alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PACIFIC
SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 2,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-05-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-02-1997
<CASH>                                       9,962,626
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  583,811
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 19,760,412
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,881,742
<PP&E>                                      45,455,393
<DEPRECIATION>                             (15,952,174)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              65,704,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,191,508
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,921
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,465,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                65,704,557
<SALES>                                    155,261,558
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           155,261,558
<CGS>                                      106,126,306
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,126,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (236,889)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,245,823
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,834,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,411,823
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,411,823
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.89
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Ms
. Kimberly D. Mireles Vice President Environmental Services Luminant Power 1601 Bryan Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Dear Ms. Mireles : 

## OCT 2 12014 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

Thank you for your letter dated September 17, 2014, on behalfofLuminant Generation Company LLC requesting an extension ofthe closing date for receipt ofpublic comments on the supplemental proposal to address affirmative defense provisions in State Implementation Plans, issued by the U.S
. Environmental Protection Agency on September 5, 2014
. The EPA has considered your request, but has decided not to extend the comment period beyond the current closing date ofNovember 6, 2014. By this letter, I want to notify you ofthat decision as promptly as possible so that you can plan to submit any comments on the supplemental proposal within the time already established. We are providing a comment period of 50 days from publication, 62 days from the date ofposting the pre-publication version on the EPA website, and we believe that the comment period's current closing date allows sufficient time for all interested parties to develop and submit comments on the supplemental proposal. We trust this timely response is helpful and look forward to receiving your comments on the supplemental proposal. Sincerely,

Janet G
. McCabe Acting Assistant Administrator

Internet Address (URL) • http:// www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
Exhibit
32




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 Megola, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Joel Gardner, acting in the capacity as thePresident, CEO, Principal
Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Joel GardnerJoel
      GardnerPresident,
      CEO, Principal FinancialOfficer and Principal Accounting
      OfficerFebruary
      18, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 4614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01292]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Heart, Lung, and Blood Initial Review Group; 
NHLBI Mentored Clinical and Basic Science Study Section.
    Date: February 22-23, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge I, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Rajiv Kumar, Ph.D., Chief, Office of Scientific 
Review/DERA National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Room 208-W, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-4612, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f6d7e75766931746a727e6d5f71767731787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ff8d9e959689d1948a929e8dbf919697d1989089">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 18, 2024.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-01292 Filed 1-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 7 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Ford on June 28, 2011 FROM: Don Kopinski TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2010 - 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on June 28 , 2011 b etween Ford and EPA staff. The following people attended : Ford : Ken McAlinden, Aly ssa Werthman, Satish Atluri, Bob Thomas EPA: Tony

Fernandez, Chuck Moulis, Chris Nevers, Bob Peavy house, Don Kopinski The discussion focused on anal ytically- derived CO2. Ford staff’s presentation of their revised derivation of a best - fit curve for anal yticall y derived CO2 is attached . Attachment
<PAGE>
             EXHIBIT 11.1  Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings


Net Income Per Share

    Net income per share is computed using the weighted average number of common
and dilutive shares outstanding during the period. A reconciliation of the
numerators and denominators of the basic and diluted per-share computations
follows in thousands, except per share data:

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                          YEAR ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                     ------------------------------
                                                       2000       2001       2002
                                                     --------   --------   --------
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>        <C>
Basic
  Numerator:
     Net income ..................................   $ 20,703   $ 21,674   $115,731
                                                     ========   ========   ========

  Denominator:
     Weighted average common stock
       outstanding ...............................     49,520     58,290     84,432
                                                     ========   ========   ========
       Net income per share ......................   $   0.42   $   0.37   $   1.37
                                                     ========   ========   ========

Diluted
  Numerator:
     Net income ..................................   $ 20,703   $ 21,674   $115,731
                                                     ========   ========   ========

  Denominator:
     Weighted average common stock
       outstanding ...............................     49,520     58,290     84,432
  Other Dilutive Securities:
     Preferred stock .............................         --      7,500         --
     Options and warrants using the treasury
       stock method ..............................      5,954      6,588     13,906
                                                     --------   --------   --------
     Weighted average shares outstanding .........     55,474     72,378     98,338
                                                     ========   ========   ========
          Net income per share ...................   $   0.37   $   0.30   $   1.18
                                                     ========   ========   ========
</Table>
EXHIBIT 10.5







Directors' Compensation







All non-employee directors of The Old Point National Bank of Phoebus (the Bank) and Old Point Trust & Financial Services, N.A. (the Trust Company) receive $500 and $300, respectively, for each board meeting they attend. The non-employee directors of the Bank and Trust Company receive $150 for each committee meeting they attend except for the Bank's Investment Committee meetings, for which members receive $100 for attendance, and the Bank's Directors Loan Committee and Audit Committee meetings, for which members receive $200 for attendance.







