alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Missouri Department of Natural Resources Modeling for 2013 Lead SIP:

The purpose of my analysis was to determine the predicted 3-month lead concentrations in Illinois. The 

modeling that the MDNR did for the latest lead SIP did not extend past the border between Missouri 

and Illinois. 

I did not have the modeling files on the March 2013 CD for the Herculaneum Lead Smelter. The new 

modeling files have a fine receptor grid inside Herculaneum’s current property/fence line. This allows 

nonattainment areas to be defined within the current property/fenced area. 

MDNR modeled two scenarios. Scenario A includes emissions from the refinery building short stacks 

while Scenario B ducts these emissions from the current refinery building baghouse number 9. I 

modeled only Scenario A as it had the highest predicted lead concentrations.

MDNR’s analyses included only meteorological data from the Broad Street meteorological site for the 

calendar year 2009. My analysis includes Broad Street meteorological data from February 1, 2007 thru 

December 31, 2009. (These data were available when MDNR did the initial analyses). The AERMET 

version 11059 was used by MDNR and EPA. A background value of 0.032 g/m3 was included in all 

analyses. 

MDNR’s highest 3-month lead concentrations at the Illinois border (middle of the Mississippi River) is 

about 0.075 g/m

3

or half the lead NAAQS. My analysis indicates a similar value. (See Figures 1-3).

My highest 3-month lead concentration in Illinois (land) is about 0.06 g/m

3

. The nearest Illinois 

residence is about 1900 meters inside Illinois and the predicted lead concentration is at least 0.037 

g/m3. (See Figures 1-3. No MDNR analysis).

MDNR’s highest 3-month lead concentrations in its “minimum” fenced areas is about 0.614 g/m3, or 

about 4 times the lead NAAQS. My analysis indicated a similar high value. (See Figures 4-5). 

MDNR’s two proposed fenced areas enclose lead concentrations of 0.15 g/m3or greater. They

surround the strip mill (Figure 7A) and refinery or remelter (Figure 6A) areas. My modeling of the fence 

post receptors show (Figures 6 and 7) that MDNR’s proposed fenced areas must be modified. There are 

numerous receptors that exceed the NAAQS of 0.15 g/m3. The differences in concentrations are

probably due to my using additional on-site meteorological data and the latest version of AERMOD 

(12345). Predicted lead concentrations greater than 0.15 g/m3extend into the main railway which is 

ambient air. (See Figures 4 & 4A). 

Figures 1A-5A, are without lead contours and give a clearer representation of the area. 

SUMMARY: Significant lead emissions from the Doe Run Herculaneum lead smelter extend into Illinois. 

There are predicted lead concentrations in ambient air greater than 0.15 g/m3east of the remelter 

area. Fenced areas inside Doe Run’s current facility must be modified to avoid nonattainment of the 

lead NAAQS. MDNR should reanalyze the strip mill and remelter areas using the latest versions of 

AERMOD and its preprocessors in order to better define the fenced areas.
EXHIBIT 10.3

FIRST ADDENDUM TO STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT

THIS FIRST ADDENDUM TO STOCK PURCHASE WARRANT(this "Addendum") is made effective as
of this 13th day of October, 2009, by and betweenNEUROMETRIX,
INC., a Delaware corporation (the"Company"), and the undersigned investor (the "Investor").

BACKGROUND

The Company and the Investor entered into that certain Securities Purchase Agreement dated as of September 8, 2009, as amended
(the"Purchase Agreement"). Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement, the Company issued to the Investor shares of the Company's
common stock and a Stock Purchase Warrant (the"Warrant"). The Company and the Investor now wish to further clarify and amend the language set forth in
Section 8(b)(v) of the Warrant as provided herein.

NOW, THEREFORE,in consideration of these premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Investor hereby agree to amend the Warrant as follows:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1.AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8(b)(v) OF THE
WARRANT.    Section 8(b)(v) of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



---





---



2.NOTICE TO TRANSFEREES.    The Investor hereby covenants and agrees to provide any
transferee of the Warrant with a copy of this Addendum.

