alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

### Water Analysis Form REP-703 Rev. 0, 4/2012



### Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 9/24/2012 Sample Number: 123933-001 Date Collected:09/12/2012 09:00 Date Received:9/12/2012 

### Trip Blank Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg < 0.2 0.5 TLT EPA 1631E 0.2 09/21/2012 U 

### Sample Number: 123933-002 Date Collected:09/12/2012 09:00 Date Received:9/12/2012 

### Field Blank Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 0.2 0.5 TLT EPA 1631E 0.2 09/21/2012 J 

### Sample Number: 123933-003 Date Collected:09/12/2012 09:00 Date Received:9/12/2012 

## Plant Outfall #001 Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 2 2 TLT EPA 1631E 0.8 09/21/2012 J 

### Sample Number: 123933-004 Date Collected:09/12/2012 08:00 Date Received:9/12/2012 

## Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 2 5 TLT EPA 1631E 2 09/21/2012 J 

### Sample Number: 123933-005 Date Collected: 09/12/2012 08:25 Date Received:9/12/2012 

### CPS Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 136 10 TLT EPA 1631E 4 09/21/2012

Mountaineer Plant, 123933 Page 1 of 2

### Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 9/24/2012

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit. Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 123933 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project Nos. 14130-000, 14137-000, 14134-000]

On February 28, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine priority between three competing preliminary permit applications with identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of the applicants' plans are better adapted than the other to develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as follows:

1. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XXXVI: Project No. 14137-000.

2. Qualified Hydro 21, LLC: Project No. 14134-000.

3. Riverbank Hydro No. 2, LLC: Project No. 14130-000.

Dated: February 29, 2012.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-5341 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**Exhibit
      32.1**







**RAVEN
      GOLD CORP.**


**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 Raven Gold Corp. on Form 10-QSB for
      the
      period ended October 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Haukeland, Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.





A
      signed original
      of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Raven
      Gold Corp. and will be retained by Raven Gold Corp. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.











*/s/
        Blair Naughty*





Blair
        Naughty


Chief
        Executive Officer


June
        25,
        2007
#### DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH *v.*THEODORE LENCZYK

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 932 (AC 16472), is denied.

*915
      *Max F. Brunswick,*in support of the petition.

*Felicia R. Suggs,*assistant attorney general, in opposition.

Decided March 25, 1998

BERDON, J.,

dissenting. I would grant the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal.

NORCOTT and MCDONALD, Js., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Amendment to Management Investor Rights Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT INVESTOR RIGHTS AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT INVESTOR RIGHTS AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) by AFFINION GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), is made as of April 30, 2010. Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement (as such term is defined below). 

WHEREAS, the Company is currently a party to that certain Management Investor Rights Agreement, dated as of October 17, 2005
(the “Agreement”), among the Company, Affinion Group Holdings, LLC and the Holders that are parties thereto; 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Agreement may be amended by the Company without the consent of any Holder to
cure any ambiguity or to cure, correct or supplement any defective provisions contained therein, or to make any other provisions with respect to matters or questions thereunder as the Company may deem necessary or advisable so long as such action
does not affect adversely the interest of any Holder; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the definition of
“Stock Incentive Plan” under the Agreement and believes such amendment is necessary and advisable and does not affect adversely the interest of any Holder. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants, understandings, undertakings and promises hereinafter set
forth, intending to be legally bound thereby, the Company hereby determines as follows: 
 1. The definition of “Stock
Incentive Plan” under Section 1 of the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 

“Stock Incentive Plan” means each of the Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan and the Affinion Group
Holdings, Inc. 2007 Stock Award Plan, as each may be amended, supplemented, restated or otherwise modified from time to time, and any other equity plan approved by the Company.” 

2. All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 
  

 1 








 This Amendment is executed by the Company to be effective as of the date first above
written. 
  

			
	AFFINION GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.
		
	By:  	 	/s/ Nathaniel J. Lipman
		 	Name: Nathaniel J. Lipman
		 	Title: Chief Executive Officer


  

 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7194

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TERESA D. BROWN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge; Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-89- 391-JFM, CR-89-392-JFM, CA-97-1095-HNM) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 13, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teresa Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Teresa Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying her motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brown , Nos. CR-89-391-JFM; CR-89-392; CA-97-1095-HNM (D. Md. July 29, 1997). In addition, wenote that Brown’s claim that her counsel provided her with ineffective assistance on appeal is belied by the record. See Jones v. Barnes , 463 U.S. 745 (1983). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1814 

To suspend temporarily the duty on urea, polymer with formaldehyde and 

2-methylpropanal. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2009 

Mr. LEVIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on urea, polymer with 

formaldehyde and 2-methylpropanal. 

