alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 3-29-11 Meeting with PMI Ash and EPA on the 2011 NHSM Final Rule

FROM: Tab Tesnau

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 

On March 29, 2011, EPA met with PMI Ash members to discuss their issues and concerns with 

the final rule entitled, “Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid 

Waste,” which was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456). This is 

referred to as the 2011 NHSM Final Rule. 

During that meeting, members from the PMI Ash expressed concerns with how carbon burnout 

units would be regulated in light of the 2011 NHSM Final Rule. EPA asked clarifying questions 

regarding the information presented.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION

I, Jonathan P. Rosen, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The First Republic
Corporation of America;

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;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over
financial reporting.

Date: May 25, 2004                   /s/ Jonathan P. Rosen
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     Jonathan P. Rosen
                                     Chief Executive Officer
#### Morris LIEBMAN, Appellant, v. Ronald S. ROBERTS, Appellee.

No. 69-1020.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 21, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 28, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                           861,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 15,281,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,273,000
<INVENTORY>                                   11,665,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              31,987,000
<PP&E>                                        41,101,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                29,666,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                46,263,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         13,759,000
<BONDS>                                                0
<COMMON>                                          44,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                    15,750,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  46,263,000
<SALES>                                       21,455,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              21,561,000
<CGS>                                         14,409,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 23,622,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,213,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 444,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               414,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,061,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (826,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (1,235,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (1,235,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (1.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (1.41)
        


</TABLE>
#### Rene CHAPOTEL v. BAILEY LINCOLN/MERCURY, INC., et al.

No. 61837.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 31, 1978.

In re: Rene Chapotel, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 355 So.2d 615.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [USITC SE-18-027]

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

 United States International Trade Commission.

# Time and Date:

 June 20, 2018 at 11:00 a.m.

# Place:

 Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

# Status:

 Open to the public.

# Matters to be Considered:

1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1374-1376 (Final) (Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts from Belgium, Colombia, and Thailand). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by July 6, 2018.

5. Vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-921 (Third Review) (Folding Gift Boxes from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission by July 2, 2018.

6. Outstanding action jackets: None.

In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: June 11, 2018.

William Bishop,

Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2018-12859 Filed 6-12-18; 11:15 am]

 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### Emory HARVEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2147.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 26, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John C. Moppert, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and HEN-DRY and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Bell v. State,*354 So.2d 1266 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); *White v. State,*324 So.2d 115 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
**WINTHROP      REALTY TRUST **

**FORM      10-Q JUNE 30, 2008**

|  | (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/Thomas                C. Staples    |
|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Name:                          | Thomas                C. Staples       |
|                           | Chief                Financial Officer |
|                           |                                   |
| August                11, 2008 |

----
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.01


                            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 Benihana Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 26, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joel A. Schwartz,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ Joel A. Schwartz
-----------------------------------------
Joel A. Schwartz
President and
Chief Executive Officer

July 24, 2006
**Exhibit18**

May 30, 2007

THQ Inc.

29903 Agoura Road

Agoura Hills, CA 91301

Dear Sirs:

We have audited thefinancial statements of THQ Inc. as of March 31, 2007 and 2006, and for each ofthe three years in the period ended March 31, 2007, included in your AnnualReport on Form 10-K to the Securities and Exchange Commission and haveissued our report thereon dated May 30, 2007, which expresses anunqualified opinion.  Note 1 to suchfinancial statements contains a description of your adoption during the yearended March 31, 2007 of a change in the date of the annual impairmenttest of goodwill from June 30th tothe first day of the fourth fiscal quarter. In our judgment, such change is to an alternative accounting principlethat is preferable under the circumstances.

