alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Telander.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Telander.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 9:57 AM

To: Cassidy Mike

Subject: RE: 114 letter and enclosures

Dear Mike,

We agree that it is not necessary to measure PM 2.5 or condensables. We

also agree with your request that metals not be measured from glaze

lines.

As I indicated to you when we spoke on the phone, if dioxins are

measured from any of your uncontrolled kilns, it will be necessary to

obtain dioxin data from the Spartanburg kiln while the scrubber is

operating. Such data would then be considered when determining

emissions associated with the MACT floor for existing units, "beyond the

floor" emissions for existing units, and MACT for new units.

Even though the scrubber is not currently functioning, it is our

understanding that it remains as an existing control device that is

capable of being operated as it was during prior tests. We would agree

with an approach wherein the Wisconsin and Texas facilities would be

tested first, with testing of the scrubber proceeding immediately if

dioxin is detected at kilns located at either of those two plants.

Jeff Telander

Sector Policies and Programs Division

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

(D243-02)

RTP, NC 27711

919 - 541-5427

919 - 541-5450 (FAX)

Overnight mail address:

US EPA

Mail Code D243-02

109 TW Alexander Drive

RTP, NC 27709
From: Cassidy Mike

Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 1:44 PM

To: Telander.Jeff@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: 114 letter and enclosures

Thanks Jeff. A question and a comment:

Based on our April 8 conversation, I understood that RM5 testing was

acceptable in place of PM2.5 testing, and that RM29 testing was not

needed at the spray booths as we can determine metals emissions based on

glaze HAP composition. This is not reflected in the ICR; what changed

since then on these matters?

Also, as previously stated, we do not intend to notify any permitting

agencies about any ICR stack testing as this testing is not permit

required nor compliance demonstration and is outside their jurisdiction.

If you’d like permitting agencies to witness any ICR testing as

representatives of the Administrator, it’s your responsibility to notify

them.

Mike
DALE B. ADAMS, 

v. 

JOHN DOE, et al., 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

FILED 

FEB- 5 2013 

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptc~ 

Courts for the District of Columbia 

) Civil Action No. 

) 

) 

13 ) 0157 

Defendants. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application, and dismiss the 

complaint. 

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs complaint, keeping in mind that complaints filed by 

pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted 

by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even prose litigants, however, 

must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237,239 

(D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint 

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court's jurisdiction depends, a 

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand 

for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The purpose of the minimum 

standard of Rule 8 is to give fair notice to the defendants of the claim being asserted, sufficient to 

prepare a responsive answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the 

doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

1 

3 
Plaintiff purports to bring a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named 

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971 ), seeking a declaratory judgment, 

injunctive relief, and monetary damages. Compl. at 1. The defendant is identified only as "John 

Doe," id. ~ 5, and plaintiff"has no evidence of who harmed him," id. ~ 13. Plaintiff"has no 

evidence of what a party did to him that he can present to the court," id. ~ 8, nor has evidence of 

when, where, why or how a party harmed him, see id. ~~ 9-12. Although plaintiff"can't present 

his claims to the court," he asserts that "his complaint is viable as stated." Id. ~ 14. Not so. 

As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a). The pleading contains neither a 

statement regarding this Court's jurisdiction nor a short and plain statement showing that 

plaintiff is entitled to relief. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint. An Order 

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. 

DATE::(f7~4J/3 

2
Exhibit 31.2



Certification



I, John C. Wilson, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 of i2 Telecom 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; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Date: October 13, 2005



/s/ John C. WilsonJohn C. WilsonChief Financial Officer
#### Thomas Louis JULIAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-49.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 23, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.0
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Cooper Industries, Inc. of our report dated January 23, 1997, included in
Appendix A to the Cooper Industries, Inc. Proxy Statement for the 1997 Annual
Meeting of Shareholders.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements on Form S-8 or Form S-3 of Cooper Industries, Inc. and in each
related Prospectus of our report dated January 23, 1997, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements incorporated herein by reference.