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

3 SECTION 1. UREA, POLYMER WITH FORMALDEHYDE AND 2- 

4 METHYLPROPANAL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Urea, polymer with formaldehyde and 2-methylpropanal 

(CAS No. 28931–47–7) (provided for in subheading 

3909.10.00) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1814 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

AND

 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF

RAVEN GOLD CORP.

I, Mike Wood, President, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of Raven Gold Corp. (the “Company”), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2008 (the “Report”):

|   | a. | complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | b. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at October 31, 2008, and the results of the Company’s operations for the quarter ended October 31, 2008. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                                      |   |   |   |                                     |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------|
| Date:  January 13, 2009    |   |   |   | /s/ Mike Wood                            |
|                                      |   |   |   |                                     |
|                                      |   |   |   | Mike Wood                                |
|                                      |   |   |   | *President, Chief Executive Officer and* |
|                                      |   |   |   | *Acting Chief Financial Officer*         |
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 (3.88 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, DLA

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
July 30, 2015

Mr. Donald Kent Howard

Better Homes Realty

- Realtor

Don Kent Photography

- Photographer

4014 Hummingbird Way

Clayton, CA 94517

Dear Mr. Howard :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

part 21 , Subpart H ; § § 4 5.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103 (b),91.109,

91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a) and (b), 9 1.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a )(2), and

91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we

can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your May 1 9, 2015

, exemption r equest on behalf of Better Homes Realty

- Realtor

Don Kent Photography

- Photographer filed into the public docket (No. FAA− 2015

− 1726 ), but

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petiti on does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your reques t.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before th e proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

I f you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith Knight, Also Known as Michael Baker, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Corriero, J.), rendered September 2, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court violated his right to be present during the impaneling of the jury. The voir dire was conducted in open court, in the presence of the defendant and both counsel. The court, however, allowed counsel to conduct some questioning at a bench conference prior to the formal voir dire, and also allowed counsel to exercise their challenges to the jurors in a corridor outside the courtroom. As recently stated by the Court of Appeals, such procedures do not violate a defendant’s statutory and constitutional right to be present at the impaneling of the jury *(People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Zimbra 

### Zimbra

Unauthorized Helo Ops From 

### :Russ Maguire <rmaguire@norwoodma.gov> Subject: 

### Unauthorized Helo Ops 

### To: kputnam@flightlevelaviation.com Cc :Mike Delaria 

### <mdelaria@flightlevelaviation.com>, Peter Eichleay <peichleay@gmail.com>, Mark Raymond <mraymond@norwoodma.gov> Good morning all , Page 1 of2 

### rmaguire@norwoodma.gov



### Sat, Apr 25, 2015 09:49AM

A short time ago , I prevented a Bell 206 (Nl34VG) from taking off in the fueling box east of your t - hangars . This aircraft was a transient helicopter that appears to have been hangared in hangar 10 overnight ; and this morning , Flight Level ' s line man, Steve , apparently towed the helo to the fuel box where the two pilots were getting ready to take off when I approached them. I identified myself and told the pilots that it was an unauthorized helicopter operating area , also telling them that the helo had to be towed to an authorized operating area for helo transients (e.g ., the parking circles) . They refused to have the helo towed there . They also insisted they were going to take off in the fuel box . At that point , I called ATC and the controller agreed not to issue them a clearance for take

- off. Airport management shouldn ' t be put in a position where it goes this far . I put this one on Flight Level. Your lineman , Steve , admitted that he hadn ' t been advised of the airport ' s authorized helo operating areas . Therefore , please double down with your line personnel . Also , when Flight Level is approached by prospective helo transients looking to hangar , please convey to these operators --where applicable

--the full breadth of our airport regulations and procedures . Thanks . Russ

https:/ /ncs.norwoodma.gov/h/printmessage?id=58669&tz=America/New_ York 4/25/2015
* 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. 01-51186 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE M. MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-01-CR-401-ALL

-------------------- May 16, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jo se M. Medina challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting his conviction. Medina was convicted under the

Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, for being intoxicated

while operating a motor vehicle in a public place within the

confines of Fort Sam Houston.

We review the evidence to de termine whether the finding of

guilt made by the trier of fact is supported by substantialNo. 01-51186 -2-

evidence. U nited States v. Ybarra , 70 F.3d 362, 364 (5th Cir.

1995). We view all evidence in the light most favorable to the

Government and defer to all reasonable inferences drawn by the

trier of fact. Id.

The evidence established that Medina had been drinking, that

he had been driving, and that he had been involved in a traffic

a ccident. Medina lacked the ability to speak in a normal speech

pattern. Medina emitted a noticeable odor of alcohol, had glassy

eyes, had a disheveled appearance, and was argumentative. The

evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, was
sufficient to convict Medina of being drunk while driving on Fort

Sam Houston. See Y barra
, 70 F.3d at 364. The judgment is

AFFIRMED.