alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Clay Ceramics NESHAP

– Confidential Business Information Documents

This list of files is provided as a reference only. The information contained in these files is Confidential Business Information and may not be v iewed by anyone without specific clearance

under the Clean Air Act.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: Florida Tile, Lawrenceburg, KY. Dated 8/28/08, 8 pages and 1 CD; Dated 9/17/08, 1 page and 1 CD.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: American Marazzi Tile , Sunnyvale, TX. Dated 8/13/08, 1 page

and 1 CD.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: Dal

- Tile, Dallas TX. Dated 8/13/08, 1 page and 6 CDs: (1) Lewisport Manufacturing Plant, (2) Conroe Manufacturing Plant, (3) Muskogee Manufacturing Plant, (4) Dallas Manuf acturing Plant, (5) El Paso Manufacturing Plant, (6) Fayette Manufacturing

Plant.

Site Visit: Dal

- Tile, Dallas, TX. Date of visit: 9/11/08. Site Visit Report: Final Plant Transmittal Version. Dated 3/18/09, 5 pages.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: In terceramic, Garland, TX. 1 CD.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: Kohler Co.'s, Spartanburg, SC, Brownwood, TX, and Kohler, WI. Dated 9/9/08, 1 page and 1 CD.

2008 Section 114 Survey Response: Monarch Ceramic Tile, Inc., Mesquite, TX. Dated 6/25/09, 2 pages and 1 CD.

Characterization of Dioxin Emissions from Sources that Use Ball Clays

- Emission Test Report: Unimin Corporation, Gleason, TN. Dated 3/17/2010, 296 pages.

Tile Council of America 2010 114 Survey Comments. Letter from Guida, Slavich, & Flores, on behalf of the Tile Council of America regarding recommendations for representative unit testing for 2010 114 Survey. Dated 2/8/10, 22 pages.

Clay Ceramics Test Data Review. Memorandum from Howard Gilberg, C hallenge to P otential

U se or R eliance on S elected HF and HCl D ata. Memorandum dated 11/08/2012, 18 page s

.

Clay Ceramics Test Data Review. Memorandum from Michael Harman, CONFIDENTIAL

- Updated Test Reports . Memorandum dated 03/25/13, 4 pages
#### The People of the State of New York Respondent, v Christopher Burrus, Also Known as Christopher Burros, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.), rendered December 8, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the *723prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the rebuttal testimony proffered by the People concerned an issue material to establishing the defendant’s guilt, and was not merely introduced to contradict a defense witness on an issue that was collateral to the case. Therefore, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting that testimony *(see, People v Harris,*57 NY2d 335, 345, *cert denied*460 US 1047; *People v Roccaforte,*141 AD2d 775).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Balletta, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6830

BRUCE DUANE WALTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MR. TRACY RAY,

Respondent - Appellee, 

and

MATT BAILEY, Assistant Warden,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00474-JAG-RCY)

Submitted: November 30, 2018 Decided: December 11, 2018

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Duane Walton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bruce Duane Walton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Walton has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Charlotte Patterson, IntegraCare of Texas, LLP, and Newspaper

Holdings, Inc. v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, LTD, Crazy Hotel

Assisted Living GP, LLC, Leisure Life Senior Apartment Housing II,

LTD, and Charles V. Miller

Appellate case number: 01-12-00581-CV

Trial court case number: 1174615

Trial court: 234th District Court of Harris County

On August 28, .20.12, appellees filed motion to dismiss th.e appeal. On Se.ptember 7,

2012, appellants filed a joint response to the motion to dismiss, asking, in the alternative, that the

Court consider its interlocutory appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus.

The motion to dismiss is ordered taken with the case. The parties may file additional

briefing concerning whether this case should be treated as a mandamus. See CMH Homes v.

Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 452-54 (Tex. 2011). Such additional briefing, if any, should be filed no

later than October 1, 2012.

Judge’s signature: /s/Jane Bland

[] Acting individually [] Acting for the Court

Date: September 13, 2012
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105



## MEMO

SUBJECT: Response to Comments for Docket # EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2015

- 0784

FROM: Ya

- Ting Tsai , Environmental Engineer

U.S. EPA, Region 9, Air Division, Permits Office

TO: EPA Region 9 Rulemaking File for the Santa Barbara SIP Submittal

EPA received the two attached comments for our proposed rulemaking entitled “Revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control Distric t;

Permit Program,” published at 81 FR 02417 and 81 FR 02419 on February 9, 2016

.

The comments received are not relevant to the rulemaking and not a dverse comments ; therefore,

EPA is not providing a response to the comments as part of this rulemaking.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
  US
    BioEnergy Corporation
  CERTIFICATION
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
 OF THE
    SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    1.
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on
    Form 10-Q
    of US BioEnergy 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 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
    controls 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 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 control over financial reporting.  Date: August 10, 2007

/s/  Gordon
    W.
    OmmenGordon
    W. Ommen
    Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
    and President
    (Principal Executive Officer)
Exhibit 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 EAST WEST  Distributors,  Inc.. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  September  30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I
, Gerald N. Kern, Chief Financial 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.





