alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03373**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 03373\03373_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03373\03373_Completeness_Checklist.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up x 03373\03373_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03373\03373_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03373\03373_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03373\03373_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03373\03373_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03373\Supporting Documents\Midwest Generation ICR Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03373\Supporting Documents\MWG-Waukegan - Aerial Plan - 100410.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03373\Supporting Documents\MWG-Waukegan-Block Diagram#1-101210.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03373\Supporting Documents\MWG-Waukegan-Water Balance-101210.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
op SS Bet Ae
. (SCHEDULE 1—Free Inhabitanta in|

lof. Mad enumerated by

|
: (Post Ofteo ede) |
j gee | 1 [e Daleirne ; r
A i : “ : “Tea! | ae | . aegis

(NRE

1 | 9

:

cone

Play

KABA NBD Tel

Dy

R]>

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit pttp://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.
BO\m VV. ji At Magdebrg i
= It ‘ 1 i

f Loe Agee
p130209.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0209

Focus Ready Draft 1/31/2013

ENGINEER: Choudhary \ EV

PV (kg/yr): 

 

 

 

Page 1
p130209.eng

 

SAT (concerns) (01/18/2013):

Migration to groundwater: Slow

PBT rating: P2B1T1

Health: 2 Dermal, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 3 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1D

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the aquatic

environment. To this end, the company's toll

Page 2
p130209.eng

 

 

 

Page 3
p130209.eng

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0209

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 4
p130209.eng

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0209

Page 5
p130209.eng

 

 

Page 6
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 1, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-60267

Summary Calendar

 

CHRISTIAN UCHENNA OKPOKO, 

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(A29 971 289)

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

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Christian Uchenna Okpoko has filed a petition for

review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

affirming the denial of Okpoko’s motion to reopen his deportation

proceeding. Okpoko was ordered deported, in absentia, after he

failed to appear for his deportation hearing. We review for abuse

of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. See Lara v.

Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000).
2

Okpoko does not take issue with the BIA’s factual

determination that the immigration court sent notice of his

deportation hearing, via certified mail, to his addresses of

record. Instead, he argues that the BIA’s failure to consider 8

C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(4)(ii)(A)(2) was an abuse of its discretion. He

contends that, under this regulation, an in absentia order of

deportation may be rescinded if the alien did not receive notice of

the deportation hearing.

We “accord deference to the BIA’s interpretation of the

immigration statute unless there are compelling indications that

its interpretation is incorrect.” Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188

(5th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In In re: Grijalva, 21 I & N

Dec. 27, 1995 WL 314388 (BIA 1995), the BIA determined that proof

of actual service or receipt of the notice is not required to

effect service of a deportation proceeding under the immigration

statute. 

Okpoko has failed to demonstrate that the BIA’s statutory

interpretation in Grijalva is not entitled to deference. As Okpoko

thus has failed to show that the BIA abused its discretion in

denying his motion to reopen, his petition for review must be

denied.

PETITION 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 **

|   | (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/                Dale Vincent                                                                        |   |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer (principal executive and financial officer) |
|   |   | November                14, 2006                                                                       |   |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1348 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.1348

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen

                                 An Act

 
               To reauthorize the Congressional Award Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Award Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2013''.
SEC. 2. TERMINATION.
    Section 108 of the Congressional Award Act (2 U.S.C. 808) is 
amended by striking ``October 1, 2013'' and inserting ``October 1, 
2018''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
    This Act shall take effect as of October 1, 2013.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
eae

- wang
s/, ;
a |
—— ie
7
~— : +
; “

- < -
‘ . t 2
. ied » $ e word
RAT MATS: pa ks Ly
~ 5
Lf ae on .
ue ‘ .
<2 ’ YAS FU

twa

icly

PAS ALO® = \ ix

Gi 3 Sat, eee af Fe. | ¥,
BRAK oF YMA
eee 2, ., t , : , . t 3 f % ‘

¥
,

d and released by

ine

information about publ

ta
available records like the one shown here.

in

not the U.S. Census Bureau.

rchives.gov for more

isit http://www.a fe |

=
‘e)
—
4)
cc
a)
aL
=
=
1°)
<
A)
re)
io
Oo
O
®
oY
xe)
c
14)
/)
co)
2
A om
O
—
<
©
C
\e)
—
4)
za
®
A oe
a

Historic census records are ma

V

vd

Be ge ERIS
yea S, Te Q 7
a i

" 4 , y #, te .
P| ot in ij os ‘ . oo

neem

|
-
,
ch
.

go iy wv VAR
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 546

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives relating to United

States Armed Forces in Haiti.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 23, 1994

Mr. DOOLITTLE (for himself, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming, Mr.

MCINNIS, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. COBLE,

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. SCHAEFER, Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mr.

MOORHEAD, Ms. DUNN, Mr. BALLENGER, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr.

