated condensed financial statements referred to above for them to be
in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

We
have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States, the consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation as of September 30,
2001 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein) and in our report dated November 20, 2001,
we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated condensed balance sheet at
September 30, 2001, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.



San
Diego, California
July 24, 2002

---

QuickLinks
No. 11348.

#### The State, ex rel. Votava, *v.*Brown.

Decided June 26, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. Harry F.*Payer, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Blandin, Rice &*Ginn, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed on grounds stated in the opinion of circuit court.

Crew, Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income Fund IX, Ltd.  (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission of the Partnership's  Annual Report
on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2003 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 Partnership.



Date:  March 23, 2004

                               /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
                               --------------------------------------------
                               Name:  James M. Seneff, Jr.
                               Title  Chief Executive Officer


                               A  signed  original  of  this  written  statement
                               required by Section 906 has been  provided to CNL
                               Income Fund IX, Ltd.  and will be retained by CNL
                               Income  Fund  IX,  Ltd.  and   furnished  to  the
                               Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff
                               upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4747]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[OR-050-1150-04: GP7-0104]


Prineville District; Closure of Public Lands; Oregon

February 12, 1997.
agency: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

action: Notice is hereby given that, effective immediately, the area 
legally described below is closed to use of all motorized vehicles 
(including but not limited to off-road vehicles and snowmobiles) 
yearlong. Also, the area legally described below is closed to use of 
all motorized equipment (including but not limited to chainsaws) from 
March 1 to August 31 annually.

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

Legal Description

    This closure applies to the area located in Township 21 South, 
Range 10 East, Section 6, South half of the Southwest quarter; Section 
6, Southeast quarter; Section 6, Southwest quarter of the Northeast 
quarter; and Section 7, North half of the Northwest quarter.
    The area described above is closed to all motorized vehicle use 
yearlong. The area described above is closed seasonally to use of all 
motorized equipment from March 1 to August 31. The purpose of this 
closure is to protect wildlife resources. More specifically, this 
closure is ordered to reduce disturbance and habitat destruction to 
nesting pairs of great gray owl and northern goshawk within the nest 
stand. Great gray owl and northern goshawk (Bureau sensitive species) 
are extremely sensitive to disturbance within the nest stand during the 
time period described above. Suitable nesting habitat for these species 
is currently very limited within the La Pine management area. Current 
uses at the site jeopardize the persistence and nesting success of 
these species in this area. Exemptions to this closure order may be 
made on a case-by-case basis as approved by the authorized officer. 
This emergency order will be evaluated in the Urban Interface Plan 
Amendment to the 1989 Brothers/La Pine Resource Management Plan. The 
authority for this closure is 43 CFR 8364.1: Closure and restriction 
orders.

for further information contact: Sarah Nichols, Wildlife Biologist, BLM 
Prineville District, P.O. Box 550, Prineville Oregon 97754, telephone 
(541) 416-6725.

supplementary information: Violation of this closure order is 
punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not to 
exceed 12 months as provided in 43 CFR 8360.0-7.

    Dated: February 12, 1997.
James G. Kenna,
Deschutes Resource Area Manager, Prineville District Office.
[FR Doc. 97-4747 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M