alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An equal opportunity employer 1220 L Street, Northwest Russell White Washington, DC 20005

- 4070 Health Sciences Manager

Tel 202

- 682

- 8344

Fax 202

- 682

- 8270 whiter@api.org

September 2 , 2011

Karl Simon

Division Director Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Mail Code: 6406J Washington, DC 20460

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Health Effects Testing Regulation: Final Submission for 211(b) (Docket No. A

- 90

- 07) Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A One

- Generation Whole

- Body Inhalation Repr oductive Toxicity Study in Rats ( HLS Study No. 00

- 4205 )

Dear Mr. Karl Simon:

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Sec tion 211(b) Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation:

**•** Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensa te: A One

- Generation Whole

- Body Inhalation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats (HLS Study No. 00

- 420 5 )

This report has undergone review by two independent peer

- reviewers, outside QA/QC, th e 211(b) Technical W orkgroup, and EPA (Hauchman to Oge Memorandum, December 17, 2010).

Therefore the final report is being submitted to you at the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, as part of the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 211(b)(2) and 211(e) (Docket No. A

- 90

- 07). If you require further information or have any questions regarding this submission, please contact me.

Regards,

Russell D. White

Encl (1): Final Report Gasoline DIPE Vapor Condensate: A One

- Generation Whole Body Inhalation Reproductive Toxicity Study in Rats (HLS Study No. 00

- 420 5 )

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
Exhibit 12



    PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
                        TOTAL ENTERPRISE
       Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


                                      Millions of Dollars
                             --------------------------------------
                                    Years Ended December 31
                             --------------------------------------
                               2000    1999    1998    1997    1996
                             --------------------------------------
                                          (Unaudited)
Earnings Available for
  Fixed Charges
Income before income taxes   $3,769   1,185     421   1,900   2,172
Distributions less than
  equity in earnings of
  fifty-percent-or-less-
  owned companies               (30)     (7)    (19)    (54)     72
Fixed charges, excluding
  capitalized interest*         481     396     314     333     309
-------------------------------------------------------------------
                             $4,220   1,574     716   2,179   2,553
===================================================================

Fixed Charges
Interest and expense on
  indebtedness, excluding
  capitalized interest       $  369     279     200     198     217
Capitalized interest            174      49      48      46      31
Preferred dividend
  requirements of subsidiary
  and capital trusts             53      53      53     113      68
Interest portion of rental
  expense                        42      47      45      39      36
-------------------------------------------------------------------
                             $  638     428     346     396     352
===================================================================
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed
  Charges                       6.6     3.7     2.1     5.5     7.3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Includes amortization of capitalized interest totaling
 approximately $17 million each in 2000 and 1999, $16 million in
 1998, $14 million in 1997, and $10 million in 1996.


Earnings available for fixed charges include, if any, the company's
equity in losses of companies owned less than fifty percent and
having debt for which the company is contingently liable.  Fixed
charges include the company's proportionate share, if any, of
interest relating to the contingent debt.

In 1990, the company guaranteed a $400 million bank loan for the
Long-Term Stock Savings Plan (LTSSP), an employee benefit plan.
Consolidated interest expense includes interest attributable to the
LTSSP borrowings of $4 million in 2000.  Interest attributable to
the LTSSP borrowings was minimal in 1999, 1998, 1997 and 1996.
#### James Robert TODD, alias Jack Todd, Appellant v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 26890.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 31, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for aggravated assault; the punishment, 90 days in jail and a fine of $100.

Appellant has filed an affidavit in proper form requesting that the appeal be dismissed.

The request is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF 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, Brett White, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that I have reviewed the Quarterly Report of Corio, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, that such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Corio, Inc. A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Corio, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                      |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  | 
|Date: August 12, 2003 |  |  | 
|                      |  |  |
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

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

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Network Engines, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Gregory A. Shortell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: February 8, 2007 | /s/ Gregory A.  Shortell       |
|-------------------------|--------------------------------|
| ** **              | **Gregory  A. Shortell**       |
| *** ***            | ***Chief  Executive Officer*** |

 

----
Re: stack tests for sulfuric acid mist at 4 corners Units 1-5 

Ann Lyons to: John Barth 04/19/2011 02:43 PM

Cc: Anita Lee

John - Because we are currently in the public comment period, we will adding a copy of this email 

inter-change to the FCPP docket.

We do not have stack test information for sulfuric acid mist for FCPP. Please see our Technical Support 

Document at about page 64 for further information. 

Ann Lyons

USEPA, R9, Office of Regional Counsel

ph: 415-972-3883

email: lyons.ann@epa.gov

John Barth Hi Ann In preparing comments on EPA's 4 corne... 04/15/2011 08:44:08 AM

From: John Barth <barthlawoffice@gmail.com>

To: Ann Lyons/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/15/2011 08:44 AM

Subject: stack tests for sulfuric acid mist at 4 corners Units 1-5

Hi Ann

In preparing comments on EPA's 4 corners BART proposal, we have been looking for stack tests 

conducted at 4 corners units 1-5 for sulfuric acid mist. We have been unable to find them in the 

docket. Can you confirm whether any such stack tests exists and if so, could we get a copy of 

the results? Thanks.

John Barth

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 409

Hygiene, CO 80533

(303) 774-8868

barthlawoffice@gmail.com
Exhibit 31(b)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Interphase Corporation (the Company);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:
     5.
    
