alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Cole, Jeffrey D.

From: EUMACTICR Support

Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 1:49 PM

To: Cole, Jeffrey D.; Wellard, Jennifer; Bullock, David; Kilinski, Robert

Subject: FW: Question about some EU MACT ICR Data from your ICR submission for the ClearyFlood Generating Station

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

From: Rick Velez[SMTP:RICHARDVELEZ@TMLP.COM] 

Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 1:41:54 PM 

To: EUMACTICR Support 

Cc: Mike Horrigan; Mark Medeiros 

Subject: FW: Question about some EU MACT ICR Data from your ICR submission for the Cleary-Flood Generating 

Station 

Auto forwarded by a Rule

Good afternoon, Jeff.

Just getting back to you regarding the questions about confidentiality of the report data.

As we discussed earlier, and as Mark has confirmed in his e‐mail below, the data was marked  

confidential as a standard report format for all their customers.

Please accept this e‐mail as our (TMLP’s) confirmation that the subject submittal is not considered

confidential for your purposes and you may go ahead and process the information as necessary.

Please call me if there is anything else you may need.

Best Regards,

Rick

Richard Vélez 

Manager - Special Services 

Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant 

55 Weir Street - PO Box 870 

Taunton, MA 02780-0870 

(Voice) 508-824-3120 

(FAX) 508-884-3535 

(E-mail) richardvelez@tmlp.com

From: Mark Medeiros 

Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 11:48 AM 

To: Rick Velez 

Subject: RE: Question about some EU MACT ICR Data from your ICR submission for the Cleary-Flood Generating Station

Rick,  

I received an e‐mail from CK Environmental.  The information was just like we discussed.  It was labeled confidential by

the Lab because it is specific facility information, but whether it remains confidential is at the discretion of the Customer

(in this case TMLP).  Hence, I recommend responding to Jeff that the document we sent was not intended to be

Confidential Business Information (CBI).
2

Sincerely,

Mark

From: EUMACTICR Support [mailto:EUMACTICRSupport@rti.org] 

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:02 PM 

To: Rick Velez 

Subject: Question about some EU MACT ICR Data from your ICR submission for the Cleary-Flood Generating Station 

[heur][bcc] 

Richard,

In going through the data that you sent us in support of the EU MACT ICR effort (while preparing to enter the data into

the federal docket for public access) we examined a PDF report you uploaded. It is titled:

Appendix D ‐ Laboratory Data.pdf

The report was created by Maxxam Analytics. When we scroll through the pages we see the word, “CONFIDENTIAL”

printed on each of the report’s pages. Did you mean this report to be classified as Confidential Business Information

(CBI)? If not, could you please note in a reply to this email that this document was not intended to be Confidential

Business Information (CBI).

Jeff,

EU MACT ICR Support Team

RTI International

eumacticrsupport@rti.org
ALASKA SEAFOOD CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652

DCN: 00302CBI

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
2000-2004 Baseline Conditions 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress Target 2064 Natural Conditions

Amm. Sulfate 4.3 3.4 0.8Amm. Nitrate 1.8 1.5 0.6OMC 13.5 11 4.6EC 2.5 2 0.4Soil 1 1 1CM 2.6 2.7 3Sea Salt 0 0 0Difference 4.1 15.3Total 25.7 21.6 10.4Note: Actual Reduction Needed Number in the bar graph comes from Visibility Modeling on Haze Planning (TSS) and equals 2000-2004 BaThe "Difference" Number in Columns C and D are the differences between the total number in the baseline conditions and URG and Natur

This number is merely used in order to manipulate the reduction needed area in the chart so that it equals the same height as the baseline 

303540

)

Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and Teton Wilderness Area

YELL2 IMPROVE Site (New IMPROVE Algorithm)

Reduction

Needed =

1.3 dv

05

10152025303540

2000-2004 Baseline Conditions 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress 2064 Natural Conditions

Extinction (Mm-1)

Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and Teton Wilderness Area

YELL2 IMPROVE Site (New IMPROVE Algorithm)

Sea SaCMSoilECOMCAmm. Amm. 

