alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Steve luff

Rio Bravo Poso

19100 Von Karman , Suite 570

Irvine, CA 92612

Re:

Deterioration Completeness Determination for Clean Air Act (CAA) Prevention of Significant (PSD) Permit Modification for Rio Bravo Poso (Poso)

Dear Mr. luff:

modification

This letter concerns

to PSD

the

Permit

application completeness status of Rio Bravo Poso ‘s application for a

October 22, 1986. The

#SJ 85-06 issued to Rio Bravo Refining Company (Rio Bravo) on

biomass application requests that Poso be permitted to burn clean cellulosic

derived fuel.

in addition to the currently permitted fuels of natural gas, coal, petroleum coke and tireThe

These

first

materials

PSD application materials were dated and received by this office on May 17, 2010. and supplemental pmcsoiiiihitiamendments information pQy1ddhyR1a Rravo wei-e +1ecestry ftn - -- August 29, 2011. Additional to fSD Permit #SJ 85-06 on December 13, 2010 and

numerous occasions.

information relating to this modification was submitted on

on February 24,

Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.3, EPA determined the application to be complete 2012.

972-3

If you

538.

should have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Omer Shale’ at (41 5

Sincerely,

Gerardo C. Rios,

Chiec, Permits Office

cc: Dr. Ted Guth

Maynard Adams, Rio Bravo Poso

Bill Rossiter, Rio Bravo Poso
Letter from KPMG LLP Regarding  Change in Certifying Accountant



 Exhibit 10.33 
  
 Securities and Exchange Commission 
 Washington,
D.C. 20549 
  
 May 19, 2004 
  
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
  
 We were previously principal accountants for ClubCorp, Inc. (“the Company”) and, under the date of March 29, 2004, we reported on
the consolidated financial statements of ClubCorp, Inc. as of and for the years ended December 31, 2002 and December 30, 2003. On May 13, 2004, our appointment as principal accountants was terminated. We have read ClubCorp, Inc.’s statements
included under Item 4 of its Form 8-K dated May 19, 2004, and we agree with such statements, except that we are not in a position to agree or disagree with ClubCorp Inc.'s statements that the Audit Committee and Board of Directors participated in
and approved the decision to change independent accountants, the Company’s Board of Directors, upon recommendation of the Audit Committee, has appointed Deloitte & Touche LLP as the Company’s independent auditors for the fiscal year
ending December 28, 2004, and that Deloitte & Touche LLP was not consulted regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction or the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on ClubCorp, Inc.'s
consolidated financial statements, and neither a written report was provided to the Company nor oral advice was provided that Deloitte & Touche LLP concluded was an important factor considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to the
accounting, auditing or financial reporting issue; or (ii) any matter that was either the subject of a disagreement or a reportable event. 
  
 Very truly yours, 
  
 KPMG LLP
July 6, 2015

Mr. Thaddeus Porebski Jr.

UAS Project Manager

LGP Realty of West Milford, LLC.

14 Split Rock Road

West Milford, New Jersey 07480

Dear Mr. Porebski :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ § 21.185

, 45.23(b)

, 91.9(b), 91.203(a), and 91.203(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and what you should

do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your April 24, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of LGP Realty of West Milford,

LLC into the public docket (No. FAA− 2015

− 1437 ), but we are unable to process your request

any further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81

(copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the

following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket with out notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
**REPORT
          OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
 
 
 
 To
          the
          Shareholders of
 **Canadian
          Zinc Corporation**
 
 We
          have
          audited the balance sheets of **Canadian Zinc Corporation** as at
          December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the statements of operations and deficit
          and
          cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the
          responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an
          opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
 
 We
          conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing
          standards and
          the
          standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United
          States). Those
          standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable
          assurance whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement.
          We
          were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company’s internal control over
          financial reporting. An audit includes consideration of internal control
          over
          financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are
          appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing
          an
          opinion in the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial
          reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining,
          on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
          financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles
          used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
          the
          overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides
          a
          reasonable basis for our opinion.
 
 In
          our
          opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects,
          the financial position of the Company as at December 31, 2006 and 2005,
          and the
          results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in
          conformity with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles.
 
