alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# MDE MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

1800 Washington

Boulevardo Baltimore MD 21230 410-537 -3000 o l-800-633-6101 Martin O'Malley Govemor AnthonyG. Brown Lieutenant

Governor Robert M. Summers,

Ph.D. Secretarv

December

6,2011
Mr. ShawnM. Garvin Regional

Administrator U.S. Environmental

Protection

Agency Region 3 1650 Arch Street

(3RA00) Philadelphia,

PA 19103-2029 DearMr. Garvin: The purpose

of this letter is to supplement he State

Implementation

Plan Revision#07-13 submitted to your office on October

24,2007 concerning

requirements

for the construction

of new major sources

and major modificationsunder Maryland's nonattainment New Source

Review program.

Maryland has existing regulatory

programs

for sources

that do not exceed

the major source

threshold. On December

21,2007, EPA promulgated the final NSR rule regarding recordkeeping

and reporting requirements

commonly referred

to asthe "reasonable

possibility" provisions(72 FR 72607). Because these requirements

werefinalized

after the submission

of SIPRevision

#07-13, the proposed

SIP revision

does not includethese

provisions.

Howevel, as noted in the preamble to the final rule, in lieu of adopting the new requirements

States may maintain alternate

SIP approved

program requirements

that havethe effect of making their.

regulations

more stringent

than the new rules. Maryland believes that the preconstruction permitting

requirements

of COMAR 26.1

1.02, which require

permits for all but the smallest

sources, exceed the requirements

of 40 CFR 51.165

(aX6)and (a)(6)(vi).

Please accept his letter

asacknowledgement

that Maryland's re

gulations

fulfi ll the

se requirements. We appreciate

the opportunity

to indicate

these requirements

have been

part of our permitting programfor many years. If you wish to discuss these issues further, please

do not hesitate

to contact

me at 410-537-3084 or George

(Tad) Abum, Director of the Air and Radiation Management

Administration,

at 410)-537-3255. Sincerely, 

# 4/ffi(L Robert M. Summers.

Ph.D. Secretary
cc: George

(Tad) Abum, Director, Air and Radiation Managembnt

Administration Diane Franks,Program Manager,

Air Quality Planning

Program Karen Irons, Program

Manager,

Air Quality PermitsProgram

TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 Via Maryland

Relay Service @ Recycledtaper www.mde.state.md.us
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1556 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify authorities relating to 

the collective bargaining of employees in the Veterans Health Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 

Mr. BROWN (for himself, Mr. BEGICH, and Mr. MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify authorities 

relating to the collective bargaining of employees in the 

Veterans Health Administration. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES ON COLLEC4 TIVE BARGAINING OF EMPLOYEES OF THE 

5 VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. 

6 Section 7422 of title 38, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d); and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 1556 IS

1 (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as sub2 section (c). 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 31.2

Section 302 Certification

I, Sean M. McCarthy, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Diedrich Coffee, Inc.;

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(s) 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 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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(s) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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 control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|Dated: January 28, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Sean M. McCarthy   
|                        |  |  |  | Sean M. McCarthy       
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT, AT HOUSTON

No. 14-14-00903-CV

Latricia Smith

v.

RRE Westhollow Holdings, LLC

(No. 1054024 IN COUNTY CIVIL COURT AT LAW NO 2 OF HARRIS COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING

$175.00

$20.00

11/10/2014

11/10/2014

NOT PAID

NOT PAID

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals Houston, Texas 

are $195.00.

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK OF THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF 

APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing 

is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the 

above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness 

my hand and the Seal of the COURT 

OF APPEALS for the Fourteenth District 

of Texas, April 24, 2015.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

**IN RE: APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER FOR THE CHESTER UPLAND SCHOOL**  **DISTRICT**

**PETITION OF: CHESTER COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL**  **No. 123 MM 2015**

**Emergency Application for Extraordinary Relief by Chester Community Charter**  **School**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 21 st**  **day of September, 2015, the Application for Leave t o File** 
**Reply in Further Support of Emergency Application for Extraordinary Relief is** 

GRANTED **, and the Emergency Application for Extraordinary Rel ief is**  DENIED

**. Furthermore, the Application of Amicus Curiae for Lea**  **ve of Court to File Memorandum**

**of Law in Support of Emergency Application for Extrao rdinary Relief is**  DENIED

**.**
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Proliance International, Inc.;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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a
  15(f) and 15d  15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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
functions):
 
  Date:  October 31, 2008
    /s/ Charles E. JohnsonCharles E. JohnsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer 38
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States:  1965 to 2006
          (in percent)
   Year     First    Second     Third     Fourth
           Quarter   Quarter   Quarter   Quarter

2006......      68.5
2005......      69.1      68.6      68.8      69.0
2004......      68.6      69.2      69.0      69.2
2003......      68.0      68.0      68.4      68.6
2002\r....      67.8      67.6      68.0      68.3
2002......      67.8      67.6      68.0      68.3
2001......      67.5      67.7      68.1      68.0
2000......      67.1      67.2      67.7      67.5

1999.....       66.7      66.6      67.0      66.9
1998.....       65.9      66.0      66.8      66.4
1997.....       65.4      65.7      66.0      65.7
1996.....       65.1      65.4      65.6      65.4
1995.....       64.2      64.7      65.0      65.1
1994.....       63.8      63.8      64.1      64.2
1993\r...       63.7      63.9      64.2      64.2
1993.....       64.2      64.4      64.7      64.6
1992.....       64.0      63.9      64.3      64.4
1991.....       63.9      63.9      64.2      64.2
1990.....       64.0      63.7      64.0      64.1
1989\r...       63.9      63.8      64.1      63.8

1989.....       63.9      63.9      64.0      63.8
1988.....       63.7      63.7      64.0      63.8
1987.....       63.8      63.8      64.2      64.1
1986.....       63.6      63.8      63.8      63.9
1985.....       64.1      64.1      63.9      63.5
1984.....       64.6      64.6      64.6      64.1
1983.....       64.7      64.7      64.8      64.4
1982.....       64.8      64.9      64.9      64.5
1981.....       65.6      65.3      65.6      65.2
1980.....       65.5      65.5      65.8      65.5
1979\r...       64.8      64.9      65.8      65.4

1979.....       65.3      65.1      66.0      65.8
1978.....       64.8      64.4      65.2      65.4
1977.....       64.8      64.5      65.0      64.9
1976.....       64.6      64.6      64.9      64.8
1975.....       64.4      64.9      64.6      64.5
1974.....       64.8      64.8      64.6      64.4
1973.....       64.9      64.4      64.4      64.4
1972.....       64.3      64.5      64.3      64.4
1971.....       64.0      64.1      64.4      64.5
1970.....       64.3      64.0      64.4      64.0
1969.....       64.1      64.4      64.4      64.4
1968.....       63.6      64.1      64.1      63.6
1967.....       63.3      63.9      63.8      63.5
1966.....       63.5      63.2      63.3      63.8
1965.....       62.9      62.9      62.9      63.4
\r Revised.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 302 OF THE
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I, Stefan A. Bird, certify that:
 
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Salton Sea Funding Corporation;
 
 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 officers 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 officers 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 control 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 control over financial reporting.
 
 Date: May 4, 2004
 
 /s/ Stefan A. Bird
 Stefan A. Bird
 President
 (chief executive officer)
252 La. 124

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John J. Mc-KEITHEN, Governor of the State of Louisiana, and Jack P. F. Gremillfon, Attorney General of the State of Louisiana v. Jessel M. OURSO, Sheriff of the Parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana.

No. 49213.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 1, 1968.

In re: Jessel M. Ourso applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and/or review.

The application is not considered. Notwithstanding the language of Article 9, Section 7, Louisiana Constitution, this case is now appealable to the Court of Appeal. See Article 7, Sections 10 and 29, Louisiana Constitution, as amended by Act No. 561 of 1958. Hence, application for writs must first be made to the Court of Appeal before invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 26 , 201 9

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00841- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.P. AKA. S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018-00441J

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, W.E., appeals a final decree signed August 30, 2018, terminating his parental rights to the child who is the subject of this suit

. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal
is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The Anders procedures apply to an appeal from the termination of parental rights when an2

appointed attorney concludes there are no non-frivolous issues to assert on appeal.
In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
On December 3, 2018, appellant was notified o f the right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief

. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d at 329–30. More than thirty days have elapsed and as of this date, no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the

state. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot

.
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 21.1
                                 ------------


As of December 28, 1996, the following are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bush
Industries, Inc.:

     Bush Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
     Bush Industries of Ohio, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
     Bush Management, Inc., a Florida Corporation
     Bush Service Group, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
     Bush Industries De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., a Mexican Corporation
     Bush Comercial De Mexico, S.A. DE C.V., a Mexican Corporation
     The ColorWorks, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation
     Bush Technologies, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Conolog Corporation
(the "Company") certifies to his knowledge that:

     (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended July
31, 2004 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 that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: October 28, 2004


                                           /s/ MARC BENOU
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           (Marc Benou)
                                           President, Chief Operating Officer,
                                           Secretary and Director

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
1 

### Kordzi, Joe

From: Stevens, William

Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 6:55 PM

To: Kordzi, Joe

Subject: RE: Q on the S&L IPM 5-13 wet FGD cost algorithms



### Correct, Joe!

Bill S

From: Kordzi, Joe

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:23 AM

To: Stevens, William

Subject: Q on the S&L IPM 5

‐ 13 wet FGD cost algorithms

Hi Bill,

The documentation states:

The evaluation includes a user selected option for a wastewater treatment facility. The

base capital cost includes minor physical and chemical wastewater treatment. However,

in the future more extensive wastewater handling may be required. Although an option

for wastewater treatment is provided, no logic has been developed to accommodate the

additional wastewater treatment costs.

Am I correct that although there is a drop down menu for a WWTP option in the first line of the input, there is currently

no implementation for any wastewater treatment in either the capital or O&M costs beyond the default “minor

physical/chemical WWTP?

And the BMWW, FOMWW, and VOMWW are future potential implementations of this more extensive WWTP?

So if I were converting these cost algorithms to a spreadsheet, there would be no need to even list wastewater

treatment as an input?

Thanks.

Joe Kordzi

EPA Region 6

" . . . and miles to go before I sleep."

- Robert Frost
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States:  



           First   Second    Third   Fourth
   Year   Quarter  Quarter  Quarter  Quarter

2000.....    67.1     67.2     67.7
1999.....    66.7     66.6     67.0     66.9
1998.....    65.9     66.0     66.8     66.4
1997.....    65.4     65.7     66.0     65.7
1996.....    65.1     65.4     65.6     65.4
1995.....    64.2     64.7     65.0     65.1
1994.....    63.8     63.8     64.1     64.2
1993\r...    63.7     63.9     64.2     64.2

1993.....    64.2     64.4     64.7     64.6
1992.....    64.0     63.9     64.3     64.4
1991.....    63.9     63.9     64.2     64.2
1990.....    64.0     63.7     64.0     64.1
1989\r...    63.9     63.8     64.1     63.8

1989.....    63.9     63.9     64.0     63.8
1988.....    63.7     63.7     64.0     63.8
1987.....    63.8     63.8     64.2     64.1
1986.....    63.6     63.8     63.8     63.9
1985.....    64.1     64.1     63.9     63.5
1984.....    64.6     64.6     64.6     64.1
1983.....    64.7     64.7     64.8     64.4
1982.....    64.8     64.9     64.9     64.5
1981.....    65.6     65.3     65.6     65.2
1980.....    65.5     65.5     65.8     65.5
1979\r...    64.8     64.9     65.8     65.4

1979.....    65.3     65.1     66.0     65.8
1978.....    64.8     64.4     65.2     65.4
1977.....    64.8     64.5     65.0     64.9
1976.....    64.6     64.6     64.9     64.8
1975.....    64.4     64.9     64.6     64.5
1974.....    64.8     64.8     64.6     64.4
1973.....    64.9     64.4     64.4     64.4
1972.....    64.3     64.5     64.3     64.4
1971.....    64.0     64.1     64.4     64.5
1970.....    64.3     64.0     64.4     64.0
1969.....    64.1     64.4     64.4     64.4
1968.....    63.6     64.1     64.1     63.6
1967.....    63.3     63.9     63.8     63.5
1966.....    63.5     63.2     63.3     63.8
1965.....    62.9     62.9     62.9     63.4

\r Revised.