alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY

– 0210426.004.05

FROM: David Green, RTI International

DATE OF CONTACT: August 16, 2010

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED:

American Petroleum Institute and Members

Participants:

Bob Hermanson, BP Stan Hayes, ENVIRON Rob Ferry, TGB

Jim G riffin, ACC

Shari Keller, Shell

Fred Fedri, OXY

Don Johnson, PPG Clay Freeberg, Chevron Paul Silor, TransMontaigne Preethi Joseph, Kinder Morgan

Peter Weaver, ILTA

Michele Herman, Chevron

Charlie Bennett, Marathon

Liz McMeekin, PPG

Steve Shedd, EPA

David G reen, RTI James Scroggins, TPC Group Celia Chu, TPC Group

Matt Todd, API

SUMMARY OF CONTACT

The purpose of the conference call was to discuss the letter sent by Matt Todd to Steve Shedd on August 16, 2010 regarding ongoing API work to review and correct data on four marine vessel loading facilities , which had been found to have risks greater than one

in one million

. API's contractor stated that the latitudes and longitudes of the emission release points for 3 of the four sites (TransMontaigne, Texas Petr ochemicals and Kinder Morgan) were incorrect , and that some of the emission rate data for Unocal/Chevron was incorrect. Naphtha emissions for Unocal/Chevron were erroneously tr eated as naphthalene emissions. API believes that if this error were corrected , the risk for this plant would drop below 1 in on e million (and that marine vessel loading is responsible for only a small part of this risk )

.2

API's contractor reran EPA's risk assessment model for two of the plants and found lower risk than previousl y reported. As shown in t h e figures, there are a number of issues with the emission point locations for the other two facilities (for both the entire facility and the marine tank vessel loading operations ) . There are al s o issues with the emission rates for

both facilities. Thus, a dditional data are being collected on the other two plants. API is concerned that since EPA has finished its modeling effort, the preamble may reflect inflated risks, which will be generate undeserved bad publicity for the plants in question.

API said they would have their study report supporting their analyses completed soon but

were not sure it would be complete by mid

- Septe mber. EPA urged API to submit any additional corrections to the facility emission files and support for those changes (for the remaining two plants) early in the public comment period.
#### Gwillym, Appellant, *v.*De Lauritis.

Argued November 8, 1943.

Before Keller, P. J., Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Rhodes, Hirt, Kenworthey and Reno, JJ.

*F. S. Riordan,*for appellant

No appearance was entered nor brief filed for appellee.

November 17, 1943:

Per Curiam,

This case is governed by the construction to be given the following clause of Harry Gwillym’s will:

> “In case of death everything I own or have a part in goes to Margaret Gwillym to have and to hold until death”.

If the clause had read, “In case of death everything I own or have a part in goes to Margaret Gwillym to have and to hold during the term of her natural life”, it certainly would have passed only a life estate in the testator’s realty.

*572We think the limitation, “until death”, is the equivalent of “during the term of her natural life”. No other construction can reasonably be made.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Young Ham, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Liquidmetal Technologies;

 

2. Based on my knowledge,this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

 

a) designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

 

b) evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of adate within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “EvaluationDate”); and

 

c) presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a) all significantdeficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b) any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether ornot there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factorsthat could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of ourmost recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard tosignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 
| Date: November 30,  2005 | /s/ Young Ham                                 |   |
|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                          | Young Ham                                     |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer                       |
|                          | (Principal Financial  and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

WILLIAM C. STUCKEY

v.

SETH RILEY AND BARBARA PIERSON 

RILEY

v.

WILLIAM E. STUCKEY, DIANNA P. 

