alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
9/8/2015 Success Using Flue Gas to Treat FGD Water at the Plant Bowen Generating Station | Heartland Technology Partners, LLC

http://www.heartlandtech.com/news/success­using­flue­gas­to­treat­fgd­water­at­the­plant­bowen­generating­station/ 1/1

Success Using Flue Gas to Treat FGD Water at the Plant Bowen

Generating Station

On October 2, 2014, Heartland Technology Partners (“HTP”) presented at the Electric Power

Research Institute’s (“EPRI”) Water Research Center (“WRC”). In concert with EPRI, Southern

Company, Georgia Power, Southern Research Institute and the member producers of the WRC,

HTP is currently demonstrating LM-HT Concentrator performance on Flue Gas Desulphurization

(“FGD”) and other plant wastewaters at Georgia Power’s Plant Bowen, a 3,499 megawatt generation

station in Cartersville, GA. More than 45 electric utilities were present for the presentation.

The presentation focused on results achieved utilizing heat from the ue gas ductwork to operate

the Concentrator. A key nding showed that y ash naturally located in the ue gas improved the

Concentrator’s performance, while allowing the system to build on a track record of availability,

reliability, economy, and environmental benets. This study provides another signicant data

point in the Concentrator’s value to the electric utility industry.

For more information, please contact Bob Gardner, Power Plant Marketing Manager @

bgardner@heartlandtech.com.

About Heartland Technology Partners, LLC: Heartland Technology Partners, LLC (Heartland) develops

and markets proprietary wastewater treatment technology and services to the oil and gas, electric power

generation, and landll leachate industries. More information can be found on our website at

www.heartlandtech.com or contacting John Weigold, Marketing & Investor Relations Manager @

jweigold@heartlandtech.com.

®
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40474 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARTIN ROJAS-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. M-97-CR-358-1

- - - - - - - - - - October 22, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Martin Rojas-Juarez has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We have independently reviewed counsel’s brief, the points raised by Rojas in response to that brief, and the record and perceive no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
# C_2018112EN.01003401.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/34

---

Action brought on 17 January 2018 — CV v Commission

(Case T-20/18)

(2018/C 112/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CV (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decisions of 15 and 20 March 2017 and of 18 October 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions of 15 and 20 March 2017 and of 18 October 2017;

| — | award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 475 by way of compensation for material damage plus statutory interest at the rate of 2,25 %, to be calculated as from the payment of that amount, or, in the alternative, as from the date on which the complaint was lodged, or, in the further alternative, as from the date on which the application was lodged, and the amount of EUR 1 by way of compensation for non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 475 by way of compensation for material damage plus statutory interest at the rate of 2,25 %, to be calculated as from the payment of that amount, or, in the alternative, as from the date on which the complaint was lodged, or, in the further alternative, as from the date on which the application was lodged, and the amount of EUR 1 by way of compensation for non-material damage;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging irregularity of the administrative procedure preceding the adoption of the contested decisions, including before the Medical Committee, by which the application for recognition of the occupational origin of the applicant’s disease was rejected and certain costs and fees of the members of the Medical Committee were imposed on the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging irregularity of the administrative procedure preceding the adoption of the contested decisions, including before the Medical Committee, by which the application for recognition of the occupational origin of the applicant’s disease was rejected and certain costs and fees of the members of the Medical Committee were imposed on the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment made by a doctor in that doctor’s reports. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment made by a doctor in that doctor’s reports.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated in the contested decisions were insufficient. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the reasons stated in the contested decisions were insufficient.

---
Page _______ of _________
19003

#### Wiggins v. Damasiewicz

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS,
AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,406,606
<SECURITIES>                                11,059,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,699,737
<PP&E>                                         120,662
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,820,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          756,108
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    36,710,743
<OTHER-SE>                                (22,631,599)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,820,399
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               213,543
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,724,864
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               374,968
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,886,289)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,886,289)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,886,289)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)
        

</TABLE>
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

January 22, 1998

19417

#### State v. White

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,029
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,573
<PP&E>                                         105,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,024
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,831
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,198
<SALES>                                        146,792
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,792
<CGS>                                           92,658
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   92,658
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (640)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (8,963)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,864
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,864
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.31
        

</TABLE>
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Evan Leone HANSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13962.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Oct. 1, 1975.

Evan Leone Hansen, pro se.

Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

ELLETT, Justice:

Mr. Hansen appeals from a conviction under Sections 31-41-4 and 31-41-5, U.C. A.1953 (Replacement Vol. 4A). He has not filed a brief or caused any record to be before us. It is, therefore, impossible for us to know upon what grounds he wishes us to reverse the trial court.

*936The two sections of the statute mentioned in the notice of appeal pertain to compulsory insurance by operators of motor vehicles. Operating a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state without insurance coverage is by statute1 a misdemeanor. Since appellant was charged with a misdemeanor, it would appear that he was first convicted in a justice of the peace court and thereafter on appeal in the district court. If that be the fact, the only thing he could bring before this court would be the constitutionality of the statute.2

Mr. Hansen in a couple of letters explains his problem by saying that he is a rancher who does not have time to come to court and that he refuses to buy insurance because of his religious belief. In one of the letters he states:

> I am aware that atheism is the official national religion, supported by law. However, I refuse to share this opinion. God created this world and everything in it. As the Creator, God’s laws take precedence over anything and everything that men may do. Atheists think they can abolish God . . . my advice is to beware that you don’t provoke God into returning the opinion and abolish you.

In the other letter he says:

> I follow the teachings of Christ to the best of my understanding, and Luke 12:11 says “And when they bring you into the synagogues, and unto magistrates and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say; for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.” Obviously, this would be impossible if an attorney directed my case.

 We are not permitted to reverse a trial court unless he has committed reversible error during some of the proceedings in the case. In this matter we are unable to find any error on the part of the trial judge, and so the judgment must be and is affirmed. No costs are awarded.

HENRIOD, C. J., and CROCKETT, and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.

MAUGHAN, J., concurs in the result.

1

. Section 31-41-13, U.C.A.1953 (Replacement Vol. 4A).

2

. Utah Constitution, Article VIII Sec. 9.
April 2016

Malaysian fruit fly, Bactrocera latifrons, Host List 2016

The berries, fruit, nuts and vegetables of the listed plant species are now considered host articles 

for B. latifrons. Unless proven otherwise, all cultivars, varieties, and hybrids of the plant species 

listed herein are considered suitable hosts of B. latifrons.

Scientific Name Common Name

Baccaurea motleyana (Mull. Arg.) Mull. Arg. Rambai

Benincasa hispida (Thunb.) Cogn. Ash gourd

Capsicum annuum L. Chili Pepper

Capsicum annuum L. var annuum Bell Pepper

Capsicum baccatum Barpeppar

Capsicum chinense Jacq. Bonnet Pepper

Capsicum frutescens L. Bird Pepper

Capsicum spp. Pepper

Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai Watermelon

Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt Ivy gourd

Coffea arabica L. Arabian coffee

Cucumis dipsaceus Ehrenb. Ex Spach Hedgehog cucumber

Cucumis melo L. subsp agrestis (Naudin) Pangalo var conomon

(Thunb.) Makino Oriental pickling melon

Cucumis sativus L. Cucumber

Diplocyclos palmatus (L.) C. Jeffrey Lollipop-climber

Gmelina philippensis Cham.

Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl. Bottle gourd

Lagerstroemia indica L. Crape myrtle

Linociera parkinsoni

Linociera xanthocarpum

Lycianthes biflora (Lour.) Bitter Da chi hong si xian

Momordica trifoliolata Hook.f.

Murraya paniculata (L.) Jack Chinese boxwood

Passiflora foetida L. Wild passionfruit

Physalis peruviana L. Cape-gooseberry

Psidium guajava L. Guava

Punica granatum L. Pomegranate

Sapindus rarak DC.

Solanum aculeatissimum Jacq. Dutch eggplant

Solanum aethiopicum L. Chinese scarlet eggplant

Solanum americanum Mill. American nightshade

Solanum anguivi Lam.

Solanum donianum Walp.
Solanum granulosoleprosum Dunal

Solanum incanum L. Bitter apple

Solanum lanceifolium Jacq.

Solanum lasiocarpum Dunal Indian nightshade

Solanum linnaeanum Hepper & P.-M.L. Jaeger apple-of-Sodom

Solanum lycopersicum L. var. cerasiforme (Alef.) Fosberg Cherry tomato

Solanum lycopersicum L. var. lycopersicum Tomato

Solanum macrocarpon L. African eggplant

Solanum mammosum L. Macawbush

Solanum melongena L. Eggplant

Solanum nigrescens M. Martens & Galeotti Divine nightshade

Solanum nigrum L. Black nightshade

Solanum pimpinellifolium L. Currant tomato

Solanum pseudocapsicum L. Jerusalem-cherry

Solanum scabrum Mill. Garden huckleberry

Solanum spp.

Solanum sisymbriifolium Lam. Sticky nightshade

Solanum stramoniifolium Jacq.

Solanum torvum Sw. Devil's fig

Solanum trilobatum L.

Purple-fruited pea 

eggplant

Solanum viarum Dunal Tropical soda apple

Solanum violaceum Ortega Ci tian qie

Terminalia catappa L. Indian almond

Ziziphus jujuba Mill. Common jujube

Ziziphus nummularia (Burm.f.) Wight & Arn.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, James A. Winne III, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 of
Belden & Blake Corporation;2.
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting. Date: May 10, 2005
    By:
    /s/ James A. Winne IIIJames A. Winne III, Chief Executive Officer,Chairman of the Board of Directors and Director
 21
#### State v. Akana

17279

4/12/96

Affirmed
USDA APHIS

2150 Centre Ave

Fort Collins, Co 80526

Data Source:

USDA APHIS PPQ

ESRI Basemap

These data, and all the information contained herein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Marketing

and Regulatory Programs Business Services’ (MRPBS) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and/or Agriculture

Marketing Service (AMS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ and/or AMS’ behalf, for restricted government purposes only. This

information is the sole property of MRPBS. See full disclaimer at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/banner/help/disclaimers/

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

ASIAN LONGHORNED BEETLE (ALB) ERADICATION PROGRAM

ALB New York Quarantine Boundary

ALB Federal Quarantine Boundary

0 1 2

Miles

0 1 2

Kilometers

Date Created: [ 2/13/2024

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ALB New York Quarantine
# C_2019103EN.01003902.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/39

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2019 — Multifit v EUIPO (TAKE CARE)

(Case T-181/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark TAKE CARE - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and M. Fischer, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2018 (Case R 845/2017-5), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign TAKE CARE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.

---
(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.
  /s/ Paula J. MeilerPaula J. MeilerSenior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States
Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated
by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
otherwise stated in such filing.