3.CONSTRUCTION.    Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the
meanings set forth in the Purchase Agreement and the Warrant, as the case may be. The terms of this Addendum amend and modify the Purchase Agreement and the Warrant as if fully set forth in the
Purchase Agreement and the Warrant. If there is any conflict between the terms, conditions and obligations of this Addendum and the Purchase Agreement or the Warrant, this Addendum's terms, conditions
and obligations shall control. All other provisions of the Purchase Agreement and the Warrant not specifically modified by this Addendum are preserved.

4.COUNTERPARTS.    This Addendum may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of
which shall constitute an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Addendum may be executed by facsimile or .pdf signature.

SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Addendum to Stock Purchase Warrant is made effective as of the date first set forth above.

THE COMPANY:

THE INVESTOR:NEUROMETRIX, INC.

[Investor Name]By:



By:Name:



Name:Title:



Title:


---



QuickLinks
#### Lisa BRAI v. Carolyn C. PEREZ, Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., Pennsylvania General Insurance Co., Ponstein’s Inc. Peter Rando and Anna Perigoni, d/b/a Rando’s Restaurant and Bar.

No. 86-C-0844.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re Brai, Lisa; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-4653; Parish of St. Bernard, 34th Judicial District Court, Div. *“B”,*No. 43-700.

Denied.
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN MIETUS, LLC

6701 DEMOCRACY BOULEVARD, SUITE 300 

BETHESDA, MD 20817-7500 

JOHN R. MIETUS, JR. 

(202) 747-5212

(240) 396-5362 fax 

john@mietuslaw.com

November 14, 2012 

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Ms. Lauralyn Remo 

Ms. Vanessa Balgobin 

Air Carrier Fitness Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

 Re: Orange Air, Inc., Dockets OST-2011-0073/0074 

 

Dear Ms. Remo and Ms. Balgobin: 

 Orange Air respectfully requests that the Department waive condition 9 of 

the certificate issued to it by Order 2011-11-31, condition 10 of the certificate issued 

by Order 2012-1-31, and 14 C.F.R. 204.7 so as to extend, through March 31, 2013, 

the time within which Orange Air must commence actual flight operations in order 

to maintain its interstate and foreign certificate authority. These provisions 

currently require Orange Air to commence actual flight operations no later than 

November 28, 2012, but it is now clear that the Federal Aviation Administration 

and Orange Air will not be able to complete new entrant certification by that date. 

 The FAA and Orange Air are working diligently to complete the certification 

process. This process was extended, in part, by Orange Air’s inclusion in a pilot 

project as the first U.S. carrier to adopt a Safety Management System during initial 

certification. Working closely with its FAA project and frontline managers Jeff 

Hipps and Charley Beers, and with AFS-900, Orange Air achieved Level 1 SMS 

validation this summer. (Messrs. Hipps and Beers can be reached at (407) 812-3032 

and 812-3020, respectively.) Few of the traditional certification steps remain, but 

these require FAA team members to set aside blocks of time; this will become more 

difficult during the upcoming holiday season. While Orange Air is hopeful that it 

can complete the process in the next two months or so, it suggests the March 31, 

2013 date to allow scheduling flexibility for the entire first calendar quarter.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30315

__________________

FIRST NATIONAL BANK; HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK, HIBERNIA NATIONAL BANK, AS SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST FOR FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiffs, and FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for First National Bank, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BRAINTREE INC; KERMIT L ROUX, JR; and KATHRYN FELT ROUX; Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-1544-S)

______________________________________________

February 15, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * After considering the rec ord and briefs in this appeal, we affirm for the following reasons:2

1. The Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) reacquired the note which it originally transferred to Hibernia National Bank; and 2. The note reacquired by the FDIC was a part of a bulk sale originally conducted by the FDIC. Under such circumstances, Louisiana's litigious redemption statute is not applicable. See Moss v. Coury , 613 So.2d 270 (La.
Ct. App. 1992); Peoples Homestead Federal Bank and Trust v. Laing , 637 So.2d 604 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

