alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Test ID: 4-24-13 M-5 Run #3

Value

275.00

0.0000

200.00

Coke Plant

4A Weight of Acetone Blank (g)

Volume of Acetone Used in Blank (ml)

4/24/2013

Particulate Analysis Data

Volume of Acetone Used 2A (ml)
Test ID: 4-24-13 M-5 Run #3

Value

1.123

0.84

20.9

0

28.836

28.73296188

0.00950887

540.6

555.9

29.75

60

1.69

1.067

29.75

240

1.34

151.161

32

29.71

0.181

0.00017868354

Value

157.1532644

65.07755

1.3

0.06119

30.7

1.447505

0.009509

0.068134

100.4644 I = % Isokinetic variation

Air Test Calculations 

Havg = average orifice meter differential

Vm = Total sample volume from dry gas meter (dcf)

Vlc Volume collected

Ps = Absolute stack gas pressure (in Hg)

Vwc (std) = converted water volume 

Total silica gel catch (ml)

Vwsg (std) = converted silica gel water volume 

Bws = fraction of gas that is moisture

Vwc(std)

Nozzle diameter (in)

Area of Nozzle (ft^2)

Vm (std) = Volume of sample measured by DGM (dscf) 

Vs = Average stack gas velocity

Total impinger catch (ml)

H@ = Orifice meter calibration factor, (in. water)

Y = Dry gas meter calibration factor

Pbar = Barometric pressure, (in. Hg)

Total sampling time required for test (min)

Tm = Absolute average dry gas meter temp (R).

Ts = Stack gas absolute average temperature (R)

Pm = Pressure at orifice meter (in. Hg)

Ta = Sampling site ambient temperature, (°F)

Md = Stack gas dry molecular weight, (lb/lb-mole)

Ms = Stack gas (wet) molecular weight (lb/lb-mole)

Bws = Stack gas moisture content

% O2 in Gas Stream

%CO2 in Gas Stream

Coke Plant

4/24/2013

Method 5 Parameter

p = Stack gas velocity pressure (avg. sqrt p - in. water)

Cp = Pitot tube calibration coefficient
Value

12.9

0.01290

157.15326

65.077547

555.9

29.75

9.62

0.0095089

2108249.3

24.42 Green Anode Processed Tons/Hr

Value

0.381

9.148

0.0156

Emission Rate of Particulate lb Particulate/hr

Emission Rate of particulate lb particulate/d

Pounds of Particulate per Ton green anode processed

Area of the Coke Scrubber (ft2)

Bws Moisture in Stack Emissions

Qstd Flow of Roof Vent Emissions (dscf/hr)

Combined Method 5 Parameter and Analytical 

Coke Plant Emission Calculations 

4/24/2013

Air Test Final Results 

Total mg of Particulate

Total g of Particulate

Vm(std) Volume of Air Sampled by DGM (dscf)

Vs Average stack gas velocity

Ts Stack Gas Ro

Pbar Barometric Pressure During Test (in Hg)
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Raymond F. Lancy, Chief Financial Officer, Vice President, Treasurer and
Assistant Secretary of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the Company), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that:



| | (1) |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year
ended October 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: January 23, 2004 |  |                                             
|                        |  | /s/   RAYMOND F. LANCY                      
|                        |  |                                             
|                        |  | Raymond F. Lancy                            
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President     
|                        |  | Treasurer and Assistant Secretary           
|                        |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.1

          Summary of the Bank Bonus Plans under which some of the executive
          officers of the Parent Company and certain other personnel of the
          subsidiaries are eligible to receive a bonus each year. 
     41
<PAGE>
1995 BANK BONUS PLANS

Bank Bonus Plans are in place for all subsidiary banks.  The plans vary
somewhat from bank to bank.  However, the following general structure exists
in all plans:

A.  Applies to bank presidents and certain other bank personnel.

B.  Bank presidents and other bank personnel can earn up to a maximum of
    32.5% of their salary.

    Bonus percentage potential tied to consolidated earnings threshold of
    $14,250,000 and a specific bank earnings threshold.  For senior bank
    officers, no bonus potential if earnings do not reach the thresholds. 
    For other bank officers, a partial phase out of bonus potential if
    earnings do not reach the thresholds.

