alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Protection !!!~ Agency 

SEP 1 6 2015 

Ms. Susan Hedman 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region 5 

77 West Jackson Blvd. 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

John R. Kasich, Governor 

Mary Taylor, Lt. Governor 

Craig W. Butler, Director 

Re: Designation Recommendation for the General James M. Gavin Power Plant 

Area (including Kyger Creek Station) for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard 

Dear Administrator Hedman: 

On March 20, 2015, U.S. EPA notified states regarding a settled consent decree with 

Sierra Club that affects sources in certain areas yet to be designated under the 2010 1-

hour sulfur dioxide (S02) national ambient air quality standard {NAAQS). This affects 

sources with 2012 emissions greater than 16,000 tons, or sources with emissions 

greater than 2,600 tons and an emission rate of at least 0.45 lbs S02/mmbtu; unless a 

retirement from burning coal was announced by March 2, 2015. The letter identified the 

General James M. Gavin Power Plant and the William H. Zimmer Power Plant as 

subject to the consent decree requirements. 

U.S. EPA is allowing states an opportunity to submit recommendations on the 

designations of the areas around the subject facilities by September 18, 2015. The 

attached is Ohio's recommendation regarding the General James M. Gavin Plant area. 

Due to proximity and emissions level, Ohio EPA also included Kyger Creek Station in 

this analysis and intends for this analysis to also fulfill the requirements for this facility 

under U.S. EPA's Data Requirements Rule. Ohio's recommendation is based upon the 

5-factor analysis outlined in U.S. EPA's March 20, 2015 memorandum Updated 

Guidance for Area Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard. 

Based upon this analysis, Ohio EPA is recommending Gallia County and a portion of 

Meigs County be designated as attainment for the 2010 1-hour S02 standard. This 

recommendation encompasses the following townships in Meigs County: Bedford, 

Columbia, Rutland, Salem, Salisbury, and Scipio. 

50 West Town Street • Suite 700 • P.O. Box 1049 • Columbus, OH 43216-1049 

www.epa.ohio.gov • (614) 644-3020 • (614) 644-3184 (fax) 
As detailed under Factor 1 in the attached submittal, Ohio EPA modeled actual S02 

emissions from the General James M. Gavin Plant and Kyger Creek Station for years 

2012 through 2014. No exceedances of the standard were modeled inclusive of a 

conservative 10 ppb background concentration. 

This submittal consists of one (1) hard copy of the required documentation. An exact 

duplicate electronic version of the submittal in PDF format is available at 

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dapc/SIP/so2.aspx under the heading "Nonattainment Area 

Recommendation." 

If you have questions, please contact Jennifer Van Vlerah in our Division of Air Pollution 

Control at (614) 644-3696. 

Sincerely, 

r-~ 

Cc: Bob Hodanbosi, Chief, Division of Air Pollution Control, Ohio EPA 

Enclosure
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Douglas MacLeod, certify that:

 

1.                 Ihave 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 reporton Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2023-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                 Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                 Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

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

 

5.                 Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance withItem 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed 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 havereasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A.

 

 

 

 

March 27, 2024
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______

No. 11-2276

______

JOSE GONZALEZ,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;

MICHAEL AYTES, Acting Deputy Director 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services;

JOHN THOMPSON, District Director 

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Action No. 2:09-cv-03426)

District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini

Before: FUENTES and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges, and POGUE,*Judge

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

It appears that alien registration number contained in the caption of the precedential 

opinion filed on March 19, 2012 is not the alien registration number assigned to appellant 

Jose Gonzalez. At the direction of the Court, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the caption of the opinion is hereby amended to reflect the appellant’s 

correct alien registration number A077 638 441. It is further,

ORDERED that the Clerk shall correct this Court’s docket to include the correct number 

as the incorrect number was carried over from the lower court’s docket. 