 Chartered
          Accountants  Vancouver,
          Canada
 March
          22,
          2007
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Arthur Zafiropoulo, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Annual Report of Ultratech, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Ultratech, Inc.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                           |  |  |  |                     |  | 
|------ |  | ------------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------- |  | 
|       |  |                           |  | 
|By:    |  | /s/    ARTHUR
ZAFIROPOULO |  |  |  | Date: March 1, 2011 |  | 
|Name:  |  | Arthur Zafiropoulo        |  |  |  |                     |  | 
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer   |  |  |  |                     |  | 

I, Bruce Wright, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Annual Report of Ultratech, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Ultratech, Inc.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|       |  |                         |  |  |  |                     |  | 
|------ |  | ----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------- |  | 
|       |  |                         |  | 
|By:    |  | /s/    BRUCE
WRIGHT     |  |  |  | Date: March 1, 2011 |  | 
|Name:  |  | Bruce Wright            |  |  |  |                     |  | 
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer |  |  |  |                     |  |
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 City Network, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Yun-Yi  Tseng,
Chief Financial 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:

     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies,  in  all  material  respects,  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/ Yun-Yi Tseng
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Yun-Yi Tseng
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        November 29, 2006


THIS  CERTIFICATION  IS MADE  SOLELY FOR  PURPOSES  OF 18 U.S.C.  SECTION  1350,
SUBJECT  TO THE  KNOWLEDGE  STANDARD  CONTAINED  THEREIN,  AND NOT FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE.

A SIGNED  ORIGINAL  OF THIS  WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED  BY SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE
COMPANY AND  FURNISHED TO THE  SECURITIES  AND EXCHANGE  COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF
UPON REQUEST.  THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE "FILED" AS PART
OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB THAT IT ACCOMPANIES.
**Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 March 2009 – Mariano v Istituto nazionale per l’assicurazione contro gli infortuni
sul lavoro**

**(Case C‐217/08)**

Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Equal treatment in employment matters – Articles 12 EC and 13 EC – Grant of survivor’s benefit – National rules providing for differences in treatment between surviving spouses and surviving cohabitees

1.                     *European Union citizenship – Treaty provisions – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of nationality – Not allowed
– Substantive scope – Exclusion of purely internal situations (Arts 12 EC and 17 EC) (see paras 17-22)*

2.                     *Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Discrimination on grounds of age – Not allowed – Scope – Discriminatory treatment
having no link with Community law – Excluded (Art. 13 EC; Council Directive 2000/78) (see paras 24-27)*

3.                     *Community law – Principles – Equal treatment – Scope – National rules providing for differences in treatment between surviving
spouses and surviving partners in awarding survivor’s benefit – Discriminatory treatment having no link with Community law
– Excluded (Arts 12 EC and 13 EC; Council Directive 2000/78) (see paras 30-31)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling – Tribunale Ordinario di Milano (Italy) – Interpretation of Articles 12 EC and 13 EC – Equal treatment in employment matters – Grant of survivor’s benefit – National rules providing for differences in treatment between surviving spouses and surviving partners who were in a life partnership. |

**Operative part**

Community law does not impose a prohibition of all discrimination, the application of which the courts of Member States must
ensure, where the allegedly discriminatory treatment has no link with Community law. In circumstances such as those at issue
in the main proceedings, no such link arises from Articles 12 EC and 13 EC in themselves.

Those articles do not preclude, in those circumstances, national rules under which, in the event of the death of a person
as a result of an accident, a pension amounting to 50% of the remuneration received by that person before his death is paid
solely to his surviving spouse and the infant child of the deceased receives only a pension amounting to 20% of that remuneration.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 20, 2015

No. 04-15-00064-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.R.E.T., et al children,

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-02260

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. The 

reporter’s record for this appeal was due to be filed on February 17, 2015. On February 26, 2015, 

this Court issued an order requiring the reporter’s record be filed on or before March 9. On 

February 27, 2015 the court reporter, Kayleen Rivera, filed a second notice of late record seeking 

a 30-day extension. Ms. Rivera was given another extension to March 13, 2015. Ms. Rivera filed 

the first volume of the reporter’s record on March 6, 2015. At this time, the full reporter’s record 

still has not been filed. 

It is therefore ORDERED that Ms. Rivera file all remaining volumes of the reporter’s

record in this court no later than March 27, 2015. If the full reporter’s record is not received by 

such date, an order may issue directing Ms. Rivera to appear and show cause why she should not 

be held in contempt for failing to file the record. 

