alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
of combustion, such as carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (C02),nitrogen oxides (N*), and sulfur oxides (S*). Wet scrubbersare typically used to control dryer emissions. The majority of expansion furnaces are ducted to fabric filters for emission control. However, wet scrubbersalso are used to control the furnace emissions. Cyclones and fabric filters also 

### are used to control emissionsfiom screening,milling, and materials handling and transfer operations. Perlite Processing7 The major pollutant of concern emitted fiom perlite processing facilities is particulate matter 

### (PM). The dryers, expansion furnaces, and handling operations can all be sources of PM emissions. Emissions of nitrogen oxides fiom perlite expansion and drying generally are negligible. When sulfur-containing fuels are used, sulfur dioxide (SO2)emissions may result fiom combustion sources. However, the most common 

### type of fuel used in perlite expansion furnaces and dryers is natural gas, which is not a significant source of SO2 emissions. To control PM emissions fiom both dryers and expansionfiunaces, the majority ofperlite plants use baghouses, some use cyclones either alone or 

### in conjunctionwith baghouses, and a few use scrubbers. Frequently PM emissions hm material handling processes and fiom the dryers are controlled by the same device. 

### In most plants, fabric filters arepreceded by cyclones for product recovery. Wet scrubbers are alsoused 

### in a small number ofperlite plants to control emissions fiomperlite milling and expansion sources. 3.2 Emission Unit/PollutantMatrix Emission units and pollutants associated with nonmetallic mineral mining and processing, as defined in this document, are presented in Table 3-1. This matrix isbased on availableEPA literature on source category emissions and emission ktors. Table 3-1. Emission Unit/PollutantMatrix Source Subcategory 

### ( EmissionUnit/ Process 

## I Pollutant/Parameter 

# 1

NMMhoc TSD 6-14-02 Created on 6/18l2002 9:39:00AM 9
Exhibit 10.1


 


INDUSTRIAL LOGISTICS PROPERTIES TRUST


 


Summary of Trustee Compensation


 


The following is a summary of the currently effective compensation
of the Trustees of Industrial Logistics Properties Trust (the “Company”) for services as Trustees, which is subject to modification
at any time by the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) or the Compensation Committee of the Board, as applicable:


 


	 	·	Each Independent Trustee receives an annual fee of $75,000 for services as a Trustee. The annual fee for any new Independent Trustee is prorated for the initial year.


 


	 	·	Each Independent Trustee who serves as a committee chair of the Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee or Nominating and Governance Committee receives an additional annual fee of $20,000, $15,000 and $15,000, respectively. The committee chair fee for any new committee chair is prorated for the initial year.


 


	 	·	The Lead Independent Trustee receives an additional annual cash retainer fee of $17,500 for serving in this role.


 


	 	·	Each Trustee receives a grant of 3,500 of the Company’s common shares of beneficial interest on the date of the first Board meeting following each annual meeting of shareholders (or, for Trustees who are first elected or appointed at other times, on the day of the first Board meeting attended).


 


	 	·	The Company generally reimburses all Trustees for travel expenses incurred in connection with their duties as Trustees and for out of pocket costs incurred in connection with their attending certain continuing education programs.
to: Department of Energy via email: expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov

from: Jennifer Cleary

date: October 3, 2014

subject: Ex parte Communication

This memo memorializes the meeting between AHAM and the Department of Energy on 

September 26, 2014, for inclusion in the public docket. In summary, we discussed AHAM’s 

written comments (dated January 31, 2014) on DOE’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Test 

Procedures for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2012-BTTP-0016, RIN 1904-AC76. 

The attendees were as follows: 

Ashley Armstrong, DOE

Laura Barhydt, DOE

John Cymbalsky, DOE

Michael Kido, DOE

Tim Sutherland, Navigant

Bill Brown, GE Appliances and Lighting

Andrew Krause, GE Appliances and Lighting

Travis Perkins, Whirlpool Corporation (phone)

Jennifer Cleary, AHAM

Sriram Gopal, AHAM
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Paul C. Honda, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Honda Auto Receivables 2022-1 Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);


2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;


4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and


5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party:  Citibank, N.A..

Date:  June 16, 2023



|                                                     | 
|---------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Paul C. Honda                                    | 
|Paul C. Honda                                        | 
|Vice President and Assistant Secretary               | 
|American Honda Finance Corporation                   | 
|(senior officer in charge of the servicing function) | 



---
March 24, 2015

Mr. Michael Rea

2279 Taylor Road

Central Point, OR 97502

Dear Mr. Rea:

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

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your February 25, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

0487), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not 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 specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• 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 not 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 request.

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 the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Delbert Wayne WEESE, Carolyn Marie Weese and Ronnie Arthur Weese, Appellees.

No. O-80-107.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 19, 1981.

Clay Wise, Asst. Dist. Atty., Woods County, for appellant.