For the Court,

Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk

Date: March 26, 2012

PDB for TMK/ cc: All Counsel of Record

 

* Hon. Donald C. Pogue, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting 

by designation.
### UNITED STATES ENVIRON M ENTAL PROTE CTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

### MEMORANDUM

Date: October 17, 2 0 13 Subject: S im azi n e : Respons es to comments on Human Health Assessment Scoping D ocument in Support 0 fR
. t f R . eg1s ra 10n ev1ew. 

### PC Code: 080807 

### DP Barcode : 414872 

### Decis i on No
. : 482830 

### Petition No
. : NA 

### Ris k Assessme n t T y p e.: Response to comment 

### Case No.: NA 

### TXRNo.:NA CAS No
. : 122-34-9 

### MRIDNo
. :NA 4 0 

### CFR: § 180.213 REVIEWER :

THROUGH: Seyed T adayon,

# Ch**emi st** **-d~** Risk Assessment Branch V / Hea lth Effects Division (7509P) 

# UJ · Michae l S. Metzger, Chief 

# f ) (} Risk Assessment Branch V 

# H_ t; 

# f" Health Eff ec t s Divi sion (7509 P) TO: Mo ll y Clayton , Chemical Review Manager Risk Manageme nt and Implementati o n Branch III (RMIB3) Pesticide Re-Eval uation Division (PRD) Office of Pesticide Program s (7508 P)

Page 1 of2This memorandum contains H E D 's respon ses to public comments sub mitt ed during the 60-day public comment p er iod for si m azine in H E D 's " Human Health Risk Scoping D ocument i n Suppo rt of Simazi ne Regi st ration Revi ew Risk Assessment, Jun e 04, 20 12"
. H E D re ceived 2 commen ts from Sy ngen ta C rop protection , LL C , po sted on EPA dock et ID number, EPA-HQOPP-20 13-0251. Comment On page 4, Syngenta i s reque sting to del ete e mul sifiable concent rate a s a type of formulation. H E D Response HED will m ake the cor r ectio n in regi strati on review risk assessment. Comment Page 23, table 2.2 Syngenta does not support u se on cranberry. HED Response HED will make the adjustment in registration review r isk assessment.

Pa ge 2 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 15-12129

Non-Argument Calendar

__________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-24413-FAM

JORGE GUTIERREZ,

CYNTHIA RECONDO,

and other similarly situated individuals,

MANFRED ARAUJO,

RICARDO QUINONES,

YOANNY RODRIGUEZ,

JOHN C. AHEARN,

JIMMY VAZQUEZ, 

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

ERNESTO NUEVO, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

versus

CABLE EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC.,

CHARLES F. APPLEDOORN, individually,

Defendants - Appellees.

Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

__________________________

(October 15, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal challenges the District Court’s order of May 11, 2015, granting 

defendants summary judgment on plaintiffs’ Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 

§§ 201-219, claims on the ground that plaintiffs were not employees covered under 

the Act. Doc. 61. Plaintiffs admitted many of the material facts in the case when 

they failed to respond in any way to defendants’ requests for admissions. In 

opposing defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs filed declarations 

containing assertions purportedly contrary to their earlier admissions, but they did 

not explain why the assertions were contrary to such admissions or seek any relief 

from their admissions.

Plaintiffs contend that they did seek relief from their admissions in their 

response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Their response, they 

submit, “constituted a valid request to withdraw or amend any facts that had been 

automatically deemed admitted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36,” and the “District 

Court ‘was required to analyze Plaintiffs’ request as to whether withdrawal or 

Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

amendment [of the admitted facts] would have subserved the presentation of the 

case’s merits, and whether it would have prejudiced Defendants.” Appellants’ Br. 

at 12. Plaitiffs seek the vacation of the summary judgment and a remand of the 

case so that the District Court can conduct such analysis. We are not persuaded. 

We find no error in the District Court’s consideration of the facts admitted 

via plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the requests for admissions. There is no 

material issue of fact for submission to a jury in this case. Summary judgment was 

appropriate and was due to be granted.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-12129 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 3 of 3
#### Merrill Ladell McBRIDE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The STATE of Colorado, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION and Raymond Jorgenson, Hearing Officer, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 80CA0861.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

March 26, 1981.

