alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05992**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 05992\05992_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 05992\05992_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 05992\05992_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 05992\05992_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05992\05992_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05992\05992_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05992\05992_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05992\05992_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 05992\Certification Statement_05992.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 05992\Supporting Documentation\05922_Sooner Ash Handling Loop.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05992\Supporting Documentation\05922_Water Balance (from visio file).doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

05992\Supporting Documentation\05992_Aerial Map (from visio file).doc Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05992\Supporting Documentation\05992_Sooner Fly Ash Diagram.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 05992\Supporting Documentation\05992_Sooner aerial for epa.vsd Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 05992\Supporting Documentation\Sooner waterflow.vsd Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

	FOR ATLAS-ENERGY FOR THE NINETIES-PUBLIC #4 LTD.


The firm, as Independent Certified Public Accountants, hereby consents to
 the use of the audit report dated February 11, 1997 on the balance sheet
 of Atlas-Energy for the Nineties-Public #4 Ltd., a Pennsylvania Limited
 Partnership as of December 31, 1996, and the related statements of income,
changes in partners' capital accounts and cash flows for the year then ended
, in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-KSB and
 any amendments thereto for Atlas-Energy for the Nineties-Public #4 Ltd.



                                      /s/ McLaughlin & Courson

			                                   McLaughlin & Courson
                                      Certified Public Accountants





March 25, 1997
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 14, 2017

t0411 

# Order

Clerk April 14, 2017

154982

ROBERT G. FLORIAN,

Plaintiff

- Appe llee,

v SC: 154982

COA: 328460

MCAC: 12

- 000124

GARY GRIMM, d/b/a G & G LOGGING, LLC,

and TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

SILICOSIS, DUST DISEASE & LOGGING

INDUSTRY COMPENSATION FUND,

Defendant

- Appellee

.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties agreeing to

the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the application for

leave to appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
Northern Ada County PM10 Maintenance Plan 

emissions for PM10 are in the last year of each of the time periods listed above. The conformity 

rule states that "emissions in years for which no motor vehicle emissions budget are specifically 

established must be equal to the motor vehicle emission budget(s) established for the most recent 

prior year" (40 CFR 93.118(b)(1)(ii)). Table 9 highlights the PM10 MVEB for each planning 

period. 

Table 9. PM1o motor vehicle emissions budget. 

Time Period 

2008 

2015 

2023 

PM1o MVEB 

(tons per day) 

31.0 

42.9 

60.1 

Note: The PM1o emissions were taken from the "Development of the Base- and Future-Year Mobile Source Emission 

Inventories for the Treasure Valley, Idaho" (Appendix E). They include the annual tail pipe emissions (Table 1 0), 

annual paved road dust emissions (Table 13), and the unpaved road dust emissions (Table 16) in Appendix E. The 

annual emissions were divided by 365 days to calculate tons per day and for the 2008-2015 and 2015-2023 periods, 

increased by a 10% safety margin. 

5.3.2 MVEB for NOx and VOC 

The conformity rule requires an MVEB for VOCs and NOx as precursors to PM10 when they are 

significant contributors (40 CFR 93.109(b)(2)(iii)). Sulfur dioxide (S02) is an insignificant 

contributor to the secondary aerosol formation and is not included. Although NH3 contributes to 

secondary aerosol formation, the region is "ammonia rich," so the very small mobile source NH3 

emissions are also not considered in MVEBs. Accordingly, DEQ is establishing NOx and VOC 

emissions budgets for the base year 2008 as well as 2015 and 2023. The forecasted NOx and 

VOC emissions are expected to decline over time even though the MVEB increases (see Table 

10 footnote). Similar to the PM10 MVEB, a safety margin of 10% was added to the 2008-2015 

and 2015-2023 planning periods (Table 10). 

Table 10. NOx and VOC motor vehicle emissions budget. 

Time Period NOx MVEB VOC MVEB 

2008 29.5 12.6 

2015 

2023 

29.5 

34.2 

12.6 

17.2 

Note: From Table 23 in the "Speciated Linear PM to Roll-Forward Modeling Report" (Appendix C). As discussed in that 

report, the model does not treat nonlinear chemical processes, so NOx and VOC were held constant for modeling 

purposes even though they are generally declining over time. However, since the out year of 2050 was calculated by 

multiplying the projected 2050 vehicle miles traveled by the projected 2015 vehicle fleet emission rates, this causes 

an increase in NOx and VOC because the fleet emission rates are held constant and emissions reductions expected 

from a newer fleet are not included. The emissions from this conservative approach were included in the PM1o rollforward modeling run to demonstrate adequacy of the MVEB. 

5.3.3 MVEB Conclusion 

Before the MVEB can be used for conformity purposes it must demonstrate "adequacy." For 

EPA to determine the MVEB is adequate, the conformity rule requires that MVEB emissions . 

must be considered with all other emissions sources and be consistent with the applicable 

maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)). Modeling must demonstrate that all emissions 

14
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Davion Latrone Young, Appellant

No. 06-16-00147-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 26371). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice 

Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Davion Latrone Young, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED AUGUST 26, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6521

HERMAN DALE CATLETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

HOWARD PAINTER,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; WARDEN, MOUNT OLIVE; MOUNT OLIVE RECORDS

DEPARTMENT,

Parties in Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,

District Judge. (CA-99-111-3)

Submitted: July 12, 2001 Decided: July 20, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Herman Dale Catlett, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Herman Dale Catlett appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Catlett v. Painter, No. CA-99-111-3 (N.D.W.

Va. Mar. 20, 2001); see Duncan v. Walker, 121 S.Ct. 2120 (2001).

We deny Catlett’s motion to appoint counsel and 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
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 47 (Friday, March 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 14407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5816]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; Review of R-13 Applications.
    Date: April 2, 2012.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 5 p.m..
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 
Center Drive, Room 3An12F, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Helen R. Sunshine, Ph.D., Chief, Office of 
Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, 
National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3An12F, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. 301-594-2881, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ecdebf0edf6f7f0f6b3def0f7f9f3edb0f0f7f6b0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c093b5aeb3a8a9aea8ed80aea9a7adb3eeaea9a8eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 5, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-5816 Filed 3-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed May 12, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01357-CR

No. 05-13-01358-CR

JOSHUA DAVID RANKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-21072-Q, F12-57382-Q

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss the appeals. Appellant’s counsel has approved 

the motion. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the appeals be DISMISSED

and this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

131357F.U05
Exhibit 10.17


    

    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        3

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        4

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        5

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        6

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        7

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        8

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        9

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        10

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        11
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Bryan Keith Roberts, Appellant

No. 06-16-00026-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 188th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 45160-

A). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Bryan Keith Roberts, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBER 21, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
2009 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-9-2009

USA v. Le

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 07-3254

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Le" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 694.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/694
Honorable Richard G. Stearns, United States District Judge for the District of *

Massachusetts, sitting by designation. 

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________

Nos. 08-2414 / 07-3254

_________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL NGUYEN,

THUY A. LE 

Appellants

___________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Nos. 04-cr-00767-15 / 04-cr-00767-22

(District Judge: The Honorable Paul S. Diamond) 

___________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

April 13, 2009

Before: McKEE, SMITH, Circuit Judges and STEARNS , District Judge.

*

ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND JUDGMENT

It appearing that Appellant Nguyen was incorrectly identified as Robert Nguyen
2

rather that Michael Nguyen, it is hereby ORDERED that the opinion and judgment filed

September 8, 2009 are amended to correctly identify Appellant Nguyen as Michael

Nguyen.

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Dated: September 9, 2009
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

December 3, 2014 Public Hearing for Proposed Revisions to Veolia ES Technical Solutions LLC Title V Air Permit 

Name Address Email or Phone Number 

(optional) 

Affiliation Speaking 

* 

Would like 

to receive a 

copy of the 

Response 

to 

Comments 

1 

2 

ry :—-f " # 

3 

4 lutes- fro-\.*r~\ / 3 

5 

- - ; ' *^ 

6 

, T

 . . . J*' tv 

7 .V - J r , ,l \ ' 

-

 s

. . i . - * v ^ ( J 

8 . /' <i .1 p 

A 

9 

; f - •.. • ^ 

- ,' _ 7 r \ 

10 

s 

" / 4 - ' j / i < ' -

11 y no 

12 

'

 1 

»' • .. . -fi 

. 7 

13 

. a 

14 

15 

16 

1
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Greg M. Brandsema, Appellant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 28, 1990, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemploy*999ment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant, an X-ray runner for a hospital, was unable to work when he suffered back and neck injuries after an automobile accident. After a hearing, an arbitrator found that claimant failed to follow customary procedure and the specific instructions of his supervisor and call in every other week during his absence to report his progress. The Administrative Law Judge, holding that he was bound by the arbitrator’s finding, then ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because such behavior amounted to misconduct; the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this decision. The Administrative Law Judge was bound by the arbitrator’s finding of fact, i.e., that claimant failed to comply with the directive of his employer *(see, Matter of Ranni [Ross],*58 NY2d 715, 717-718). The record therefore contains substantial evidence to support the decision that this behavior amounted to misconduct *(see, Matter of Boulware [Ross]*47 NY2d 928, 929; *Matter of Darrisaw [Levine]*51 AD2d 1098).

Decision affirmed, without costs. Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur.
_______________________________________ __ 

# Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

November 7, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly

128623-5(91) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman,
Justices

DAYLE TRENTADUE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of MARGARETTE F. EBY, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128623, 128624, 128625 COA: 252155, 252207, 252209 Genesee CC: 02-074145-NZ BUCKLER AUTOMATIC LAWN SPRINKLER COMPANY, SHIRLEY GORTON, LAURENCE W. GORTON, JEFFREY GORTON, VICTOR NYBERG, TODD MICHAEL BAKOS and CARL L. BEKOFSKE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of RUTH R. MOTT, Deceased, Defendants, and

MFO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

_____________ _______________ _____________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by clients of Goldberg, Persky and White, P.C. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae 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.

November 7, 2006

Clerk
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Theodore R. Schroeder, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this 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 report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including any consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     5. 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 the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       /s/ Theodore R. Schroeder Theodore R. Schroeder    President, Chief Executive Officer and Director    (Principal Executive Officer)  Date: November 14, 2007
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrance Charles, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered May 6, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.