Reduction

Needed =

1.3 dv

Reduction Needed 

=

5.4 dv

05

10152025303540

2000-2004 Baseline Conditions 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress 

Target

2064 Natural Conditions

Extinction (Mm-1)

Yellowstone NP, Grand Teton NP and Teton Wilderness Area

YELL2 IMPROVE Site (New IMPROVE Algorithm)

Sea SaCMSoilECOMCAmm. Amm. 

Reduction

Needed =

1.3 dv

Reduction Needed 

=

5.4 dv
Site Year bCM|Base bCM|Inc bCM|NCII bEC|Base bE

YELL2 2000 2.58 2.48 YELL2 2001 2.58 2.48 YELL2 2002 2.58 2.48 YELL2 2003 2.58 2.48 YELL2 2004 2.58 2.58 2.48 YELL2 2008 2.61 YELL2 2013 2.64 YELL2 2018 2.67 YELL2 2023 2.71 YELL2 2028 2.74 YELL2 2033 2.78 YELL2 2038 2.81 YELL2 2043 2.84 YELL2 2048 2.88 YELL2 2053 2.91 YELL2 2058 2.95 YELL2 2064 2.99 2.99 % change from baseline
bOMC|Inc bOMC|NCII bSO4|Base bSO4|Inc bSO4|NCII bSoil|Base bSoil|Inc bSoil|NCII bSs|Base bSs|Inc bSs|NCII

NO3Extinction|prp18a

SO4

Extincrp18a

4.26 0.95 0.024.26 0.95 0.024.26 0.95 0.024.26 0.95 0.02

13.48 4.26 4.26 0.95 0.95 0.02 0.0212.75 4 0.96 0.0211.87 3.67 0.96 0.0211.02 3.35 0.97 0.02 1.5 10.21 3.04 0.97 0.02

9.42 2.74 0.98 0.038.67 2.44 0.98 0.037.95 2.15 0.99 0.037.25 1.87 0.99 0.036.58 1.6 1 0.035.94 1.33 1.01 0.035.32 1.06 1.01 0.034.61 4.61 0.76 0.76 1.02 1.02 0.03 0.03

-15.25
#### John Michael WORTHEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-83-680.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 14, 1986.

See also, 711 P.2d 943.

ORDER REVERSING CONVICTION AND REMANDING FOR NEW TRIAL

Appellant, John Michael Worthen, was convicted in Comache County District Court, Case No. CRF-88-220, of Distribution of Marijuana, After Former Conviction of Two or More Felonies, in which he received a sentence of eighteen years’ imprisonment and a fine of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500). Since this case must be reversed and remanded, we deem it unnecessary to set forth the facts.

Appellant was represented at trial by court appointed counsel, who had previously served as assistant district attorney and successfully convicted appellant in the two former convictions which were used for enhancement of punishment.

The United States Supreme Court held in *Cuyler v. Sullivan,*446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1717, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1976), that a defense counsel has an ethical obligation to avoid conflicting representations and to advise the court promptly to avoid conflict of interest arising during the course of trial.

This Court has condemned such behavior in the past. *See, Skelton v. State,*672 P.2d 671 (Okl.Cr.1983); *Howerton v. State,*640 P.2d 566 (Okl.Cr.1982).

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, that this case be REVERSED and REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

ED PARKS, P.J.

TOM BRETT, J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J., dissents.
Filed 6/24/13 P. v. Kirker CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

THOMAS ALLEN KIRKER, 

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B246928

(Super. Ct. No. F479307

(San Luis Obispo County)

Thomas Allen Kirker appeals from the judgment entered after he pled no 

contest to assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4))1and admitted a prior strike conviction 

(§§ 667, subds. (d)-(e); 1170.12, subds. (b)-(c)). Five weeks after the plea, appellant 

indicated that he wanted to withdraw his plea, but after new counsel was appointed, 

withdrew the plea withdrawal motion. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence 

and granted probation with 90 days jail. Appellant was ordered to pay a $240 restitution 

fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b); a $240 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), and a $1,000 fine.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a request for certificate of probable 

cause (§ 1237.5, subd. (a)) alleging that he did not commit the assault. 

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's 

examination of the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. On May 9, 2013, we 

 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions 

or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. No response has been received. 

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's 

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-

126.) 