C.  Based on meeting certain pre-established financial and personal goals,
    the most significant of which are as follows:

    1. Net income;

    2. Net interest income/margin;

    3. Net noninterest margin;

    4. Noninterest income;

    5. Core deposit growth;
    6. Commercial and consumer loan growth;

    7. Asset quality; and              

    8. Key personal objectives tied to bank financial or mission measurement
       goals.

D.  Bonus amounts are earned ratably based on tiered achievement scales
    negotiated between the bank's management and senior management of the
    holding company.
     42
cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge 

Marc C. Gordon 

Tamer B. Botros 

Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(01 1947A ae
#### Prudential Insurance Company of America, Respondent, v Toni A. Kelly, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

—In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendant Toni Ann Kelly appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered December 20, 1989, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court, entered May 7, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered December 20, 1989, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered May 7, 1990, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered May 7, 1990, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly found in favor of the plaintiff on the merits because the answer raised in only the most conclusory terms a defense based upon fraud. Not only did the appellant fail to set forth the "circumstances constituting the wrong”, but she also failed to plead any of the material elements of a defense of fraud *(see,*CPLR 3013, 3016 [b]). Moreover, the appellant’s allegation in opposition to the plain*718tiffs motion for a judgment of foreclosure failed to establish any actionable fraud on the part of the original mortgagee, the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest. In any event, any fraud committed by the seller and his attorney in this case could not defeat the plaintiff’s right to foreclose the mortgage *(see, Jo Ann Homes v Dworetz,*25 NY2d 112, 122; *First Family Mgt. Corp. v Lubliner,*113 AD2d 868; 2A Warren’s Weed, New York Real Property, Foreclosure of Mortgage, ¶ 10.12 [4th ed]; 78 NY Jur 2d, Mortgages, § 600). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Lawrence and Balletta, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andrea Simms, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant, a private duty nurse’s aide, was convicted of forcibly stealing a diamond ring from a patient at a nursing home where she was working. Supreme Court erred in permitting cross-examination of defendant concerning her prior drug abuse and her admittance to a drug treatment program. While a defendant who chooses to testify at trial may be cross-examined with respect to any immoral, vicious or criminal acts which have a bearing on her credibility as a witness, such questioning is impermissible when its purpose is to show a propensity to commit the offense for which the defendant is being tried *(People v Wright,*41 NY2d 172, 175; *People v Duffy,*36 NY2d 258, 262, *cert denied*423 US 861; *People v Torres,*119 AD2d 508, 509).

In reviewing this record, it is apparent that the prosecutor’s cross-examination and his comments during summation impermissibly implied that defendant’s drug addiction indicated a propensity to commit the crime charged *(see, People v Wright, supra; People v Balkum,*149 AD2d 976; *People v Torres, supra; People v Hicks,*102 AD2d 173, 182-183). Moreover, the prosecutor also violated the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 23.05 (a) which prohibit the introduction of evidence of a person’s participation in a substance abuse program against such person in any action or proceeding in any court *(People v Torres, supra,*at 509-510; *People v Dow-dell,*88 AD2d 239). However, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we conclude that any error was harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230) and does not require reversal. The victim positively identified defendant, whom she knew from the nursing home, as the person who stole her ring. In addition, another employee, who was going to the victim’s room in response to her screams, saw defendant leaving the room.

We have reviewed all other matters raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.—Robbery, 3rd Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
# C_2012326EN.01033701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

A.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROVISIONS OF THE TREATIES

14.   Declaration concerning the common foreign and security policy

Declaration concerning the common foreign and security policy

In addition to the specific rules and procedures referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union, the Conference underlines that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy including in relation to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the External Action Service will not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries and participation in international organisations, including a Member State's membership of the Security Council of the United Nations.

The Conference also notes that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy do not give new powers to the Commission to initiate decisions nor do they increase the role of the European Parliament.

The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the Common Security and Defence Policy do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States.

---
### The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the District of South Dakota. ___________ No. 95-3847

___________ Robert G. Knoche, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of South Dakota. * Michael Durfee, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 28, 1996 Filed: July 5, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert G. Knoche, a South Dakota prisoner, was convicted of forgery and sentenced to thirteen years imprisonment. The South Dakota Suprem e Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Knoche , 515 N.W.2d 834 (S.D. 1994). After pursuing various postconviction remedies, Knoche filed thi s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. Th e district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing, an d 1 Knoche appeals. After careful review of the record b efore us and the parties' briefs (including Knoche's p ro se supplemental briefs), we conclude the district court correctly denied Knoche's petition. Accordingly, we affirm. See8t h Cir. R. 47B.

### -2- A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Summary of Phone Conversation with the South Coast Air Quality Management District

Phone conversation between Nicole Law (EPA), Stanley Tong (EPA), and Eugene Teszler 

(SCAQMD) on September 7, 2011 at approximately 2:00 pm.

Eugene Teszler gave a summary of the coke drum processes. In this discussion, he described the 

types of pollutants that can be released every time the drum is opened which include VOCs, PM, 

and HAPS. One method of controlling such emissions would be requiring the vessels to lower 

the pressure as much as possible before the drums are opened. One facility in the district 

currently achieves this and has 2 psig in their permit. Eugene then went on to describe his 

knowledge of what was occurring at the national level. He was aware that Brenda Shine (EPA) 

sent out CAA 114 letters at the beginning of the year requesting for source testing from facilities 

regarding their coke drum emissions. The SCAQMD is in the processing of developing a rule 

for controlling this process, but is currently awaiting the results of the national survey/source 

testing to determine what the potential emission reductions could be. The district would like to 

determine if it would be cost effective to implement a rule.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.1

                       CAPSTEAD SECURITIES CORPORATION IV
                            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 Capstead Securities Corporation IV
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Andrew F. Jacobs, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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:  November 11, 2002                  By:  /s/ ANDREW F. JACOBS
                                               ------------------------------
                                               Andrew F. Jacobs
                                               Chairman and Chief Executive
                                               Officer and President


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capstead Securities Corporation IV
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Phillip A. Reinsch, Senior Vice President - Control of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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:  November 11, 2002                  By:  /s/ PHILLIP A. REINSCH
                                               ------------------------------
                                               Phillip A. Reinsch
                                               Senior Vice President - Control
**SW-846 Update V Abstract - 1 Revision 3**  **July 2014** ABSTRACT

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/C hemical Methods **(SW-846) provides test procedures and guidance which are recommended for u**  **se in conducting the evaluations and measurements needed to comply with the Resource Con**  **servation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Public Law 94-580, as amended. These methods are a**  **pproved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for obtaining data to satisfy the**  **requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 122 through 270 promulgated**  **under RCRA, as amended. This manual presents the state-of-the-art in routine analytical**  **testing adapted for the RCRA program. It contains procedures for field and laboratory qualit**  **y control, sampling, determining hazardous constituents in wastes, determining the hazardous c**  **haracteristics of wastes (toxicity, ignitability, reactivity, and corrosivity), and for determining p**  **hysical properties of wastes. It also contains guidance on how to select appropriate methods.** 

**Several of the hazardous waste regulations under S ubtitle C of RCRA require that specific**  **testing methods described in SW-846 be employed for certain applications. Refer to 40 CFR Parts**  **260 through 270, for those specific requirements. Any reliable analytical method may be used to**  **meet other requirements under Subtitle C of RCRA.**
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Wireless Telecom Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, Paul Genova, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

                                             /s/ Paul Genova
                                             ---------------
                                             Paul Genova
                                             President, Chief Financial Officer
                                             May 12, 2006

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
```
# C_2012326EN.01033701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

DECLARATIONS

DECLARATIONS

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON,

ANNEXED TO THE FINAL ACT OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE WHICH ADOPTED THE TREATY OF LISBON

signed on 13 December 2007

B.   DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROTOCOLS ANNEXED TO THE TREATIES

DECLARATIONS CONCERNING PROTOCOLS ANNEXED TO THE TREATIES

48.   Declaration concerning the Protocol on the position of Denmark

Declaration concerning the Protocol on the position of Denmark

The Conference notes that with respect to legal acts to be adopted by the Council acting alone or jointly with the European Parliament and containing provisions applicable to Denmark as well as provisions not applicable to Denmark because they have a legal basis to which Part I of the Protocol on the position of Denmark applies, Denmark declares that it will not use its voting right to prevent the adoption of the provisions which are not applicable to Denmark.

Furthermore, the Conference notes that on the basis of the Declaration by the Conference on Article 222, Denmark declares that Danish participation in actions or legal acts pursuant to Article 222 will take place in accordance with Part I and Part II of the Protocol on the position of Denmark.

---