In addition, non-employee directors of the Bank and Trust Company receive an annual retainer fee of $10,000 and $3,000, respectively.  In addition, the chairman of the Audit Committee and the chairman of the Trust Company Board receive an additional $2,000 annual retainer, the Lead Director of the Bank Board receives an additional $7,000 annual retainer, and the chairman of the Directors Loan Committee receives an additional $1,000 annual retainer.







All directors of Old Point Financial Corporation (the Company) have been elected as directors of the Bank, but there is no assurance that this practice will continue. However, not all Company directors serve as directors of the Trust Company. There are no additional fees paid for being a Company director.


 


The Company reimburses travel, lodging and meal expense for all directors living outside of Virginia to attend board and committee meetings. The Company also pays for all directors and their spouses to attend regular director seminars.







Non-employee directors were eligible to receive awards of non-qualified stock options under the Company's 1998 Stock Option Plan; however, the 1998 Stock Option Plan expired in 2008, and no further awards may be granted under the plan.







Non-employee directors are eligible to receive equity compensation awards under the Company’s 2016 Incentive Stock Plan.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Brenda Hall (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brenda
Hall, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Brenda Hall
-----------------------------
Brenda Hall
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
November 16, 2004
Memorandum 

TO: Portland Cement NESHAP Docket 

From Keith Barnett, US EPA 

Subject: EPA Method 321 Detection Limits and Minimum Quantification Limit (MQL) 

DATE: July 26, 2010 

Detection Limit 

In order to determine the typical detection limits for EPA method 321 EPA we revived 

available HCl test reports where EPA Method 321 was used. These reports are available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. In addition, we contacted a testing firm that had extensive 

knowledge in performing EPA method 321 tests on cement kilns and lime kilns, including kilns 

with wet scrubbers. They estimated that typical detection limits were 0.2 to 0.2 ppmv. (See 

attached telecon). 

In order to determine the minimum quantification limits, we referred to American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, 

Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001. In this 

reference the levels at which measurements become reliable is estimated at 3 times the 

detection limit. We used this factor to establish a MQL of 0.9 ppmv as measured in the stack. 

In order to convert this measurement to 7 percent oxygen and a dry basis, we assumed 26 

percent moisture and 13 percent oxygen (reasonable worst case conditions from a review of 

stack test data), and used the standard stack test calculation methods to convert to 7 percent 

oxygen and dry basis. The result in an MQL of 2.13 ppmv, dry basis at 7 percent oxygen which 

we rounded to 3.0. 

0.9 ppm wet basis/ (1-0.26 percent H2) = 1.216ppmvd at the stack oxygen concentration 

1.216 x ((20.9 - 7)/(20.9 - 13)) = 2.1395 ppmvd at 7 percent oxygen 

 
Attachments 

Telecon with Laura Kinner, Emission Monitoring Inc., April 29, 2010

The HCl detection limit for EPA Method 321 is 0.2 ppmv usually, with wet plants it is typically 

0.3 ppmv due to high water content. 

Email from Laura Kinner, Emission Monitoring Inc. 

HCl DL from Lime Plants 

lkinner@emissionmonitoring.com 

to: Keith Barnett 

 04/29/2010 11:41 AM 

Keith: 

 

I have data from two of Chem Lime's scrubbed plants. We typically detect 

HCl post scrubber since they do not add fresh water, only water for make 

up. Therefore, the HCl is scrubbed and some is stripped/not scrubbed. 

Both kiln systems had about 4 ppm HCl (v) wet, but very low flow rates so 

they were classified as area sources. We calculated our detection limit 

to be about 0.25ppm (v) wet at 20% moisture for these units. 

 

lkinner@emissionmonitoring.com 

Emission Monitoring Inc. 

8901 Glenwood Ave. 

Raleigh, NC 27617 

252.586.7938 

919.781.3824 

919.610.7313
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1

                    SUBSIDIARIES OF THE CERPLEX GROUP, INC.,
                    ----------------------------------------
                       a Delaware corporation ("Cerplex")
                       ----------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                
                                                
                                                JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION     
                                                ----------------------------     
           ENTITY                                    AND TYPE OF ENTITY             OWNERSHIP
           ------                                    ------------------             ---------
 <S>                                           <C>                             <C>
 CERTECH Technology, Inc.                      Texas corporation                100% BY CERPLEX

 Cerplex Mass., Inc.                           Massachusetts corporation        100% BY CERPLEX

 Cerplex Limited                               England and Wales corporation    100% BY CERPLEX

 Apex Computer Company                         Washington corporation           100% BY CERPLEX