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
NO. 07-09-0169-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JUNE 5, 2009

______________________________

In re BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE, 

Relator

_________________________________

ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Pending before this court is the application of Barry Dwayne Minnfee for a writ of

mandamus. He requests that we compel the “court to respond to further motion for

rehearing” concerning his request for DNA testing. We deny the application for the

reasons that follow.

First, rules of procedure obligate one seeking mandamus relief to accompany his

petition with an appendix. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). The latter must include, among other

things, a certified or sworn copy of the document showing the matter complained of. In this

case, the document showing the matter complained of would be the motion requesting

further rehearing from the trial court. This Minnfee failed to do. 

Second, Minnfee did disclose in his application for writ of mandamus that he has

filed several prior motions for rehearing and that they had been “overruled.” Whether those
2

motions were mere reiterations of that at issue here is unknown for they too were not

included in an appendix. Nonetheless, he cites us to nothing that suggests, much less

requires, a trial court to act upon repetitious motions that are akin to motions for new trial.

With regard to the latter, they are considered overruled by operation of law if no action is

taken upon them within 75 days of the date the final order was signed. TEX. R. CIV. P.

329b(c). Given that a motion for rehearing which attempts to alter a final order is much like

one for new trial, see Edwards Lifesciences, L.L.C. v. Covenant Health Systems, 205

S.W.3d 687, 690 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2006, no pet.) (stating that the substance of the

motion controls as opposed to its label), we see no reason to treat them differently here.

So, given that the allegations in and the file-mark on Minnfee’s application for writ leads

us to conclude that 1) more than 75 days has lapsed from the date upon which the trial

court entered its final order and 2) the trial court has yet to act on the motion, it can and

should be considered as overruled by operation of law.

Accordingly, the application for writ of mandamus pending before this court is

denied.

Per Curiam
EXHIBIT 4.0

NB&T FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

48 N. South Street

Wilmington, OH 45177

March 20, 2007

Securities and
Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: NB&T Financial Group, Inc.  Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen:

NB&T Financial Group, Inc., an Ohio corporation
(NBTF), is today filing an Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the Form 10-K), as executed on March 20, 2007.

Pursuant to the instructions relating to the Exhibits in Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of Regulation S-K, NBTF hereby agrees to furnish the Commission, upon request, copies of instruments and agreements defining the rights of
holders of its long-term debt and of the long-term debt of its consolidated subsidiaries, which are not being filed as exhibits to the Form 10-K. Such long-term debt does not exceed 10% of the total assets of NBTF and its subsidiaries on a
consolidated basis.



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|Very truly yours,                
|                                 
|/s/ John J. Limbert              
|John J. Limbert President and
CEO



61
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4446 

AN ACT 

To amend the Virgin Islands of the United States Centennial 

Commission Act to extend the expiration date of the 

Commission, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4446 EH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. 

2 The Virgin Islands of the United States Centennial 

3 Commission Act (Public Law 114–224) is amended— 

4 (1) in section 7(b), by striking ‘‘January 31, 

5 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘January 31, 2019’’; and 

6 (2) in section 10, by striking ‘‘September 30, 

7 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘September 30, 2019’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 16, 2018. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4446 

AN ACT 

To amend the Virgin Islands of the United States 

poses. tion date of the Commission, and for other purCentennial Commission Act to extend the expira-
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4692 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4692

To revise the boundaries of a John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 
                System Unit in Topsail, North Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 20, 2017

  Mr. Jones introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To revise the boundaries of a John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 
                System Unit in Topsail, North Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. CORRECTION TO MAP.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall make such corrections 
to the map described in subsection (b) as are necessary to exclude lots 
from Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit L06 in North Topsail Beach 
that were serviced by infrastructure (as described in section 
4(g)(1)(B) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 
3503(g)(1)(B))) installed along North Carolina Highway 210 and New 
River Inlet Road as of the date of enactment of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act on October 18, 1982.
    (b) Map Described.--The map referred to in subsection (a) is a map 
that--
            (1) is included in a set of maps as part of the John H. 
        Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital Mapping Pilot 
        Project entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 
        System'', dated November 20, 2013; and
            (2) relates to unit L06 of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
        System.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.4

                               JO-ANN STORES, INC.

       LIST OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE REGISTRANT'S 1979
                    SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN, AS AMENDED



         Dave Bolen
         Brian Carney
         Valerie Gentile Sachs
         Rosalind Thompson