Allen J. Kincaid & Associates, Richard K. Austin, Brush, for petitioner-appellant.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Mary C. Snow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents-appel-lees.

VAN CISE, Judge.

Merrill Ladell McBride, the licensee, appeals the judgment of the district court affirming the revocation of his driver’s license for three months by the Department of Revenue pursuant to the implied consent law, § 42-4-1202, C.R.S.1973. We affirm.

At a hearing before the Department, it was discovered that the arresting officer had not properly sworn to the affidavit which had been submitted to the Department concerning reasonable grounds to be*761lieve licensee had been driving while under the influence of alcohol and his refusal to submit to a chemical test. The licensee moved for dismissal. The hearing officer dismissed the action without prejudice.

Thereafter, the arresting officer submitted to the Department a second affidavit, now verified, to the same effect as the original one. Over the licensee’s objections, a second hearing was held, the hearing officer found that the officer had reasonable grounds and that the licensee had refused the test, and the licensee’s driving privileges were revoked for three months.

The licensee’s only contention on appeal is that the second hearing was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We do not agree.

The hearing officer’s dismissal of the case without prejudice was not based on the merits, but on a technicality — whether the hearing could be initiated without the “sworn report of the law enforcement officer” required under § 42 — 4-1202(3)(e), C.R. S.1973. As stated in *Saunders v. Bankston,*31 Colo.App. 551, 506 P.2d 1253 (1972):

> “A judgment based on any preliminary, subsidiary, or technical grounds is not on the merits.... A judgment which is not on the merits of the case is not a bar to a subsequent action on the same claims.”

Reinstitution of the administrative hearing was, therefore, not precluded.

Judgment affirmed.

PIERCE and KELLY, JJ., concur.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 9, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00274-CR

JOSEPH BARNARD HINES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 776436

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to aggravated robbery. On November 1, 

1999, pursuant to an agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to 

confinement for fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed an untimely pro se notice of appeal on August 

8, 2000. This court dismissed appellant’s direct appeal for want of jurisdiction. See 

Hines v. State, No. 14-00-01014-CR, 2001 WL 8322, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] Jan. 4, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication). 
2

On February 16, 2015, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal attempting to 

challenge the order from the juvenile court waiving jurisdiction over him, 

certifying him for trial as an adult, and transferring the aggravated robbery case to 

the criminal court. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 54.02 (West 2014). According to 

the notice of appeal, appellant was originally charged with aggravated robbery as a 

juvenile in the 313th District Court. A defendant may appeal an order of a juvenile 

court certifying him to stand trial as an adult and transferring him to a criminal 

court only in conjunction with the appeal from the conviction or order deferring 

adjudication of the offense for which the defendant was transferred. Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.47 (West 2006); Moon v. State, 451 S.W.3d 28, 39–40 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (stating a juvenile offender may not immediately appeal 

from the juvenile court’s waiver of jurisdiction; instead, he must wait until he has 

been convicted in an adult criminal court to complain on appeal of some error in 

the juvenile court’s transfer ruling). Therefore, appellant was required to appeal the 

juvenile court’s order in a timely appeal from his aggravated robbery conviction. 

We lack jurisdiction over this attempted appeal. To invoke an appellate 

court’s jurisdiction over an appeal, an appellant must file a timely and proper 

notice of appeal. Woods v. State, 68 S.W.3d 667, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). If an 

appellate court’s jurisdiction is not properly invoked, the court has no power to act 

other than to dismiss the appeal. Id. Appellant’s notice of appeal filed in 2015 is 

untimely to appeal the juvenile certification order leading to his 1999 conviction. 

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justice Christopher, Brown, and Wise. 

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, Dianne M. Scheu, Senior Vice President,Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Cellu Tissue Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”)certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

1.     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of theCompany for the period ended May 26, 2005 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.     The information contained in suchQuarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  | July 11, 2005 |                                                         | /s/ Dianne M. Scheu |   |
|--------|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
|   |               | Dianne M. Scheu                                              |
|   |               | Senior Vice President,  Finance and Chief Financial  Officer |
|        |                    |                                                              |                     |        |  |

 

----
Order filed, March 25, 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO S . 14
- 15
- 00032
- CR 14
- 15
- 00033
- CR

____________ LINDA WOODMAN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 147th District Court

Travis County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No s . D
- 1
- DC
- 14
- 904028 , D
- 1
- DC
- 14
- 904029



### ORDER The reporter’s record in this case was due December 31, 2014

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On January 21, 2015 , this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 30 days. The record has not been filed wi th the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.We order Kimberly Lee , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal

within 30 days of the date of this order

. No further extension will be ente rtained absent exceptional circumstances . The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Kimberly Lee does not timely file the record as ordered, we will iss ue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
391 A.2d 697

#### Commonwealth v. Sherman Ross, Appellant.

Submitted September 29, 1977.

John P. Donohue and George B. Ditter, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant; Ross Weiss, First Assistant District Attorney, and William T. Nicholas, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

SPAETH, J., would reverse the conviction for theft, but would not remand for resentencing. *Commonwealth*v. *Davenport,*255 Pa.Super. 131, 386 A.2d 543 (1978).

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 62 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 62

  Requiring the supervisors of employees of Congressional offices to 
 submit reports on the outside compensation earned by such employees, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 12, 2019

 Ms. Foxx of North Carolina (for herself and Mr. Rouda) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Requiring the supervisors of employees of Congressional offices to 
 submit reports on the outside compensation earned by such employees, 
                        and for other purposes.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMPENSATION EARNED BY CONGRESSIONAL 
              EMPLOYEES.

    (a) Reports.--The supervisor of an individual who performs services 
for any Member, committee, or other office of the Senate or House of 
Representatives for a period in excess of four weeks and who receives 
compensation therefor from any source other than the Federal Government 
shall submit a report identifying the identity of the source, amount, 
and rate of such compensation to--
            (1) the Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate, in the 
        case of an individual who performs services for a Member, 
        committee, or other office of the Senate; or
            (2) the Committee on Ethics of the House of 
        Representatives, in the case of an individual who performs 
        services for a Member (including a Delegate or Resident 
        Commissioner to the Congress), committee, or other office of 
        the House.
    (b) Timing.--The supervisor shall submit the report required under 
subsection (a) with respect to an individual--
            (1) when such individual first begins performing services 
        described in such subsection;
            (2) at the close of each calendar quarter during which such 
        individual is performing such services; and
            (3) when such individual ceases to perform such services.
    (c) Publication.--Upon receipt of a report under this section, the 
Select Committee on Ethics of the Senate and the Committee on Ethics of 
the House of Representatives shall post the report on the Committee's 
official public website.
    (d) Failure To Meet Requirements.--A supervisor described in 
subsection (a) who fails to submit a report required under this section 
shall be subject to such sanction as may be imposed by the Select 
Committee on Ethics of the Senate or the Committee on Ethics of the 
House of Representatives, as the case may be.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 15.4**

 

IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm’s Consent

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in this Shell Company Report of Critical Metals Corp. on Form 20-F of our report dated November9, 2023, with respect to our audit of the financial statements of Critical Metals Corp. as of June 30, 2023 and for the period from October 14,2022 (inception) to June 30, 2023, which report appears in the Registration Statement on Form F-4 (File No. 333-268970). We also consentto the reference to our firm under the headings “Auditors” and “Statements by Experts”.

 

/s/ MarcumLLP

 

Marcum LLP

Houston,Texas

March 4,2024
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04331A037
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.R., a child, * From the County Court

at Law of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. CC-3368-PC.

Vs. No. 11-14-00360-CV * April 9, 2015

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal is 

dismissed.