 Cerplex Subsidiary, Inc. ("Cerplex Sub")      Delaware corporation             100% BY CERPLEX

 Peripheral Computer Support, Inc. ("PCS")     California corporation           100% BY CERPLEX

 Modcomp Joint Venture, Inc. ("MJVI")          Delaware corporation             100% BY CERPLEX

 Modcomp/Cerplex L.P. ("Modcomp")              Delaware limited partnership     44% BY CERPLEX SUB AND 51%
                                                                                BY MJVI

 Modular Computer Services, Inc.               Florida corporation              100% BY MODCOMP

 Modcomp Canada Ltd.                           Canada corporation               100% BY MODCOMP

 Modcomp France                                French societe anonyme           100% BY MODCOMP

 Modcomp C.A.                                  Venezuela corporation            100% BY MODCOMP

 Cerplex S.A.S.                                French corporation               100% BY CERPLEX AND
                                                                                CERPLEX LIMITED
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

EDWARD GRAZIANO,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Appellee :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 17 EAP 2019

Appeal from the Order of Commonwealth Court dated May 13, 2019 exited May 13, 2019 at No. 28

MD 2019.

O RDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: April 22, 2020

AND NOW, this 22 nd day of April , 2020

, the order of the Commonwealth Court is

AFFIRMED

. Appellant’s Motion for Leave to [File] Reply Brief Nunc Pro Tunc is

GRANTED

.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
The Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 27, 2009
 TRANS1 INC.
  Delaware
    
    001-33744
    
    33-0909022(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation)
    
    (Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 411 Landmark Drive
Wilmington, NC 28412-6303
 (910) 332-1700
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425).o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial ConditionItem 9.01 Financial Statements and ExhibitsSignaturesEXHIBIT INDEXEX-99.1EX-99.2    Table of Contents  
 Item 2.02 Results of Operations and Financial Condition.
    
 Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (d) Exhibits.
 Exhibit Number
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press release, dated April 27, 2009.99.2
    
    Conference call transcript, dated April 27, 2009.




---



##### Table of Contents



Signatures
  TRANS1 INC.April 30, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Michael LuetkemeyerMichael LuetkemeyerChief Financial Officer




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit Number
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press release, dated April 27, 2009.99.2
    
    Conference call transcript, dated April 27, 2009.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10371

Summary Calendar

 

RILEY RIVERA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RANDY McLEOD, Warden, Texas Department of

Criminal Justice; DR. REVELL, Clements Unit,

Texas Department of Criminal Justice; CLEMENTS

UNIT MEDICAL STAFF; DENNIS L. SANDERS, Ind.

and in his Official Capacity; REED SMITH, Ind.

and in his Official Capacity; JAMES

RICHARDSON, Ind. and in his Official Capacity;

MR. PHILLIPS, Ind. and in his Official

Capacity; GERALD W. DAVID, Ind. and in his

Official Capacity; MR. BIRDWELL, Ind. and in

his Official Capacity; CAPTAIN LAWSON; MAJOR

LOONEY, Ind. and in his Official Capacity;

MRS. SANDERS, Ind. and in her Official

Capacity; TINA CARMONA, Ind. and in her

Official Capacity; MRS. JACOBS, Ind. and in

her Official Capacity a/k/a Mrs. Jacobson;

DAVIS, Sgt; JANE DOE, Nurse,

Nurse/Receptionist; JANE DOE, Nurse, Rounds

Nurse,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

2:92-CV-319

 

February 21, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*
2

Riley Rivera brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the

theory that prison officials violated his Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights through their deliberate indifference to his

medical needs. The parties consented to trial before a United

States Magistrate Judge, who dismissed all defendants. Rivera

appeals only the summary judgments granted in favor of Jacobs,

Revell, Richardson, the two “Jane Doe” defendants, and the Clements

Unit Medical Staff in general. We find no error and affirm.

Rivera has failed to present evidence to support his claim

that any of the defendants had actual knowledge of an excessive

risk to his health and disregarded that risk. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1979 (1994); Hare v. City of Corinth, 74

F.3d 633, 647 (5th Cir. 1996). The record reflects that if his

physicians and nurses acted improperly, their lapses were nothing

more than negligence.

The lower court similarly did not err when it denied Rivera’s

motions for appointment of counsel. The decision of whether to

appoint counsel in a civil case is within the discretion of the

trial court. Jackson v. Dallas Police Dept., 811 F.2d 260, 261

(5th Cir. 1986). The court did not abuse its discretion when it

concluded that Rivera was capable of setting forth his own case and

that the case was not sufficiently complex and did not demand the

sort of adversarial skill that comes with a lawyer’s training. See

Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).

AFFIRMED.