 

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 Internet Acquisition Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated:			May 15, 2006 | /s/ Matt Lettau                           |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  | Matt Lettau                                                                                                                                                                 |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                     |
|                  | Principal Accounting Officer                                                                                                                                                |
III

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 228

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 16, 2001

Received and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the children who

lost 1 or both parents or a guardian in the September

11, 2001, World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies

(including the aircraft crash in Somerset County, Pennsylvania) should be provided with all necessary assistance, services, and benefits and urging Federal, State

or local agencies responsible for providing such assistance, services and benefits to move expeditiously in providing such assistance, services and benefits to those

children.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That this resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Put

3 Our Children First Resolution of 2001’’.

4 SEC. 2. (a) The Congress is grateful to the Federal,

5 State, and local agencies for their actions to deliver
2

HCON 228 RFS

1 prompt services to the children and families impacted by

2 the events of September 11, 2001, and recognizes their

3 efforts to expedite and streamline these important serv4 ices.

5 (b) It is the sense of the Congress that the children

6 who lost 1 or both parents or a guardian in the September

7 11, 2001, World Trade Center and Pentagon tragedies

8 (including the aircraft crash in Somerset County, Pennsyl9 vania) should be provided with such immediate assistance,

10 services, and benefits for which they are eligible and which

11 are necessary for their well-being, including—

12 (1) foster care assistance;

13 (2) adoption assistance;

14 (3) medical, nutritional, and psychological care;

15 (4) educational services; and

16 (5) such additional care or services as may be

17 necessary.

18 (c) The Congress urges each Federal, State, and local

19 agency responsible for providing assistance, services, and

20 benefits referred to in subsection (b) to—

21 (1) act without delay to provide such assistance,

22 services, and benefits to children described in that

23 paragraph; and

24 (2) to the maximum extent possible, take such

25 steps as are necessary to ensure that such assist-
3

HCON 228 RFS

1 ance, services, and benefits are provided in the case

2 of any such child within 60 days of the date of the

3 determination of the death of the child’s parent, par4 ents, or guardian.

Passed the House of Representatives November 15,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAUL MENDEZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

CITY OF BOISE, a municipal corporation; et al.

,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 35474

D.C. No. 1:20

- cv

- 00061

- BLW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021 * *

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Raul Mendez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging federal and state law claim s arising out of a dispute regarding

sewer fees . We have jurisdiction under 28 U .S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter
,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# F ILED

APR 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 35474

668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) . We af firm.

The district court properly dismissed Mendez’s procedural due process claim

because Mendez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was denied any

process to which he was entitled prior to being charged sewer fees. See Hotel &

Motel Ass’n of Oakl and v. City of Oakland , 344 F.3d 959, 968

- 70 (9th Cir. 2003)

(explaining that “laws of general applicability affecting a broad geographic area”

ordinarily do not implicate individual procedural due process concerns ).

The district court properly dismissed Mendez’s Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim because, even assuming the sewer fees qualified

as a “ debt ” under the FDCPA, Mendez failed to allege facts sufficient to show t hat

any defendant was a “ debt c ollector ” within the meaning of the FDCPA

. See 15

U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt collector” under the FDCPA as “any person . . .

who regularly collects or attempts to collect . . . debts owed . . . another” ) ; Hebbe

v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are

liberally construed, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez leave to

amend because amendment would have been futile. S ee Cervantes v. Countrywide

Home Loans, Inc. , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of

review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be

futile).3 20

- 35474

We reject as meritless Mendez’s contention that the distric t court failed to

liberally construe his complaint.

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
EX-23.1



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To  LifeCell  Corporation:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report  included in this Form 10-K, into LifeCell Corporation's previously filed
Registration  Statements  File  No.  33-90740,  File  No.  333-20093,  File  No.
333-62701,  File  No.  333-62491,  File  No.  333-94715  and File No. 333-45180.




Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania
March  27,  2001


<PAGE>
#### LE TRIOMPHE PARTNERSHIP, a Louisiana Limited Partnership v. Dr. William A. HAWKINS.

No. 86-CC-2550.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Hawkins, William A. Dr.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish *211of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 86-2178; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 86-1146.

Denied.
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of Nalco Holdings LLC (the"Company") for the quarterly period endedJune 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), William H.Joyce, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Bradley J. Bell,as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to hisknowledge:

|          |                                                                                                                    |
|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.  | The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934;and |

|          |                                                                                                                                                      |
|----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.  | The information contained inthe Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company. |

|  | /s/ WILLIAM H.JOYCE                                        Name:     WilliamH. JoyceTitle:     Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficerDate:     August 16, 2004 |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | /s/ BRADLEY J.BELL                                            Name:     Bradley J.BellTitle:     Executive Vice President and                 Chief FinancialOfficerDate:     August 16,2004 |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Riha, Kristin 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Sliwinski, Rob (DEC) < rob.sliwinski@dec.ny.gov> 

Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:00 AM 

Riha, Kristin 

Ruvo, Richard; Mangels, Karl; Bielawa, Robert D (DEC); Griffin, Scott L (DEC) 

RE: CAIR Equals RACT Presumption Withdrawal - Final 

Do you know how many states that this impacts and if any. of them are moving to implement RACT in the meantime? 

From: Riha, Kristin [mailto:Riha.Kristin@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 10:20 AM 

To: Sliwinski, Rob (DEC) 

Cc: Ruvo, Richard; Mangels, Karl; Bielawa, Robert D (DEC); Griffin, Scott L (DEC) 

Subject: RE: CAIR Equals RACT Presumption Withdrawal - Final 

Good morning, Rob. 

We are currently targeting finalization of the rule in the Summer of 2015. Please note that this is just an estimate, 

however. 

Thanks, 

Kristin 

Kristin Riha 

U.S. EPA/OAQPS 

Air Quality Policy Division, State and Local Programs Group 

Email: rih_a .kristin@epa.gov 

Phone: 919-541-2031 

From: Sliwinski, Rob (DEC) [ma[lto:rob.sliwinski@dec.ny.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:03 AM 

To: Riha, Kristin 

Cc: Ruvo, Richard; Mangels, Karl; Bielawa, Robert D (DEC); Griffin, Scott L (DEC) 

Subject: CAIR Equals RACT Presumption Withdrawal- Final 

Kristin, 

I was wondering about the status of this rule. Do you when it will go final? 

Rob Sliwinski 

New York DEC
exv10w15



 







Exhibit
10.15









June 17, 2005




Ajay Shah

SCP Management Company, L.L.C.

5201 Great America Parkway, Suite 532

Santa Clara, CA 95054



	 	 	 
	Re:

	 	Letter Amendment to Advisory Agreement dated April 16, 2004 between SCP
Management Company, L.L.C. and SMART Modular Technologies, Inc. (“Advisory Agreement”)






Dear Ajay:




      This letter amends Section 3(a) of the Advisory Agreement to reflect an increase in the
annual Advisory Fee from $500,000 to $1,000,000. Starting July 1, 2005, the quarterly Advisory Fee
payable will be $250,000. Please note that the most recent invoice for the quarterly Advisory Fee
through June 30, 2005 will be paid shortly.



      The approval of the above change by SMART (WWH)’s Board of Directors and sole shareholder,
Modular, L.L.C., will also be formalized in a written Board resolution and a separate shareholder
consent.



      Please feel free to contact me at (510) 624-8134 if you have any questions regarding this
Letter Amendment.



	 	 	 
	 

	 	Sincerely,
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	
	 

	 	Jack Pacheco
	 

	 	Vice President / Chief Financial Officer






	 	 	 
	cc:

	 	Iain MacKenzie
	 

	 	Joanne Leung