STUCKEY, DAWN STUCKEY AND 

DIANNA D. STUCKEY

PETITION OF: WILLIAM C. STUCKEY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 476 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EXHIBIT 31.3
                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Larry Hannappel, certify that:

     1. I have  reviewed  this  annual  report on Form 10-K of Century  Casinos,
Inc.;

     2. Based on my  knowledge,  this annual  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 annual
report;

     3. Based on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual report;

     4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers 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  annual  report is
     being prepared;

          b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
     and  procedures and presented in this annual report our  conclusions  about
     the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,  as of the end
     of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

          c)  disclosed  in this  annual  report any change in the  registrant's
     internal  control  over  financial   reporting  that  occurred  during  the
     registrant's most recent fiscal quarter 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  officers 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 function):

          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:  March 8, 2004

/s/ Larry Hannappel
--------------------------------
Larry Hannappel
Chief Accounting Officer
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 SAN JOSE  INTERNATIONAL,  INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Christopher Greenwood, 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.

Date: March 18, 2004


/s/ Christopher Greenwood
--------------------------
Christopher Greenwood
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2
  CERTIFICATION
    OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER
    Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
    2002
    Form 10-Q
      Rules 13a-15(e) 15d-15(e)) Rules 13a-15(f) 15d-15(f))
                May 13,
    2009

/s/  Courtney
    A.
    BrowerDate

Courtney A. BrowerFinancial Reporting ManagerGrubb & Ellis Realty Investors, LLC,
    the Manager of NNN 2002 Value Fund, LLC(principal accounting officer)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 19, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C.                           ( print page 3701)                        3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 174 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-165, CP2024-171.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-00935 Filed 1-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
From: "Hill, Donna B." <DBHILL@southernco.com>

To: Josh H all/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@ EPA

Date: 09/04/2009 05:09 PM Subject: Sample Selection for Methods Development Study

Josh, Attached are the sample selection criteria that we have used to select FGD treated efflue nt samples for methods optimization and CRM development studies. It is difficult to provide plant names because the characteristics of the treated effluent can change for a given plant over time. Our approach has been to collect several candidate samples (m ore than what you need) and analyze them for TDS, calcium, sulfate, chloride, magnesium, and sodium. These constituents are responsible for
mo st of the analytical interferences. If time allows, the samples should also be analyzed for the metals of int erest to get an idea of their concentrations. Then, w ith the samples volumes already in hand, yo u can select which samples are best for the study using the criteria provided. EPRI used this approach for their DRC methods optimization study and UWAG has recently used this approach for the CRM development stabilization study. Another approach w ould be for us to provide you with plant names based on historical data. I w ould need extra time to contact the plants and ask them if they wo ul d be w illing to provide samples for your study. Again, because the characteristics of the effluent can change over time, I w ould recommend collecting more samples than you need for the study, analyze them as discussed above, and then select which samples t o use in the study. If you want to take this approach, I w ould need at least 3 days to call the facilities. If you would like to discuss, please let me know w hat time you can be available on Tuesday. I am willing to help you as much as I can. I think i t is very good that EPA wants to pursue this methods optimization work.
Thanks, Donna

Donna B. Hill Southern Co. Services Research & Environmental Affairs 600 North 18th Street, Bin 14N

- 8195 Birmingham, AL 3520 3Tel 205

- 257

- 5234

Cel 205

- 587

- 4846 Fax 205

- 257

- 7294

(See attached file: FGD WW Sample Selection Criteria.doc)
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 2987]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00830]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, January 18, 2024.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7B, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors 
must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Board Briefing, NCUA's 2024-2026 Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, 
and Accessibility Strategic Plan.
    2. NCUA's 2024 Annual Performance Plan.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, 
Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-00830 Filed 1-12-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
#### Lillian E. PRUITT, Turner Pruitt, Kermit Pruitt, Leonidas Pruitt and Nan Pruitt Harris, Plaintiffs in Error, v. H. T. BURROW, B. B. Parr and J. B. Roberts, Defendants in Error.

No. 36838.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 13, 1955.

*350E. B. Anderson, Waurika, C. D. Cúnd, Duncan, for plaintiffs in error.

Charles E. Jackson, Pauls Valley, for defendants in error.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice.

The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.

The District Court of Garvin County, Oklahoma, by its judgment quieted title in plaintiffs (defendants in error) in and to all the oil, gas and other mineral rights in and under certain described land.