E. Elaine Schuster, Jones, Schuster & Flaugher, Oklahoma City, for appellees.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BRETT, Presiding Judge:

The three appellees were charged with Arson in the First Degree in the Woods County District Court, Case No. CRF-79-22. At the preliminary hearing, the Honorable Ray Dean Linder, Associate District Judge, sitting as examining magistrate, held the State’s evidence insufficient to bind appellees over for trial. Under 22 O.S.Supp.1980, c. 18, App., § VI, of the Rules of this Court, the State lodged its appeal from the adverse ruling, and the District Court, the Honorable James F. Lane presiding, affirmed the magistrate’s ruling. This- appeal is now lodged in accordance with Section VI of the Rules of this Court, Rule 6.5.

*119A careful review of the record compels this Court to sustain the ruling of the magistrate in that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of arson. The fact of the burning is undisputed, but it was not proved that the property was wilfully or maliciously set afire, and there is no evidence that the fire resulted from a wilful act of the appellees.

To bind an accused over at preliminary hearing, the State is not required to present sufficient evidence to convict but must show that the offense has been committed and that there is probable cause to believe the accused committed the offense. 22 O.S.1971, § 264. Although the State may satisfy that burden through circumstantial evidence, the evidence must coincide with guilt and be inconsistent with innocence. See *Williams*v. *State,*478 P.2d 359 (Okl.Cr.1970).

At the preliminary hearing, the magistrate must determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that it was committed by the defendant(s). Absent an abuse of the discretion in reaching that determination, the magistrate’s ruling will remain undisturbed. *Turner v. State,*549 P.2d 1346 (Okl.Cr.1976). The record, which is consistent with the magistrate’s order and the district court’s affirmance of that order, supports this Court’s affirmance of the magistrate’s order.

BUSSEY, J., dissents.

CORNISH, J., concurs.
AMS Cooked Diced Chicken Contractor Pathogen Performance - Fiscal Year: 20201/,2/

Salmonella3/ L. monocytogenes4/

Contractor

# Sub-lots Produced 

(% of Total) # Positive % Positive # Positive % Positive

C1 805 (89.9) 0 0 0 0

C4 90 (10.1) 0 0 0 0

Total 895 (100.0) 0 0 0 0

1/A full description of the cooked diced chicken purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#chicken. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020.

3/Salmonella Critical Limit: Positive (+) Result / 25g. 4/L. monocytogenes Critical Limit: Positive (+) Result / 25g.
EXHIBIT
      32.1


SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATION




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


13
      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 Lifesciences Opportunities Incorporated
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Roland Perry, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 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.




Date:
      October 4, 2007




/s/
                  Roland PerryRoland
                  PerryChief
                    Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                    Officer
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-30619

Summary Calendar

FREDDIE SUE THOMAS; ET AL,

Plaintiffs,

VERSUS

GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION; ET AL,

Defendants.

*******************************************************

ROBERT M. FLOYD,

Cross Claimant - Counter Claimant - Appellant,

VERSUS

GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION,

Cross Defendant - Appellee,

and

FREDDIE SUE THOMAS; LORI GORE TERRELL,

Counter Defendants - Appellees.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Louisiana

(95-CV-2150

January 12, 1998

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The only issue remaining before the Court in this appeal is

whether or not the district court’s granting of a summary judgment

against the appellant Floyd and in favor of his employer, Georgia

Pacific, was error. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the

appendix and the record excerpts and relevant portions of the

record itself. For the reasons stated by the district court in its

memorandum ruling filed under date of May 15, 1997, we are

persuaded that Floyd’s cross-claims for wrongful termination and

retaliation are not supported by substantial evidence upon which a

jury could base a verdict in favor of Floyd. Accordingly, the

Final Order entered herein under date of May 15, 1997, is 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 630 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 630

 Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Women's Congressional Staff 
                              Association.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 17, 2018

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Ms. Murkowski) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Celebrating the tenth anniversary of the Women's Congressional Staff 
                              Association.

Whereas, in August 2008, a bipartisan group of female congressional staff 
        members founded the Women's Congressional Staff Association (referred to 
        in this preamble as the ``WCSA''), the first official staff association 
        focused on the professional development of female staff members;
Whereas the WCSA has more than 400 active members in the Senate and the House of 
        Representatives;
Whereas the commitment of the WCSA to bipartisanship fosters congeniality and 
        respect in Congress;
Whereas the WCSA organizes and hosts a variety of career development 
        opportunities for female staffer members, such as resume reviews, 
        networking workshops, and mock interview sessions; and
Whereas the WCSA provides mentoring opportunities to further the career 
        advancement and professional education of young staff members: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) celebrates the tenth anniversary of the founding of the 
        Women's Congressional Staff Association (referred to in this 
        resolving clause as the ``WCSA'');
            (2) commends the WCSA on its many achievements and 
        contributions to the congressional community; and
            (3) reaffirms the commitment of the Senate to supporting 
        the professional development of female staff members.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

Mr. John Finke 

Director, Pollution Control Division 

Metro Public Health Department 

311 23rd Avenue North 

Nashville, Tennessee 37203 

Dear Mr. Finke: 

ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

APR 1 9 2016 

Enclosed is the fmal end-of-year report for your agency's FY 2015 Air Pollution Control grant 

authorized by § 105 of the Clean Air Act. This report outlines your agency's various grant commitments 

and their status. Since there were no issues and no adjustments necessary, your report is now finalized. 

