alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# APPENDIX L

WinHaze Images

(Baseline, 2018 and Natural

Conditions)

F-1

## Sipsey Wilderness, AL

2000-04 Baseline

187.3 Mm -1 

### 2018 Projected

110.5 Mm -1

F-2

### 2064 Natural Conditions

30.3 Mm -1

F-3
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of Sky Financial Group, Inc. of our reportdated January 21, 2003 on the consolidated balance sheet of Sky Financial Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2002 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in thetwo-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

Form S-8 No. 333-108810 

Form S-8 No. 333-65492 

Form S-8 No. 333-59312 

Form S-8 No. 333-67233 

Form S-8 No. 333-47315 (Post-Effective Amendment No.1 on Form S-8 to Form S-4) 

Form S-8 No. 333-60741 (Post Effective Amendment No.1 on Form S-8 to Form S-4) 

Form S-3 No. 333-64127 (Filed as Citizens Bancshares, Inc.)

Form S-8 No. 333-18867 (Filed as Citizens Bancshares, Inc.) 

 

/s/ Crowe Chizek and Company LLC 

Crowe Chizek and Company LLC 

 

Columbus, Ohio

February 19, 2004
Pilot Log of sUAS flights

**DATE / TIME LOCATION**  **PILOT WX**  **CONDITIONS AUTOPILOT** 

**SOFTWARE CONFIG**  **VERSION RC** 

**CONTROL BAND**  **(Ghz) VIDEO** 

**BAND (Ghz)** 
5/30/2014 1430 Evergreen,

CO Sam Spade W 5-10 APM Plane 3.2.3 2.4 N/A**TELEMETRY**

**BAND (Ghz) AIRCRAFT**  **MOTOR PROPELLER**  **BATTERY TYPE**  **Batt Used**

**by OSD (mah)**  **Batt actual**

**Recharged (mah)** 

0.9 Ritewing Z3 SS 1300kv 10x8 fixed 4s x1 3300 3150**Flight Time**

**(minutes)**

15**NOTES**

SAMPLE: Sky was clear with no clouds. Mission aircraft followed waypoints precisely, accurate imagery was captured. Only a single flight was necessary capture the entire area.
# C_2020423EN.01001001.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — WV v Landkreis Harburg

(Case C-540/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 3(b) - Court for the place where the maintenance creditor is habitually resident - Action for recovery brought by a public body subrogated to the claims of a maintenance creditor)

(2020/C 423/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: WV

Respondent: Landkreis Harburg

Operative part of the judgment

A public body which seeks to recover, by way of an action for recovery, sums paid in place of maintenance to a maintenance creditor, and to which the claims of that maintenance creditor against the maintenance debtor have been transferred by way of subrogation, may validly invoke the jurisdiction of the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident, as provided in Article 3(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.

---
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Bray, Overton and Bumgardner Argued at Salem, Virginia

ROBERT D. MIMM MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1054-97-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III JUNE 2, 1998 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GRAYSON COUNTY Willis A. Woods, Judge Designate Jonathon M. Venzie for appellant. Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General; Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

The defendant was charged with assault and battery of his daughter. A jury convicted him after a trial at which he appeared pro se . He argues that the trial court erred in holding him in contempt in front of the jury and in not instructing the jury on self-defense. Finding no error, we affirm. The statement of facts only reveals that the defendant was found in contempt of court in the presence of the jury. After the jury was out of the courtroom deliberating, the court imposed a sentence of five days in jail for the contempt. The trial court later suspended this. The defendant failed to state an objection to the contempt citation and did not ask the court to take any corrective action. The record does not provide any

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.-2- indication of what happened to cause the court to cite the defendant for contempt except that it happened in open court. In order to be considered on appeal, an objection must be timely made and the grounds stated with specificity. Rule 5A:18. To be timely, an objection must be made when the occasion

arises--at the time the evidence is offered or the statement

made. Marlowe v. Commonwealth , 2 Va. App. 619, 621, 347 S.E.2d 167, 168 (1986) (citing Ingram v. Commonwealth , 1 Va. App. 335, 341, 338 S.E.2d 657, 660 (1985)). In order to apply the "ends of justice" exception the record must show that there has been a miscarriage of justice. See Mounce v. Commonwealth , 4 Va. App. 433, 436, 357 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1987). If an insufficient record is furnished, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed. See White v. Morano , 249 Va. 27, 30, 452 S.E.2d 856, 858 (1995). The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give a self-defense instruction to the jury. He did not preserve this issue for appeal and is therefore barred by Rule 5A:18. Further, the record reveals no evidence that the defendant was in any fear or danger. The trial judge specifically ruled that "there was absolutely no evidence on which to base" a self-defense instruction, and the record fully supports that ruling. "A defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed only on those theories of the case that are supported by the evidence." Frye v. Commonwealth , 231 Va. 370, 388, 345 S.E.2d 267, 280 (1986).-3- Finding no error, we affirm.

Affirmed.
# C_2008158EN.01001402.xml

| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/14

---

Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-184/08)

(2008/C 158/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by failing to adopt sanctions under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (1) or by not informing the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18(1) and (2) of that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by failing to adopt sanctions under Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (1) or by not informing the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18(1) and (2) of that regulation;

1

| — | Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 18 of Regulation No 648/2004, the Member States are to adopt, no later than 8 October 2005, dissuasive, effective and proportionate sanctions for any infringement of that regulation and they are immediately to inform the Commission thereof. At the date at which the present action was brought, the defendant had still not adopted sanctions pursuant to the abovementioned article or, at least, had not informed the Commission thereof.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 104, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         885
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  6,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                   470
<INVENTORY>                                    6,519
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,701
<PP&E>                                         2,130
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 31,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,312
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       6
<OTHER-SE>                                     17,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   31,386
<SALES>                                        46,269
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               46,269
<CGS>                                          25,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               337
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,563
<INCOME-TAX>                                   555
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,008
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
# C_2009032EN.01001802.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/18

---

Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-509/08)

(2009/C 32/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Sénéchal and I. Hadjiyiannis, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC (1), and in any event, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/108/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC (1), and in any event, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| — | Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2004/108/EC expired on 20 January 2007. At the date the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted the necessary implementing measures or, in any event, it had not yet communicated them to the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 390, p. 24.

1

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION 8
 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

DENVER, CO 80202-1129 

Phone 800-227-8917 

http://www.epa.gov/region08 

Nu\' 01 2011. 

Ref: 80C 

Honorable John Hoeven 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510-3405 

Dear Senator Hoeven: 

Thank you for your letter of October 14, 2011, providing comments on EPA's proposed action 

regarding North Dakota's Implementation Plans to address regional haze and the interstate 

transport of air pollutants that can interfere with programs to protect visibility in other states. 

Your comments and all others we receive during the public comment period will be reviewed 

carefully and considered fully as we work toward our decision. 

We appreciate your interest in this proposal. If you have questions concerning our public 

comment process, please contact me, or your staff may wish to contact Sandy Fells, our Regional 

Congressional Liaison, at 303-312-6604 or fells.sandy@epa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

}\.J\v~.· \LL N~v

Ja es B. .
 

Re ional Administrator
 

*Printed on Recycled Paper
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 15

                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                    REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Education Management Corporation and Subsidiaries:

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Education Management Corporation (a Pennsylvania corporation) and Subsidiaries
as of September 30, 1998, and the related condensed consolidated statements of
income and cash flows for the three-month periods ended September 30, 1998 and
1997. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the financial statements referred to above for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Education Management Corporation
and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998 (not presented herein), and, in our report
dated August 4, 1998, we expressed an unqualified opinion on that statement. In
our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 1998, is fairly stated, in all
material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it
has been derived.




                                        /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
 November 2, 1998
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alan Thomas, Also Known as Allen Thomas, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered January 24, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to a term of 4 *Vi*to 9 years, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Defendant was convicted of the sale of "crack” cocaine to an undercover police officer on July 1, 1988. He was arrested almost immediately in a "buy and bust” operation. Defendant, a 27 year old man addicted to "crack” cocaine, asserted that he was entrapped by the police who lured him into selling crack for the only time in his life. He further stated that he had sold marijuana in the past but avoided selling cocaine because of the greater penalties.

In its charge to the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment *(see,*Penal Law § 40.05) the court stated:

"In general, the purpose of the defense of entrapment is to prevent the conviction of people who, *although not criminals, or not predisposed to become criminals,*nevertheless commit a crime because they were induced or encouraged to do so by pressure exerted by the police.

"It was never intended, under our law, that the police should enforce the criminal law by entrapping otherwise innocent persons, who are not disposed to break the law, to commit crimes.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The assertion that the defense was available only to persons who were "not criminals” was error. *(People v Byrd,*155 AD2d 350 [1989].) The error was compounded because the court, in its charge on credibility, referred to the fact that defendant "has been previously convicted of other similar crimes.” This *718charge led the jury to believe that the defense was available only to someone who had no criminal record.

Accordingly, a new trial is required. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.
1

Werner, Christopher

Subject: Interagency call with OMB and other Federal agencies on Regional Haze Rule Revisions

Location: RTP-C400A-Max40/RTP-Bldg-C

Start: Mon 2/8/2016 1:00 PM

End: Mon 2/8/2016 2:00 PM

Recurrence: (none)

Meeting Status: Meeting organizer

Organizer: Werner, Christopher

Required Attendees: Jones, Rhea; Lorang, Phil; Beaver, Melinda; Marks, Matthew; Anderson, Lea; VanLare, 

Paula; Greenglass, Nora; aaron_l_szabo@omb.eop.gov

Optional Attendees: Misenis, Chris; Timin, Brian; Wood, Anna

Resources: RTP-C300A-Max40/RTP-Bldg-C; RTP-C300C-Max50/RTP-Bldg-C; RTP-C400CMax20/RTP-Bldg-C; RTP-C500A-Max40/RTP-Bldg-C; RTP-C500C-Max20/RTP-Bldg-C; 

RTP-C600A-Max40/RTP-Bldg-C; RTP-C600C-Max40/RTP-Bldg-C; RTP-C400AMax40/RTP-Bldg-C

Categories: Regional Haze, Important
Item_5_1_12_MERS-CoV/ page 1

Annex 19

TERMINOLOGY: USE OF THE TERMS‘FETAL’, ‘FOETAL’, ‘FETUS’ AND ‘FOETUS’

Article 4.10.3.

Procedures for micromanipulation

The term “micromanipulated” covers several different procedures and a variety of specialised microsurgical instruments and other equipment may be used. However, from the standpoint of animal health, any cutting, penetrating or breaching of the integrity of the zona pellucida is an action that can alter the health status of an embryo. To maintain health status during and after micromanipulation, the following conditions should apply:

1.	Media

Any product of animal origin, including co-culture cells and media constituents, used in the collection or production of oocytes, embryos or other cells, and in their micromanipulation, culture, washing and storage should be free from pathogenic agents (including transmissible spongiform encephalopathy agents, sometimes called prions). All media and solutions should be sterilised by approved methods in accordance with the Manual of the IETS and handled in such a manner as to ensure that sterility is maintained. Antibiotics should be added to all fluids and media as recommended in the Manual of the IETS.

2.	Equipment

Equipment (e.g. microsurgical instruments which have direct contact with embryos) should either be of the single-use type (disposed of after each oocytes or embryos batch) or should be effectively sterilised between oocytes or embryos batch in accordance with recommendations in the Manual of the IETS.

3.	Nuclei for transplantation (“nuclear transfer”)

a)	Where it is intended to transplant nuclei derived from pre-hatching stage (i.e. zona pellucida intact) embryos, the parent embryos from which those nuclei are derived should fulfil the conditions of this chapter. Where nuclei derived from other types of donor cell (e.g. post-hatching stage embryos, embryonic,~~foetal~~ fetal and adult cells, including spermatozoa or spermatids for ICSI) are to be transplanted, the parent embryo,~~foetus~~ fetus or animal from which those donor cells originate, and the methods whereby they are derived, including cell culture, should comply with the relevant animal health standards recommended elsewhere in this *Terrestrial Code* and in the *Terrestrial Manual*.

b)	Where it is intended to transplant a nucleus into an intact oocyte (e.g. for ICSI), or into an enucleated oocyte (for nuclear transfer), those oocytes should be collected, cultured and manipulated in accordance with the recommendations in this chapter.

___________________________

*OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2021*

*WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission/September 2022*1
From: "Joe Ruocco" <JoeR@ICMINC.com>

To: <sarah.holman@erg.com> Date: 10/6/2006 10:54:04 AM Subject: capacity of Bio-Methanators

Sarah, Anaerobic systems are rated in terms of COD total l oading capacity- that is the number of pounds per day of COD fed to the r eactor per day is how we design and discuss all anaerobic systems, includ ing of course high rate Bio-Methanators such as ours. Yes, plant capacity dictates the amount of evapora tor condensate produced along with total COD loading. In a typical 50 MMGPY plant flows tend to be 80 to 140 gpm. In a 100 MMGPY plant they tend to be 200 to 275 gpm. Loading ranges from 2000 PPD COD to 16,000 PPD depending on size of the plant and the design- some designs gene rate more COD than others. I hope this helps. Joe
Exhibit 13.1

906 CERTIFICATION

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Wang Zhiqing, the President of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:



| | 1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: April 27, 2016



By:

/s/ Wang ZhiqingName:

Wang ZhiqingTitle:

President