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

PERREN, J.
3

Michael Duffy, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard R. Lennon, Staff Attorney, for 

Appellant./ 

No appearance for Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from Wasatch  Pharmaceutical,  Inc. December 31, 1999financial
                  statements  and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference to
                  such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                 0000853465
<NAME>                                Wasatch Pharmaceutical, Inc.
<CURRENCY>                            US



<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1998

<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1.00

<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>                                           1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                         (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       0
<SALES>                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   0
<CGS>                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    0
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                       0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00



</TABLE>
AFS

- 15

- 2 851

- E

July 16, 2016

Ms. Lacey P. Charvet

Vice President Southern Seaplane, Inc. #1 Coquille Drive Belle Chasse, LA 70037

Dear Ms. Charvet :

Th is letter is in response to your petition dated June 12, 2015 (public docket No. FAA

- 201 5

- 2673 ) petitioning the Fede ral Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Southern Seaplane, Inc. (Southern Seaplane) for an exemption from § 141.55(d)(1) of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. That exemption, if granted, would allow Southern Seaplane to request and receive initial approval to amend its Training Course O utline (TCO) through its local Flight Standards District Officer (FSDO) . More specifically

, Southern Seaplane request s relief to amend its TCO in order to remove the required three hour

, 100

nautic al mile night training flight with 10 takeoffs and 10 landing to a full stop.

T he FAA has determined that an exemption is not the correct means to obtain the relief or approval you seek. Section 141.55(d) and (e) contain s provisions that enable a pilot school to
request and receive approval for any training course under part 141 that does not meet the minimum ground and flight training requirements

, provided certain provision and conditions

are met. Furthermore, Southern Seaplane does not currently posse ss a part 141 pilot or provisional pilot school air agency certificate. The FAA cannot provide an exemption from a

rule to a petitioner which is not required to comply with or is not currently qualified to operate under that rule

. Pilot schools are requir ed to meet a certain standard when providing flight training and, as such, Southern Seaplane must be qualified under part 141 before the

FAA can consider an exemption request

.

Th e FAA Flight Standards Service, through your local FSDO, has the authority to review any request that is submitted under § 141.55. The final decision to approve or reject such a

submission remains with the FSDO

.2

Accordingly, b ecause the relief you seek is already covered under different regulations, we will take no further actio n on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

cc: SW

- 03, Baton Rouge FSDO
Order entered January 6 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 19 - 00548 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF S .V., A CHILD On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 04 - 11968 - V



### O RDER Before the Court is the January 3, 2020 request of Glenda Finkley, Official Court Reporter for the 256th Judicial District Court, for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT th e request and extend the time to February 3, 2020 . We caution Ms. Finkley that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Reza Zarif, certify that:



1.   I  have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  of  Probe Manufacturing,  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  this  14th day  of November 2006.





/s/  Reza Zarif

__________________________

Reza Zarif

Chief  Executive  Officer  and

Director
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Howard Larson Wampler, Jr.

, * From the 90th District

Court of Stephens County,

Trial Court No. F33837

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00374

- CR * September 30 , 2015

The State of Texas

, * Opinion by Willson , J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial c ourt is in all things affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAMON DUANE AMISON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 147 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DAMON DUANE AMISON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 148 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of December, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
EXHBIT 10.67

July --, 2001

Bridge Plaza Partnership
P.O. Box 566
Sanibel Island, FL 33957

Re:    Unit #1A
       12901 McGregor Boulevard
       Bridge Plaza
       Fort Myers, FL ("Premises")

Dear Gentlemen:

Furst  Teleservices, f/k/a Furst Group, is hereby exercising the option to renew
the  lease  for  the  premises  upon  the  following  terms:

     1.  Term:  February  1,  2002  through  January  31,  2005.

     2.  Rent:  Year 1 - $8,565 per month plus 4% increase each year thereafter.

     3. CAM: Year 1 - $1,657.35 per month plus 4% increase each year thereafter.

                                             FURST  TELESERVICES


                                             /s/  Thomas  Bills
                                             ------------------
                                             By:  Tom  Bills,  Vice-President
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.82 MB)

Tags:37th AS, 435th Contingency Response Group, 435th AGOW, 435th CRG, 37th Airlift Squadron, C-130J Super Hercules, 86th AW, 86th Airlift Wing, 435th Air Ground Operations Wing, Contested Forge

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery