alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Bart Brashers <bbrashers@environcorp.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 7:47 PM

To: Krivo, Stan

Cc: Shepherd, Lorinda; Michael Carbon Subject: Statoil: More information requested on ANNUAL modeling

Stan,

In response to your phone call today, here’ s more information on the Statoil modeling. This is “for the
record”.

Annual Modeling and Permit Limits

Regardless of how the annual emission were calculated, the bottom line is that Statoil must emit less per year than the emission rates used in the CA LPUFF modeling. The sum of the various sources’ NO
x emissions in the annual modeling demonstration is 15.9 g/s, or 554 TPY. The main engines on the drilling rig total 416 TPY of NO
x .

Permit condition numbers 6.22.1.4, 6.22.2.5, and 6.22.3.6 require Stat oil to determine the main engine
emission rate of NO
x CO 2 , CO, VOC, and PM/PM 10 /PM 2.5 in g/kW

- hr for each engine from the hourly emission rate results in each rolling 24

- hour period and total annual emission in TPY on a 12 month rolling basis. Other permit conditions in Section 6.20

- 22 require that we track the OSV/Crew fuel use and hours of operation within 25 nm.

These permit conditions are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the annual emission rate of 554 TPY of NOx, and specifically the annual emission limit from the main drilling rig engines of 416 TPY. No further permit conditions based on the 12 Operating Scenarios are required to demonstrate compliance.

The fact that we used real operational data to revise (downward) our estimate of annual emissions should not be confused with any need to “match” that real operational data in terms of hours spent at
various loads.

The original 2013 permit did not have a condition requiring Statoil to operate at less than our initial estimate of 60% load (a nnual average). There’s no reason for the 2014 permit revision to require we meet specific load conditions based on the 12 Operating Scenarios

– they were simply used to calculate annual emission and corresponding fuel usage.

I suggest you, Lori, and Mic hael have a conference call early next week to address any remaining concerns you may have.

Bart

Bart Brashers | Atmospheric Scientist Senior Manager, ENVIRON International Corporation
19020 33 rd Ave W Ste 310 | Lynnwood WA 98036 T: +1 425

- 412

- 1812 | F: +1 425

- 412

- 1840 | M: +1 206

- 550

- 2606 bbrashers@environcorp.com

### This message contains information that may be confidential, privileged or otherwise protected by

law from disclosure. It is intended for the exclusive use of the Addressee(s). Unless you are the addressee or authorized agent of the addressee, you may not review, copy, distribute or disclos e to anyone the message or any information contained within. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by electronic reply to email@environcorp.com and immediately delete all copies o f the message.
From: "Basu, Pat

- FSIS"

To:

Cc: "Dearfield, Kerry

- FSIS"

, "Bennett, Patty

- FSIS"

, "Goldman, David

- Commissioned Corps

- FSIS"

Date: 11/23/2011 10:21 AM

Subject: RE: Transmission of draft ammonia tox assessment



### Hi Norman:

First, let me apologize for the delay in our response. Both Dr. Patty Bennett and I have reviewed

the documents you have forwarded us for pre-peer review comments.

Ammonia can and rarely does expose our Federal employees who are stationed forin-plant

inspection duties. However, these worker exposure and safety incidents are dealt through NIOSH

and state health and safety official. Meat and poultry products in Federally inspected facilities

have been known to be exposed to gaseous or liquid ammonia. However, in most of these cases,

the product is trimmed and passed, as long as there was no remaining odor or visible signs of

contamination.

As mentioned in the document, EPA currently has no RfD established for ammonia. This may be

of value to us in the future, to determine human food safety in case of product contamination. As

for concerns with setting a RfC, this is beyond the scope of this Agency’s mandate. Therefore, at

this time, we have no further comments on the documents you have provided us.

Thanks for including FSIS in this process. Have a very nice Thanksgiving.

Pat Basu

Pat Basu, DVM, MS

Senior Leader - Chemistry, Toxicology & Related Sciences

Office of Public Health Science

Food Safety and Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Ave. SW

Mail Stop 3766

Patriots Plaza 3, Room 9-205

Washington, DC 20250-6337
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF LS POWER FUNDING CORPORATION AS OF AND
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 332,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        332,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           1
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   332,001
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,886
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2105 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2105

  To reduce temporarily the duty on certain lithium-ion battery cells.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

   Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reduce temporarily the duty on certain lithium-ion battery cells.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN LITHIUM-ION BATTERY CELLS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Lithium-ion         3.21%        No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        battery cells                                                      31/2011.......
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        8507.80.40),
                        certified by the
                        importer for use
                        as the primary
                        source of
                        electrical power
                        for electrically
                        powered vehicles
                        of subheading
                        8703.90 in which
                        an on board
                        gasoline engine
                        is used to run a
                        generator that
                        recharges the
                        electric drive
                        motor battery....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1899 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1899

 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on yttrium oxide phosphor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2009

  Mr. Roberts introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the temporary suspension of duty on yttrium oxide phosphor.