The land involved in the action was patented to Velma Leftwich, a 1⁄22 Chickasaw Indian, as a part of her surplus allotment. On September 18, 1910, she married Ernest A. Pruitt. She and her husband (Mr. Pruitt) on February 12, 1919, deeded the land in question by warranty deed to R. L. Lane, wherein all mineral rights were reserved to grantors, but said deed contained no words of grant to the husband.

The land in question was never occupied as a family homestead.

After the above conveyance, Velma and Ernest A. Pruitt were divorced (October 15, 1919), and in the property settlement no mention was made of the property involved in this controversy.

Prior to the death of Ernest A. Pruitt, his widow, Velma Pruitt, nee Leftwich, conveyed by her individual deed *1/2*of the mineral interest in the land in controversy, which deed was dated March 8, 1946, and on November 20, 1946, she conveyed another *1⁄8*of the mineral interest. The above deeds were made subject to any prior conveyances concerning the described lands. Also, on February 28, 1953, she conveyed the remaining 1⁄8 interest in the mineral rights in the land involved subject to prior conveyances. Prior to these conveyances, Velma had, on June 22, 1945, executed an oil and gas lease on all of the property involved.

Appellants claim a 1⁄2, interest in the mineral rights of the land in controversy as heirs of Ernest A. Pruitt. They contend that when the deed was made by Ernest A. Pruitt and his wife, Velma Pruitt, nee Leftwich, to R. L. Lane, wherein all mineral rights were reserved to the grantors therein, that he became the owner of 1⁄2 thereof, even though theretofore he had no interest in said property and such deed contained no words of grant to the husband (Ernest A. Pruitt).

Defendants in error (plaintiffs) appropriately state the crux of this lawsuit in their statement:

> “There is but one question in this lawsuit. Did the deed from Velma *351Pruitt and Ernest A. Pruitt of February 12, 1919, covering part of her surplus Indian allotment, wherein the oil, gas and other minerals were reserved to grantors, create any estate in Ernest A. Pruitt by reason of his joining in the execution of the deed with his wife?”

This question has been answered in the negative in the recent case of Leidig v. Hoopes, Okl., 288 P.2d 402.

The facts being essentially the same as in the Leidig case, and for the reasons stated in the Leidig case, supra, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, ~AA, :&AA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Airlines 4 America Bob Ireland .t./Jt.l~ 14 

Boeing Doug Mays P./~~ !UJJtf 

Other/ Additional Information:
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5049 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that each member of 

the Armed Forces who is discharged or separated from the Armed 

Forces receives documentation regarding the training and experience 

of the member. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 

Mr. CORREA (for himself, Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia, Ms. JACKSON LEE, 

and Ms. MOORE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to ensure that each 

member of the Armed Forces who is discharged or separated from the Armed Forces receives documentation 

regarding the training and experience of the member. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Facilitating Veterans’ 

5 Education Act’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5049 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVISION OF JOINT SERVICES TRANSCRIPT. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 53 of title 10, United 

3 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1041 

4 the following new section: 

5 ‘‘§ 1041a. Provision of joint services transcript 

6 ‘‘At the same time that the Secretary concerned 

7 issues a certificate of release or discharge to a member 

8 of the armed forces who is being discharged or released 

9 from active duty, the Secretary shall provide to such mem10 ber a copy of the joint services transcript of the member, 

11 or such successor transcript.’’. 

12 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

13 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

14 after the item relating to section 1041 the following new 

15 item: 

‘‘1041a. Provision of joint services transcript.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
##### 



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
    /s/ Daniel L. EricksonExecutive Vice President
Chief Financial Officer
| **EXHIBIT 99.2** |
|------------------|

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

Inconnection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB  of Coast Bancorp for the quarter ended June30, 2002, I, Thomas J. Sherman, Chief Financial Officer of Coast Bancorp,hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBof Coast Bancorp for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)           the information contained in suchQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB  ofCoast Bancorp for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CoastBancorp

Dated:  August 13, 2002

 
| /s/ Thomas J. Sherman   |
|-------------------------|
| THOMAS J. SHERMAN       |
|                    |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

16

----