Yours truly,

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

----
SNODGRASS

Certified Public
Accountants and Consultants

EXHIBIT 99.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors

First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying
consolidated balance sheet of First West Virginia Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary as of June 30, 2008, and the related consolidated statements of income for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2008 and 2007, and the
consolidated statement of changes in stockholders equity and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2008 and 2007. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the
Companys management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). 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 conducted in
accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

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

We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented herein); and in our report dated February 26, 2008 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.



|                         
|-------------------------
|/s/ S. R. Snodgrass, A.C.
|Wheeling, West Virginia  
|August 12, 2008          

S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

980 National Road Wheeling, WV 26003-6400 Phone: 304-233-5030 Facsimile: 304-233-3062
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7428
ROBERT EDWARD PATTERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00344-jlk) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 26, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Edward Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Edward Patterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Patterson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Patterson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. 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.

DISMISSED
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0592 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-253-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update 

accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain 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* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*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 NO 

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 NO 

Explanation:
To:

Cc:

Bcc:

Subject: Fw: PM Air Quality Data Request Follow-Up (Rich, K. E., J. Petkau, S. Vedal, M. Brauer 

(2004) Inhal Toxicol 16: 363-72

From: Michael Brauer <brauer@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: Rebecca Yang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Lindsay Stanek/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sverre Vedal <svedal@u.washington.edu>, 

john@stat.ubc.ca

Date: 12/08/2009 08:02 PM

Subject: Re: PM Air Quality Data Request Follow-Up

PM2.5 PM10

Mean 8.2 13.3

SD 10.7 4.9

N 265.0 322.0

Max 140.3 27.7

99 29.7 26.1

98 21.3 24.9

97 20.0 23.7

96 19.1 23.2

95 16.3 22.7
Dear Dr. Brauer,

My name is Rebecca Yang and I am writing to you on behalf of Dr. Lindsay Stanek and Ms. Beth 

Hassett-Sipple of the EPA. On October 20, 2009, an email was sent you requesting descriptive statistics 

on the air quality distribution data for PM2.5 and/or PM10-2.5 for your study listed below. 

Because the PM Integrated Science Assessment will be finalized in mid -December, we are hoping to 

receive all the necessary data by Monday, December 7th. In order to clarify our request or answer any 

questions you may have, I would like to speak with you on Friday, December 4th. The statistics of most 

interest for the 24-hour concentrations of PM2.5 and/or PM10-2.5 are the following: 

- 95th percentile

- 96th percentile

- 97th percentile

- 98th percentile

- 99th percentile

- maximum concentration value 

If your study contains thoracic coarse PM data, then the PM10 data for the same statistics as above are 

also requested. If the above data is unavailable, the statistic of most interest is the 98th percentile for the 

PM2.5 size fraction. 

In respect for your time, if there is another researcher/co-author who may be able to handle this air quality 

data request (i.e., has easier access to the data), I would greatly appreciate his/her name and contact 

information. 

Thank you so much for your help! I apologize for the inconvenience but the data you provide is critical for 

inclusion in the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment and Policy Assessment Document for Particulate 

Matter. Unless I hear from you otherwise, I look forward to speaking with you on Friday, December 4th. 

Thank you for your time! 

Sincerely,

Rebecca Yang 

Student Services Contractor

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP

PH: (919) 541-2655
Rich, K. E., J. Petkau, S. Vedal, M. Brauer (2004). "A case-crossover analysis of particulate air pollution and 

cardiac arrhythmia in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators." Inhal Toxicol 16(6-7): 363-72.
---

**EXHIBIT 99.15**

CONSENT OF AUTHOR





Peter Cain, PhD., P.Eng. Associated Geoscience Suite
415, 708 11thAvenue SW Calgary AB T2R0E4

US Securities and Exchange Commission



I, Peter Cain, PhD., P.Eng., certify that I have read the
written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that
there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical
Report or that the written disclosure in the Form 40F of Great Basin Gold Ltd.
contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in Technical Report
on theFeasibility Study for the Hollister Development Block Gold
Project, Elko County, Nevada dated September 9, 2007.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory
authorities.

Dated this 27thday of March 2008.



|signed and
      sealed 
|------------------------
|Peter Cain, PhD., P.Eng.

---