KIM, Mr. SPENCE, Mr. MYERS of Indiana, Mr. STEARNS, Mr.

SANTORUM, Mr. PAXON, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. WALKER, Mr. BAKER of California, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. POMBO, Mr. HANSEN, Mr. CONDIT,

Mr. HASTERT, Mr. KASICH, Mr. ARMEY, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. CRANE, Mr.

EMERSON, Mr. DELAY, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr.

KINGSTON, and Mr. SAXTON) submitted the following resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives

relating to United States Armed Forces in Haiti.

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that all United States Armed Forces should

3 be withdrawn from Haiti not later than December 31,

4 1994.

Æ
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 05210

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

05210\05210_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 05210\05210_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05210\05210_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 05210\05210_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

05210\Certification Statement Plant ID 05210.pdf Plant certification statement

05210\Supplemental Documents\05210_Facility Diagram_A5_2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05210\Supplemental Documents\05210_Water Balance_A5_3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 05210\05210_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

05210\05210_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### Pettit *versus*Wingate.

An action upon a recognisance of bail for stay of execution may be referred to arbitrators under the compulsory rule.

Error to the Common Pleas of *Greene county.*

A *sci. fa.*on a recognisance of bail for stay of execution on a judgment to September Term, 1854, issued December *23,*1854. March 23, 1855, the plaintiff entered a rule to choose arbitrators, which was served on defendant’s attorney, who refused to appear. The plaintiff’s attorney and the prothonotary met and referred the case.

The only question considered by this Court was, whether a suit on a recognisance of bail could be arbitrated.

*Downey*and *Lazear,*for plaintiff in error,

cited the Act of 16th June, 1836, section 39, which excepts from arbitrations, *inter alia,*“ actions upon bail-bonds and recognisances.” The reason of the exception is, that sometimes special relief may be afforded, and in cases of securities, official bonds, or trust responsibilities, where relief could not be so well determined by arbitrators. It is because the writ is founded upon the recognisance that it cannot be arbitrated; and why depart from the plain language of the law ?

*Sayers,*for defendant in error. —

The exception in the 36th section of the Act of 16th June, was only intended to apply to bonds and recognisances taken for the personal appearance of a party in such criminal and civil cases wherein the Court can mitigate and give equitable relief: *10 Watts*443; 6 *Watts*324; 3 *Watts*176 ; 4 *Harris*251.

If the exception be construed to embrace this case, it would also embrace all contracts for bail, if the contract be by bond.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Lowrie, J. —

The decision below was that an action on a recog nisance of bail for stay of execution, may be referred to arbitrators under a compulsory rule; and we do not think that this is erroneous. True, the arbitration Act of 1836, in defining what actions may be thus referred, excepts “ actions upon bail-bonds or *75recognisances;” but the commissioners who reported the Act, say that they intended only to embody the principles already decided by the courts, and we have no doubt they were so understood. It is not allowed on bail-bonds and recognisances for the appearance of parties, because they must be subject to the usual equitable relief by the Court: 6 *Ser. & R.*542; 3 *Pa. Ref.*396 ; but it is allowed on a recognisance of bail in error : 3 *Watts*176; and on a forfeited insolvent bond: 6 *Watts*324; because they are subject to no such relief. A recognisance of bail for stay of execution falls within this last reason. The record raises no other question.

Judgment affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00046-CR

William Lee Ockletree, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 

NO. 71320, THE HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E

A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by 

a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he 

provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine 

the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied appellant with a form motion for 

pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with 

this Court.

Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial 

court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide 
written verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was 

provided, on or before December 29, 2014. See id. at 321.

It is ordered on December 16, 2014.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field.

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<MULTIPLIER>   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   335
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       165
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1389 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1389

 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
 feasibility of designating the Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument in Fort 
Greene Park, in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, as a unit of the 
                         National Park System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2013

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
 feasibility of designating the Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument in Fort 
Greene Park, in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, as a unit of the 
                         National Park System.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PRISON SHIP MARTYRS' MONUMENT STUDY; REPORT.

    (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Prison Ship 
Martyrs' Monument Preservation Act''.
    (b) Study.--
            (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
        complete a study to determine the suitability and feasibility 
        of designating the Prison Ship Martyrs' Monument in Fort Greene 
        Park, in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, as a unit of 
        the National Park System.
            (2) Applicability of other law.--Section 8(c) of Public Law 
        91-383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c); commonly known as the National Park 
        System General Authorities Act) shall apply to the study.
    (c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall transmit to 
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report 
containing the conclusions of the study required by subsection (b).
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Bennie H. Duck, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

4.               The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) forthe Company and based on such evaluation:

 

a)        Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and

 

b)       Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report(based on such evaluation); and

 

c)        Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)        Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)  Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: Dec 12, 2005 |
|--------------------|
|               |
|               | By: | /s/ BENNIE H. DUCK |   |
|               | Bennie H. Duck |
|               | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----