By:  /s/  Gerald N. Kern
   --------------------------
   Gerald N. Kern
   Chief Financial Officer
   (as of 02/28/05)

November 14,2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1463

THOMAS WANE MARETT, Petitioner – Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Court No. 06- 4048)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 2, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Wane Marett, Appellant Pro Se. John DiCicco, Richard Farber, Andrew Weiner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Clarissa C. Potter, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Wane Marett appeals from the tax court’s orders imposing sanctions, upholding the Commissioner’s proposed collection activities with respect to his tax liability for the 2000 tax year, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the tax court.

See Marett v. Comm’r, IRS , Tax Ct. No. 06-4048 (U.S.T.C. Jan 22, 2009; entered Feb. 25 & filed Feb. 26, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
TransPro, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-80871) of our reports dated February 13,
1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of TransPro, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for
the years ended December 31, 1997, 1996, and 1995, which reports are
incorporated by reference from the 1997 Annual Report to Stockholders, and
included, respectively, in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Hartford, Connecticut
March 26, 1998
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Wallace Mountain Resources Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Robert Gelfand, Chief Financial 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of February, 2006.


/s/ Robert Gelfand
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
#### The UTILITY RATEPAYERS FEDERATION, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendant. DESERET GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION, Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF UTAH; Ted Stewart, Chairman; Brent H. Cameron, Commissioner; and James M. Byrne, Commissioner, Defendants.

Nos. 870083, 870084.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March 25, 1987.

Lynn W. Mitton, Sandy, Clark Wad-doups, Michael M. Later, Jan N. Henrie, Kimball, Parr, Crockett & Waddoups, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs Deseret Generation and Transmission.

Ted Stewart, Brent H. Cameron, James M. Byrne, Public Service Commission of Utah, Robert Gordon, Daniel Berman, D. Frank Wilkins, Berman & Anderson, Robert S. Campbell, Watkiss & Campbell, F. Robert Reeder, Parsons, Behle & Latimer, Sandy Mooy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, Peter J. Richardson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, Idaho, for defendants, Public Service Com’n of Utah, Ted Stewart, Brent Cameron and James M. Byrne.

Charles F. Wheatley, Jr., Don Charles Uthus, John R. Kroeger, Wheatley & Wol-lesen, Annapolis, Md., Harold A. Ranquist, Payne & Ranquist, Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiff, Utility Ratepayers Federation.

David Stott, Thomas W. Forsgren, F. Robert Reeder, Parsons, Behle & Latimer, Salt Lake City, Sandy Mooy, Richard M. Hagstrom, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert S. Campbell, Watkiss & Campbell, Salt Lake City, for defendant, Public Service Com’n.

ORDER

The petition for writ of mandamus or, in the alternative, for writ of certiorari of The *48Utility Ratepayers Federation has been considered by this Court and is denied.

The petition for writ of certiorari of Des-eret Generation and Transmission has been considered by this Court and is denied.

In denying the petition of The Utility Ratepayers Federation, the Court notes with some concern the fact that The Utility Ratepayers Federation suggests in its papers before this Court that it seeks somewhat broader relief against Utah Power & Light than does the Utah Division of Public Utilities. However, any legitimate concern that the Division will not adequately represent the views of all ratepayers is premature. As the Division indicates in its papers before this Court, it is entirely within the scope of its authority for the Division to press all legitimate claims of all ratepayers, and we must assume that the Division will present all substantial, legitimate concerns of ratepayers to the Commission.

DURHAM, Justice:

(concurring)

I write separately to make explicit what I view as implicit in the Court’s order, namely, that we will assume proper representation of ratepayer interests by the Division unless and until at least a prima facie factual showing to the contrary can be made.

STEWART, C.J., dissents.
EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement  on  Forms  S-8  (Nos.  333-04479,  333-05923,  333-42111,  333-71025,
3333-88451,  333-52162 and 333-52166) and Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-14549,  333-23193,
333-39787,  333-49825, 333-65397, 333-66287, 333-69737, 333-72357 and 333-84017)
of Talk.com  Inc. and its  Subsidiaries  of our reports  dated  February 7, 2000
relating to the financial  statements and financial  statement  schedules  which
appear in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.




BDO Seidman, LLP
New York, New York
March 30, 2001
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS ~

PricewaterhouseCoopers **LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York NY 10036

Telephone (646) 471 4000 

Facsimile   (646) 286 6000
**Report of Independent Accountants

 

 

 

To the Board of Directors andShareholder of

GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation:

We have examined management's assertion, dated March 17, 2003, about GMAC 

Commercial Mortgage Corporation's compliance with its established minimum 

servicing standards ("Servicing Policy"), which were derived from the Mortgage 

Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage 
Bankers (USAP), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 included in the 

accompanying management assertion (Exhibit A). Management is responsible for the company's compliance with the Servicing Policy. Our responsibility is to express an 

opinion on management's assertion about the company's compliance based on our 

examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with the standards established by the

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included 

examining, on a test basis, evidence about the company's compliance with the Servicing Policy and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our 

opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination of the company's 

compliance with the Servicing Policy.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the company complied with the 

aforementioned Servicing Policy as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 is  fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 
***PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP*
March 17, 2003******
**EXHIBIT 31.1(B)****Certification required by Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**I, Neal B. Soderquist, certify that:1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Professional Veterinary Products, Ltd.;2.      Based on my knowledge, this amendment to the annual report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this annual report;3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;4.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisannual report based on such evaluation;  c) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5.      The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.October 27, 2005  /s/ Neal B. Soderquist   Neal B. Soderquist Chief Financial Officer and Vice President