Registration
Statement No.                                      Purpose
--------------                                     --------

No. 2-71732      Form S-8 Registration Statement for Shares issuable pursuant
                 to Substitute Deferred Compensation Agreements in connection
                 with the acquisition of Crouse-Hinds Company

No. 2-33-14542   Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                 1985 and 1989 Employee Stock Purchase Plans

No. 2-33-19574   Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                 1986 Stock Option Plan

No. 2-33-29302   Form S-8 Registration Statement for 1989 Director Stock Option
                 Plan

No. 33-37875     Form S-3 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                 Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan

No. 33-57829     Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                 1986 Stock Option  Plan

No. 333-00117    Form S-3 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                 Debt Securities (Debt Shelf)

No. 333-02847    Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                 Directors' Stock Plan

No. 333-08277    Form S-8 Registration Statement for Cooper Industries, Inc.
                 Stock Incentive Plan


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Houston, Texas
March 26, 1997
#### In re Allen PARKER.

No. 60746.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 25, 1977.

In re: Allen Parker applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Granted.

The petition of the relator in. the above entitled and numbered case have been duly considered,

*1208It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Charles R. Ward, Judge of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 8th day of November, 1977, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a date to be fixed by this court, 1977, at 10 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and Arthur Leslie Ellis, Appellants, v. RESOLUTE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, as Subrogee of Rawlin S. Creech, Appellee.

No. 67-27.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 25, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT (11)
<TABLE>
CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE--DILUTED
FISCAL YEARS ENDED FEBRUARY 6, 1999, FEBRUARY 7, 1998
AND FEBRUARY 1, 1997 (in thousands except per share amounts)
<CAPTION>
                                1998        1997       1996
                             ----------  ----------  ---------
<S>                          <C>         <C>         <C>    
Common shares outstanding
 at beginning of 
 fiscal period                 17,499      17,239      17,169

Shares issued during
 the period -
 weighted average                 144         166          60 

Shares issuable under
 employee stock plans -
 weighted average                  39          38          45 

Dilutive effect of
 exercise of certain
 stock options                    243         186          53 

Less:  Treasury stock -
 weighted average              (7,708)     (5,758)     (3,809)
                             ---------   ---------   ---------
Weighted average number
 of common and common
 equivalent shares             10,217      11,871      13,518
                             =========   =========   =========

Net earnings applicable
 to common shares            $ 21,944    $ 12,713    $ 14,363 
                             =========   =========   =========

Earnings per common share       $2.15       $1.07       $1.06 
                             =========   =========   =========
</TABLE>







                               32

<PAGE>


Options to purchase 182,500 and 182,500 shares of common stock
at $30.00 and $35.00 per share, respectively, were outstanding
during 1998 but were not included in the computation of diluted
EPS because the options' exercise price was greater than the
average market price of the common shares.  The options, which
expire on February 2, 2003 and February 2, 2004, respectively,
were still outstanding at the end of fiscal year 1998.

<TABLE>
CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE--BASIC
FISCAL YEARS ENDED FEBRUARY 6, 1999, FEBRUARY 7, 1998
AND FEBRUARY 1, 1997 (in thousands except per share amounts)
<CAPTION>
                                 1998        1997        1996  
                              ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                           <C>         <C>         <C>    
Common shares outstanding
 at beginning of 
 fiscal period                  17,499      17,239      17,169 

Shares issued during
 the period -
 weighted average                  144         166          60 

Less:  Treasury stock -
 weighted average               (7,708)     (5,758)    (3,809)
                              ---------   ---------   ---------
Weighted average number
 of common and common
 equivalent shares               9,935      11,647      13,420 
                              =========   =========   =========

Net earnings applicable
 to common shares             $ 21,944    $ 12,713    $ 14,363 
                              =========   =========   =========

Earnings per common share        $2.21       $1.09       $1.07 
                              =========   =========   =========
</TABLE>










                               33
<TABLE>

EXHIBIT 11.1 

                                                             ACCOM, INC.
                                           STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                                  (In thousands, except share data)

<CAPTION>

                                                                              Three months ended               Six months ended
                                                                              ------------------               ----------------
                                                                            March 29,      March 31,        March 29,      March 31,
                                                                              1997           1996             1997           1996
                                                                            -------         -------         -------         ------- 
<S>                                                                         <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>     
Primary and fully diluted:

     Net Income                                                             $  (258)        $  (187)        $(4,755)        $   (46)
                                                                            =======         =======         =======         ======= 

  Shares used in Computation of Net Income Per Share(1)
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding                           6,579           6,419           6,570           6,412
                                                                            -------         -------         -------         ------- 
     Net effect of dilutive stock options Preferred Stock
Shares used in net income per share computation                               6,579           6,419           6,570           6,412
                                                                            =======         =======         =======         ======= 

Net income (loss) per share                                                 $ (0.04)        $ (0.03)        $ (0.72)        $ (0.01)
                                                                            =======         =======         =======         ======= 


<FN>
(1)     Conversion  equivalent shares from stock options and convertible preferred stock are excluded from the computations as their
        effect is anti-dilutive.
</FN>
</TABLE>

                                                                -14-
_______________________________________ __ _____________________________________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

August 5, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, 134967(67) Justices

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 134967 v COA: 269572 Wayne CC: 05-000173-01 MICHAEL J. BORGNE, Defendant-Appellee.

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion by plainti ff-appellant for extension to July 8, 2008 of the time for filing their brief and appendix is considered and it is
GRANTED.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

August 5, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dynamic Health Products, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended September 30,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Cani I. Shuman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 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/ Cani I. Shuman     
|Cani I. Shuman         
|Chief Financial Officer
|September 14, 2005
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of World Airways, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randy J. Martinez,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the
"Act"), that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Act and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
document.

                                             /s/  Randy J. Martinez
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Randy J. Martinez
                                             Chief Executive Officer

August 13, 2004
# 339
EXHIBIT

| (1)   | The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended February 6, 2010 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/Renato Cataldo       |   | /s/Dale Heins                           |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| Renato Cataldo          |   | Dale Heins                              |
| President and           |   | Executive Vice President, Finance, |
| Chief Executive Officer |   | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   |
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-20733 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROEMALACE DARNELL WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-105-1

-------------------- April 11, 2002 Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Roemalace Darnell Williams on appeal has moved for leave to withdraw as counsel and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Williams has not filed a response to counsel's motion and brief. Our independent review of the record and brief discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Exhibit 12


             American General Finance Corporation and Subsidiaries
              Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges




                                          Years Ended December 31,
                             2001        2000       1999       1998       1997
                                           (dollars in thousands)
Earnings:
  Income before provision
    for income taxes       $  394,217  $  408,803  $352,751  $306,228  $216,113
  Interest expense
    (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund
    assets held for sale)     620,487     677,372   563,966   501,533   474,135
  Implicit interest in
    rents                      16,863      16,310    15,641    12,026    13,615

Total earnings             $1,031,567  $1,102,485  $932,358  $819,787  $703,863


Fixed Charges:
  Interest expense
    (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund
    assets held for sale)  $  620,487  $  677,372  $563,966  $501,533  $474,135
  Implicit interest in
    rents                      16,863      16,310    15,641    12,026    13,615

Total fixed charges        $  637,350  $  693,682  $579,607  $513,559  $487,750


Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges                  1.62        1.59      1.61      1.60      1.44
<PAGE>


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in the Prospectus constituting part of this
Initial Registration Statement of the Separate Account SPVL of First
Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Company on Form S-6 of our report dated
February 1, 2000, relating to the financial statements of First Allmerica
Financial Life Insurance Company, and our report dated April 3, 2000,
relating to the financial statements of the Separate Account SPVL of First
Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Company, both of which appear in such
Prospectus. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Independent Accountants" in such Prospectus.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
September 15, 2000