    The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the
audit committee of the Companys board of directors:
   Date: March 20, 2009
    
    Signature:
    /s/ Thomas N. Tipton Jr.Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20884 Summary Calendar

ALEXANDER PERVYSHEV Plaintiff - Appellant v. INC INTERORIENT NAVIGATION HAMBURG GMBH & CO. KG Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

4:07-CV-02770
Before STEWART, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alexander Pervyshev, a Russian citizen, signed an employment contract in Russia with INC Hamburg, a German corporation. Pervyshev agreed to work aboard the M/V Candock III, and Hamburg flew Pervyshev to Houston, Texas to board the ship. Pervyshev was injured while cargo was being unloaded from the Candock while docked at Barranquilla, Columbia. A Columbian company was operating the crane offloading the cargo. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 13, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-20884

2 The district court dismissed Pervyshev’sclaim on the basis that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over INC Hamburg. The district court, in its well stated Order and Judgment dated October 31, 2007, properly concluded that personal jurisdiction did not exist over INC Hamburg. We AFFIRM.
Exhibit 32.1
 The following certifications accompany this report and are being furnished pursuant to Item
601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. These certifications shall not, except
to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for
purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section,
or incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except
to the extent that the Registrant specifically incorporates them by reference into such a filing.
 Certification 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
   /s/ Greg R. GianforteGreg R. GianforteChairman and Chief Executive Officer   /s/ Jeffrey C. DavisonJeffrey C. DavisonChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President, and Treasurer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6358

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GEORGE EDWARD WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-92-228, CA-97-631-2)

Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 29, 2001

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Edward Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Williams’ claim that his sentence is not proper in light of

the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000),

is without merit. We recently held in United States v. Sanders,

247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 2001), that the new rule announced in

Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral

review. We also decline to address the new ineffective assistance

of counsel claim raised by Williams for the first time on appeal.

Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding

that issues raised for first time on appeal generally will not be

considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or

fundamental miscarriage of justice).

2

PER CURIAM:

George Edward Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West Supp. 2000), and denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny § 2255

relief, and the court’s order denying the Rule 59(e) motion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning

of the district court.* United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-92-228;

CA-97-631-2 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 1999 & Sept. 22, 2000). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Fred BLYTHE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 9, 1953.

John S. Cary, Sam A. Cary, Burkesville, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Atty. Gen., William F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This record presents a motion for appeal from the Cumberland Circuit Court by Fred Blythe from a judgment convicting him of maintaining- a common nuisance, and fixing his punishment at confinement in jail for a period of six months and a fine of $500.

.. A consideration of the record discloses no error prejudicial to appellant’s substantial rights and the judgment is affirmed.
#### CREACY v. STATE.

No. 26572.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1953.

Harry W. Flentge, Gatesville, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Upon an information and complaint alleging that appellant, being a person of robust health and strength, committed an assault upon W. M. Johnson, who was decrepit, appellant was found guilty of aggravated assault; and his punishment was assessed at one month in jail and a fine of $100.

All of the testimony relied upon to establish the allegation that Mr. Johnson was decrepit may be summarized as follows:

He was 65 years of age; was blind in one eye; weighed about 148 pounds; and was about 5 feet 10 inches in height.

On the other hand, the evidence shows that he ran the store and Post Office at King, Texas; and lifted 100-pound sacks of feed at times. He testified “Well fairly to my age I think.I.am, a strong man.. Pm not as strong as I was years ago. But I’m still able to get around.”

The court charged the jury that the word “ ‘decrepit’ means one who is disatiled, incapable, or incompetent, from either physical or mental weakness or defects, so as to render the individual comparatively helpless in a personal-conflict with one possessed of ordinary health and strength.” This definition of the word “decrepit,” as applied- to subdivision (4), art. 1147, P.C., Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 1147(4), is supported by Hallman v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 100, 18 S.W.2d 652, and Lutz v. State, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 236179 S.W.2d 979.

Upon a thorough seárch of the testimony adduced upon the trial, we find no evidence from which the jury might conclude that the assaulted party was a “decrepit” person within the meaning of the term.

*720Having reached the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction of aggravated assault under the allegations in the information, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 1.     | Such                amended Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB for the period ended June                30,                2007, 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 such amendedQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB                for                the period ended June 30, 2007, fairly represents in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Service                Air                Group, Inc. |

| By:    | */s/*   *Mohammad                Sultan*Mohammad                SultanChief                Executive Officer and Chief Financial                Officer |
|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |
|--------|--------|
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40842

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MONICA MENDOZA-OROSCO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:05-CR-425-1

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Monica Mendoza-Orosco raises

arguments that she concedes are foreclosed by United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 364-65 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 192 (2009),

which held that plain error review applies to forfeited issues of procedural

reasonableness. Accordingly, the appellant’s motion for summary disposition is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 12, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-40842 Document: 00511027066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2010
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2213 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

801 West Eastport Street in Iuka, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Sergeant Jason 

W. Vaughn Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2011 

Mr. NUNNELEE (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. HARPER, and 

Mr. PALAZZO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 801 West Eastport Street in Iuka, Mississippi, 

as the ‘‘Sergeant Jason W. Vaughn Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERGEANT JASON W. VAUGHN POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 801 West Eastport Street in 

6 Iuka, Mississippi, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Sergeant Jason W. Vaughn Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2213 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Jason W. 

3 Vaughn Post Office’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS