alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
p130288.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0288 Focus Ready Draft 3/14/2013

ENGINEER: Jon \ REC PV (kg/yr):

SAT (concerns) (02/26/2013): Page 1p130288.eng Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible PBT rating: P3B1T2 . Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1.00 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0288

Page 2p130288.eng

Page 3p130288.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 13-0288

Page 4p130288.eng

Page 5
# C_2018427EN.01002101.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/21

---

Appeal brought on 20 September 2018 by Fujikura Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2018 in Case T-451/14: Fujikura v Commission

(Case C-590/18 P)

(2018/C 427/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Fujikura Ltd (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Viscas Corp.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it upheld the plea in law alleging an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment with regard to the fine imposed upon it; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it upheld the plea in law alleging an infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment with regard to the fine imposed upon it;

| — | give final judgment in accordance with Article 61, first paragraph, second sentence, of its Statute by:






  — | annulling Article 2(o) of the Commission’s decision (1) of 2 April 2014 imposing a fine of EUR 8 152 000 upon Fujikura Ltd.; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

give final judgment in accordance with Article 61, first paragraph, second sentence, of its Statute by:

—

annulling Article 2(o) of the Commission’s decision (1) of 2 April 2014 imposing a fine of EUR 8 152 000 upon Fujikura Ltd.; and

| — | reducing this fine by 44 % to EUR 4 565 120; |
| --- | --- |

—

reducing this fine by 44 % to EUR 4 565 120;

| — | order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law by validating the Commission's approach to apply Point 18 of its 2006 Guidelines (2) as if the entire infringement only covered the ‘worldwide part’ of the cartel and did not have an ‘intra-EEA part’ involving only the European suppliers.

As a result, the Commission determined the notional values of sales for the cartel participants in a way that significantly undervalued the role of the European suppliers and overvalued the role of the Asian suppliers, including Fujikura, in this infringement.

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power Cables) (notified under document C(2014) 2139 final) (OJ 2014, C 319, p. 10)

(2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2)

---
Exhibit 13.2

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 (as amended by this Amendment No. 1) for the year ended December 31,
2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ye Guohua, the Chief Financial Officer 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: September 17, 2014



By:

/s/ Ye GuohuaName:

Ye GuohuaTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 43 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 43

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the use of Post-9/
   11 Educational Assistance to pursue independent study programs at 
 certain educational institutions that are not institutions of higher 
                               learning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

  Mr. Mullin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the use of Post-9/
   11 Educational Assistance to pursue independent study programs at 
 certain educational institutions that are not institutions of higher 
                               learning.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF POST-9/11 EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO 
              PURSUE INDEPENDENT STUDY PROGRAMS AT CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL 
              INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE NOT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER 
              LEARNING.

    Paragraph (4) of section 3680A(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended to read as follows:
            ``(4) any independent study program except an accredited 
        independent study program (including open circuit television) 
        leading--
                    ``(A) to a standard college degree;
                    ``(B) to a certificate that reflects educational 
                attainment offered by an institution of higher 
                learning; or
                    ``(C) to a certificate that reflects completion of 
                a course of study offered by--
                            ``(i) an area career and technical 
                        education school (as defined in section 3 of 
                        the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical 
                        Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2302)) that 
                        provides education at the postsecondary level; 
                        or
                            ``(ii) a postsecondary vocational 
                        institution (as defined in section 102(c) of 
                        the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
                        1002(c))) that provides education at the 
                        postsecondary level.''.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Mario Ortega v. Sandra Centeno Blanco

Appellate case number: 01-20-00728-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-49198

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Mario Ortega, has filed a second motion for a sixty-day extension of time in 

which to file his brief, which is currently due February 3, 2021. Appellant’s motion is granted 

in part. Appellant’s brief is due March 5, 2021.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __________/s/ Julie Countiss________________

 Acting individually 

Date: January 28, 2021
### Information Update - Description has changed: Conference Call with UWAG Thu 01/21/2010 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM A ttendance is required for Ronald Jordan Chair: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US No Location Information

Jezebele Alicea has sent updated information; description has changed
Required: DBHILL@southernco.com, Deborah.Bartram@erg.com, Josh Hall/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sarah.Holman@erg.com

Greetings!
Please find attached material to be used in our conference call scheduled for tomorrow, J anuar y 21 from 2:00 to 3:30 pm EST.

Sincerely, J ezebele Alicea-Virella Description

# AGENDA

ICR for the Steam Electric Powe r Generating Effluent Guidelines EPA – UWAG Conference Call

January 21, 2010 2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. (EST)



### Topics for Discussion

• 

### Leachate Sampling

• 

### Ash Handling – combined fly ash and bottom ash storage systems

• 

### FGD Terminology (Diagram is included in doc ument entitled FGD Example Diagram_1_20_10.pdf)

• 

### EIA/FERC Data

• 

### Questionnaire Format

• 

### CBI Justification Other Discussion and Wrap-up

Additional Instructions: The teleconference call in number is 1-866- 299-3188 and the access code is 2025661003 followed by the # sign.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Ellison, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), rendered August 2, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), and attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The testimony adduced at trial on behalf of the People established, in relevant part, that on the afternoon of April 17, 1982, the defendant and his friend, went to a Burger King restaurant and drove up to the drive-through line. A van occupied by two men was two car lengths behind the car the defendant’s friend was driving. The defendant, who had a gun in his possession, told his friend that he was going to "rip off’ the men in the van. The defendant went up to the passenger side of the van and announced, "I’m going to rip you off’. The passenger jumped out and started fighting with the defendant. After shooting the passenger three times, the defendant fled from the scene.

In his defense, the defendant testified that he had gone over to the van to look at some tools the victim was selling. The defendant and the victim started arguing over the price of the tools and the victim took out a gun. After he managed to grab the gun, the defendant walked away from the victim, but the victim ran behind him. A fight ensued and as the two men were rolling on the ground, the gun fired three times.

Initially we note that the defendant’s request to charge the defense of justification was not applicable to the charges of attempted robbery and felony murder *(see,*Penal Law § 35.15 [1] [a], [b]; [2]; *People v Guraj,*105 Misc 2d 176, 178). Assuming that the defendant’s request to charge the defense of justification should have been granted with regard to the intentional murder charge, the failure of the trial court to give such an instruction was harmless. Having found the defendant guilty of attempted robbery and felony murder, the jury necessarily rejected the defendant’s contentions that the victim was the initial aggressor and armed *(see, People v Guraj, supra,*at 178). Therefore, "had a proper and complete justification *847instruction been given, the result would not have been different” *(People v Wesley,*76 NY2d 555, 560; *cf., People v Hays,*132 AD2d 620, 621; *People v Stallings,*128 AD2d 908).

The defendant’s other contentions are without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
#### SEA Acquisition Corp. et al., Respondents, v Daniel W. Lyman et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

— Order unani*652mously affirmed with costs for the reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Miller, J. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J. — Dismiss Affirmative Defenses.)

Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lowery, JJ.
p130288.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0288

Focus Ready Draft 3/14/2013

ENGINEER: Jon \ REC

PV (kg/yr): 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (02/26/2013):

Page 1
p130288.eng

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

Ecotox:

Migration to groundwater: Negligible

PBT rating: P3B1T2 .

Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation

Eco: 3 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 1.00 ppb)

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0288

Page 2
p130288.eng

 

 

 

Page 3
p130288.eng

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 13-0288

 

Page 4
p130288.eng

 

 

 

 

 

Page 5
# Transylvania - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Creating PPE for Nurses and School Officials in Western North Carolina STEMwork in western North Carolina (WNCSTEMwork) is a teacher professional development initiative of the Kenan Institute for Engineering, Technology, and Science at North Carolina State University. With ARC support, this program supports six middle and high school teachers from ten counties as they develop their capacity to lead and sustain STEM workforce education. In April [&#8230;]The post Creating PPE for Nurses and School Officials in Western North Carolina appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Land-of-Sky Regional Council Executive Director Nathan Ramsey Email &#160;&#105;&#110;&#x66;o&#64;&#x6c;&#x61;n&#100;&#x6f;&#x66;s&#107;&#x79;&#x2e;o&#114;&#x67;The post Land-of-Sky Regional Council appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
JlJL 3 0 Z015 RA-15-00662

John A. Hamilton load A clrT\:11 s1 ra1or Regula

t ory AdmrniS1ra1

i on **Commerc~al**,\JrpklnOs
The Booing Comp.1n y P 0 Bo• 3707 lAC 03 56 Srotlkl. WAGBt2.l·2207 U.S

.Department
of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue

,S
.E. Washington

,D.C

.20590 Subject: Model: RA Project No.
: Branch/Panel No .: Branch/Panel Name: Response Requested: Reference(s): This letter submits: (X) Petition for Exemption This letter is sent for: Petition for Exemption from Title 14 CFR 25

.961 (a)(5) Fuel System Hot Weather Operation 767-2C PS09-0863 ANM-106B Certification Services November 30, 2015 (a) FAA Exemption No .11086, Regulatory Docket No
.FAA
-2013-0767. (b) Boeing Letter RA-13-03942,

" Petition for Exemption from Title 14 CFR 25.961 (a)(5) Fuel System Hot Weather Operation," dated August 26, 2013

. (X) Posting to the Federal Docket The Boeing Company hereby petitions for an exemption for relief from 14 CFR 25.961{a)(5), as amended by Amendment 25-57, with respect to the critical fuel temperature for hot weather opera
ti ons

. To support the 767-2C program schedule, The Boeing Company respectfully requests that the enclosed information be processed by November 30, 2015

. Furthermore

,The Boeing Company requests to be notified when the enclosed petition processing has been completed. Please note that Boeing was previously granted the reference (a) exemption based onthe reference (b) petition

.In that exemption, the useof JP-4 in therzi_.BDEIND Page 2 RA-15-00662 center tank was prohibited, and the JP-4 dispatch temperature versusaltitude limitation chart for the 757-300 was provided. JP-4 usein the centerand body tanks is necessarytomeet customer requirements for the 767-2C. The 757-300 temperature limitation versusaltitude chart is based upon dispatch temperatures

.Because the 767-2C canmonitor the fuel temperature
in all tanks, amodification
tothe chart is being sought. Boeing is submitting this new petition toallow these changes from the original exemption. Please contact this office orthe following individuals
if youhave any questions: Project Administrator (PA): Program Manager Certification Lead/Specialist:

S. Gordon B. Groenewegen P. LagerkransSpencer 425-237-6068 425-717-2094 425-717-3701 The information being forwarded tothe FAA by orwith this correspondence

is for the exclusive purposeof supportof applications for oramendments to Type Certificates. Sincerely, Jxt>Al(_t.**Ci(41e..tv.A.~~ k~** **~** Douglas M. Lane Director, Commercial Airplanes (425) 237-1383, MC 03-56 FAX: (425) 294-9340 Enclosure: Petition for Exemption cc Name Letter Jim Cashdollar

SP Angelos Xidias
SP Rick Morris
SP Enclosures Comments SP ANM-100B SP ANM-1006 SP ANM-113
# C_2009193EN.01002201.xml

| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/22

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 June 2009 — AVLUX v Parliament

(Case T-524/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Public service contracts — Call for tenders for the refurbishment and extension of the Konrad Adenauer Building, Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s offer - Annulment of the public procurement procedure — No need to adjudicate)

2009/C 193/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: AIB-Vinçotte, Luxembourg (AVLUX ASBL) (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Adam, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and D. Petersheim, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the European Parliament’s decision of 2 October 2008 rejecting the offer made by the applicant in connection with a call for tenders for the refurbishment and extension of the Konrad Adenauer Building, Luxembourg (OJ 2008 S 193-254240)

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present proceedings.

| 2. | The European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Parliament is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, of 21.2.2009.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of SHELBY GROUP, INC. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Kevin Ericksteen,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                                  /s/ Kevin Ericksteen
                                                  ---------------------------
Date: November 10, 2005                               Kevin Ericksteen
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-15-00393-CR

Style: Christopher Ernest Braughton v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: August 17, 2015

Type of motion: Motion to Substitute Counsel

Party filing motion: Appellant’s new counsel Niles Illich

Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

The motion to substitute counsel is granted, but construed as a notice of appearance

as lead counsel, and the Clerk of this Court is directed to note Niles Illich as lead

counsel for appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.1(a), 6.2, 6.5(d). If counsel Robert 

Sirianni requests withdrawal, he must file a motion that complies with Rule 6.5(d). 

Mr. Sirianni’s objection is overruled as moot.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually 

Date: August 27, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS AT MARCH 31, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,041
<SECURITIES>                                     7,768
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                       621
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,472
<PP&E>                                           1,325<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,702
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,320<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,307
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           251
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,013
<SALES>                                          4,522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,522
<CGS>                                            1,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (257)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  (8)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,458)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,458)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.06)
<FN>
<F1>PP&E IS NET OF ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION OF $5,032.
<F2>TOTAL ASSETS INCLUDE $365 OF OTHER ASSETS AND INVESTMENTS OF $1,437.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>