This letter documents the conclusion of the joint evaluation process required by 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations 35.115 and identified as a commitment in your FY 2015 Air Planning Agreement under 

Cross Cutting issues. 

We appreciate the progress you made in FY 2015 and look forward to continuing our joint efforts to 

protect and improve air quality. If you have any questions regarding your grant, please contact Stuart 

Perry at (404) 562-8980 or Gwendolyn Grafat (404) 562-9289. 

Enclosure 

Carol L. Kemker 

Acting Director 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
#### NORTHERN UTILITIES, INC., Northern Utilities Division of Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Company, Inc., Northern Gas Company, and Northern Gas Division of Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Company, Inc., Appellants (Petitioners), v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WYOMING, Appellee (Respondent).

No. 5365.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Nov. 25, 1980.

Wm. Bryce Arendt and Wm. H. Brown and Claude W. Martin of Brown, Drew, Apostólos, Massey & Sullivan, Casper, for appellants.

John D. Troughton, Atty. Gen., Thomas J. Carroll, III, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. and Steven R. Shanahan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

RAPER, Chief Justice.

During oral argument before this Court in the above appeal it was disclosed by counsel for the appellants (Northern) and appellee (PSC) that following dismissal of Northern’s appeal by the District Court, and during the course of this appeal Northern filed with the PSC new applications for rate increases in a form satisfactory to both Northern and the PSC and that rate hearings thereon before the PSC have been held and concluded and that the applications out of which this appeal arises were abandoned and not considered.

The Court finds that the parties are now in accord and no justiciable controversy any longer exists.

The Court concludes that:

1. Where subsequent to submission of a case on appeal the parties compromise their differences, the questions involved become moot and dismissal is required even though the parties or a party may request a decision on the merits, *Scott v. Columbia Savings and Loan Association,*1935, 48 Wyo. 401, 49 P.2d 488; and,

*1402. When pending appeal an event occurs which makes a determination of the question involved unnecessary the appeal should be dismissed, *In the Matter of the Estate of Frederick,*Wyo.1979, 599 P.2d 550, 558; *House v. Wyoming Highway Department,*1949, 66 Wyo. 1, 203 P.2d 762.

It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the within appeal be and is dismissed.

By the Court.*

*

 ROONEY, J., notes that the acceptance of the filings with summary sheet by the PSC reflects such to be in conformity with its previous order, and that additional consolidation requirements are unnecessary in future filings.
Exhibit 32.1

 

Section 1350 Certifications

 

**CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

 

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, William Marshall, Principal Executive Officer and  Principal Financial Officer and Director of Cascade Energy Inc., certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") for the period ended November 30, 2006, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof:

 
|   | (i)                | fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|--------|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Act of 1934, as amended, and |  
 

(ii)

the information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects, the financial

 

condition and results of operations of Cascade Energy Inc.

 
 
 

 

 

By:

*/s/ William Marshall**CEO* and a member of the Board of Directors

 

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

 

 

  |
United States Department of Agriculture

Page 1 of 2

Calculating 

Class II Price

United States Department of Agriculture

for more details, see the next page.

Agricultural Marketing Service
Page 2 of 2

Calculating Class 

II Price: Details

$0.70 = Class II skim milk differential ($/cwt).

Monthly advanced commodity prices and the Base Class I Price are announced on or before the 23rd day 

of the preceding month and use the most recent two weeks of price data available at that time.

Monthly final prices are announced on or before the 5th day of the following month and use the most 

recent four or five weeks of price data since the last publication of Class and Component Prices. 

Class prices are announced as dollars per hundredweight. CWT= hundredweight, 100 pounds.

Formula Details

$0.007 = Class II butterfat differential ($/lb).

0.965 = 96.5 pounds of skim in 100 pounds of milk (cwt skim/cwt milk).

3.5 = 3.5 pounds of butterfat in 100 pounds of milk (lb butterfat/cwt milk).

For more information on the Price Formulas, visit 

www.ams.usda.gov/resources/price-formulas

For more information on Advanced Prices & Pricing Factors and Class & Component Prices, 

visit www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/mmr/dmr

Agricultural Marketing Service, October 2019.

USDA is an equal opportunity employer, provider and lender.