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

SECTION 1. YTTRIUM OXIDE PHOSPHOR.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.63 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to yttrium oxide phosphor) is 
amended by striking the date in the effective period column and 
inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-7251 JUAN CARLOS ESCOBAR, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CR-92-36-MU, CA-97-230-MU) Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: September 10, 1998 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Juan Carlos Escobar, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM:Juan Carlos Escobar appeals from the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) as barred by the one-year limitation period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"),Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (effective Apr. 24, 1996). Escobar's conviction became final in January 1994. B ecause the conviction became final prior to implementation of the one-year limitation period, Escobar had until April 23, 1997, in which to file his § 2255 motion. See Brown v. Angelone , ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 389030 (4th Cir. July 14, 1998) (Nos. 96-7173, 96-7208). Escobar's § 2255 motion was dated and sworn on April 22, 1997 and filed in the district court on April 25, 1997. We conclude that the motion was not time barred. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (notice of appeal is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison officials); see also Burns v. Morton , 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (applying Houstonto the filing of habeas petition); Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep't , 947 F.2d 733, 735-36 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying Houston to filing of civil rights complaint for statute of limitation purposes). Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability on this issue, vacate the district court's order, and remand for further proceedings.We deny Escobar's motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense. 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.
VACATED AND REMANDED
2
# L_2010077DE.01005901.xml

| 24.3.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 77/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 77/59

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1662/2006 der Kommission vom 6. November 2006 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 853/2004 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates mit spezifischen Hygienevorschriften für Lebensmittel tierischen Ursprungs

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 320 vom 18. November 2006
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 320 vom 18. November 2006

Auf Seite 8, Anhang II Nummer 3 in Bezug auf Abschnitt IX Kapitel II Teil I Nummer 2 Buchstabe b:

anstatt:

„(...) die zuständige Behörde aus technischen Gründen, die die Herstellung bestimmter Milcherzeugnisse betreffen, eine höhere Temperatur zulässt.“

muss es heißen:

„(...) die zuständige Behörde aus technischen Gründen, die die Herstellung bestimmter Milcherzeugnisse betreffen, eine höhere Temperatur genehmigt.“

---
Exhibit
31.2  Certifications  I, Richard P. Dutkiewicz, certify that:  1.I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of New World Restaurant Group,
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 officers 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 officers 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:  March 11, 2005
  By: /s/ RICHARD P. DUTKIEWICZRichard P. DutkiewiczChief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
  Officer
111' 2"

205' 8"

222' 2"

94' 0"

67' 10"

220' 2"

247' 4"
RICO JUHWAN HUDSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-0734

Opinion filed April 4, 2017.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Rico Juhwan Hudson, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is dismissed as 

successive. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(6)(C).

ROBERTS, C.J., LEWIS and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Gary Kanter, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), dated October 10, 1989, which granted the defendant’s motion pur*561suant to CPL 30.30 to dismiss Kings County Indictment No. 8923/88 on the ground that he was denied a speedy trial.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the motion is denied, the indictment is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings.

After various adjournments and motions, the original indictment against the defendant was dismissed on the ground, *inter alia,*that an insufficient number of grand jurors who voted on the true bill had heard the evidence. Subsequently, the court dismissed a second indictment on the ground that the People had failed to announce they were ready for trial within the period prescribed by CPL 30.30. In reaching this conclusion, the court declined to consider whether the delays which occurred during the pendency of the initial indictment were excludable under CPL 30.30 (4), reasoning that the initial indictment had been dismissed as jurisdictionally defective. We agree with the People that the second indictment should not have been dismissed.

In *People v Banturn*(133 AD2d 699), this court stated that "the period between the filing of the complaint and the filing of the second indictment is not automatically chargeable to the People, even though the first indictment was dismissed based upon an alleged jurisdictional defect”. Thus, although the initial indictment in this case was arguably dismissed as jurisdictionally defective, the court still should have considered whether the delays prior to the second indictment were excludable under CPL 30.30 (4) *(see, People v Sinistaj,*67 NY2d 236; *People v Newton,*120 AD2d 751).

In fact, the record indicates that virtually all the delays that occurred prior to the dismissal of the original indictment were excludable as the result of defense motions or adjournments *(see,*CPL 30.30 [1]; *People v Meierdiercks,*68 NY2d 613; *People v Kopciowski,*68 NY2d 615; *People v Worley,*66 NY2d 523). When those periods are excluded, it is evident that the People announced their readiness for trial within the prescribed time period *(see, People v Missirian,*154 AD2d 625; *People v Brown,*136 AD2d 715). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jeffrey Mickens, Appellant

No. 06-19-00197-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 123rd District Court of 

Panola County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2018-C083). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment by deleting the 

inclusion of court costs. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Jeffrey Mickens, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

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

RENDERED OCTOBER 9, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 35.3

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

American Express Centurion Bank

American Express Credit Account Master Trust

Reporting Period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of American Express Centurion Bank (AECB), a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Express Travel Related
Services Company, Inc. (TRS), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Supplemental Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 30, 2010, among TRS, AECB, American Express Bank, FSB, American Express Receivables Financing Corporation III
LLC, American Express Receivables Financing Corporation IV LLC, and American Express Receivables Financing Corporation II (as amended from time to time, the Agreement), does hereby certify that:



|1. | AECB performs certain servicing procedures on behalf of TRS under the Agreement.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | A review of AECBs activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|4. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, AECB has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 28th day of March, 2016.



|                                |  |                                         
|------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION BANK
|                                | 
|By:                             |  | /s/ Denise D. Roberts                   
|Name:                           |  | Denise D. Roberts                       
|Title:                          |  | Chief Financial Officer                 
|                                | 
|By:                             |  | /s/ Brady P. Bagley                     
|Name:                           |  | Brady P. Bagley                         
|Title:                          |  | Vice President  Controller, U S Banking