alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# &iih NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality Michael F. Easley, Governor

Mr. J.I. Palmer, Jr. Regional Administrator April 1, 2008

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 AtlantaFederal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909 William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary B. Keith Overcash, P.E., Director

Subject: Section llO(a)(l) and (2) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for the PM25 National Ambient Air Quality Standards DearMr. Palmer: This letter addresses the North Carolina Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources, Division ofAirQuality's (NCDAQ's) efforts to meet the requirements ofSection llO(a)(l) and (2) SIP Requirements for the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In particular, this letter responds to the October 2, 2007, memorandum, "Guidance on SIP Elements RequiredUnder Sections llO(a)(l) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards." NCDAQ believes ithas addressed all ofthe required elements listed in Attachment A ofthe October 2, 2007, guidance memorandum with the exceptions of Section 110(a)(2)(G)- emergency· power, and Section 110(a)(2)(J)- prevention ofsignificant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection. With regard to Section 110(a)(2)(G), the NCDAQ understands the USEPA intends to take action to revise 40 CFR, Part 51, subpart H (sections 51.150). The rule changes will establish the priority classifications which determine the emergency episode plan requirements for each area and establish a significant harm level (SHL) for PM2.5. When these changes are madeby the USEPA, the NCDAQ will make appropriate changes to the SIP. With regard to Section 110(a)(2)(J), the NCDAQ is addressing incorrectreferences to both the PSD federal rule and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) federal rule in currentrulemaking actions. These rule changes are expected to become effective May l, 2008. Attachment A is a copy ofthe amended rules. The NCDAQ believes it has in good faith addressed the requirements ofSection llO(a)(l) and (2) through the various SIP submittals.

1641 Mail Se!Vice Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1641 2728 Gapital s•d., Rakligh, North Caronna 27604 Phone: 919-715·6232 JFAX 91S..715-7175 IInternet: www.ncair.org An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper 

## OnehC 1' 

# Nort aroma



# Naturall!fMr. J.I. Palmer, Jr. 4/l/2008 Page2 Please contact Laura Boothe ofmy staffat (919) 733-1488 ifyou have questions regarding this letter. I look forward to working with you as we implement programs to address the PM25 SIP requirements.

BKO/lb Enclosures

cc: Richard A. Schutt BrockNicholson SheilaHolman Laura Boothe
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Arkansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Arkansas Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Reserves Based Production (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 1      | 1      | 0      | 0     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | W      | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### GAITHER et al. v. STATE (two cases).

Nos. 25550, 25551.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1951.

Tom Howard, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., J. J. Fagan, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

These are bond forfeiture proceedings which were consolidated.

The State has moved to dismiss these appeals under Rule 415 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, because no brief was filed for appellant within the time required by Rule 414 thereof. Appellant has filed a reply to the State’s motion, in which he explains his delay by saying that he thought the rule for filing briefs in bond forfeiture cases was the same as in criminal cases..

Article 864, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides for appeals in bond forfeiture cases.

Article 866, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides that in such cases the proceedings shall be regulated by the same rules that govern civil actions.

In compliance with the above rule and our holdings in Taylor v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 216 S.W.2d 206, the State’s motion is granted, and the appeals are dismissed for want of prosecution.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-11057

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Shaman Lee Cooper, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:22-CR-20-1

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Shaman Lee 

Cooper has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cooper has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-11057 Document: 00516789904 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
No. 22-11057

2

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-11057 Document: 00516789904 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2023
Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

(Chief Financial Officer)

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 Annual
Report of Chaparral Steel Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Celtyn Hughes, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

Date: July 26, 2007



/s/ J. Celtyn HughesJ. Celtyn HughesChief Financial Officer
#### JACKSON v. STATE.

No. 25067.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 3. 1951.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted 'for the offense of felony theft and the jury, by their verdict, assessed his punishment at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

There are no bills of exception and no statement of facts.

The sentence erroneously states that the defendant shall be confined in the penitentiary for a term of five years. It is accordingly ordered that the sentence shall be reformed so as to conform to the verdict of the jury.

The judgment, as reformed, is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5316 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5316

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures containing n-
  butyl-1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one, 1-hydroxypyridine-2-thione, zinc 
                    salt, and application adjuvants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

Ms. Slaughter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures containing n-
  butyl-1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one, 1-hydroxypyridine-2-thione, zinc 
                    salt, and application adjuvants.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING N-BUTYL-1,2-BENZISOTHIAZOLIN-3-ONE, 1-
              HYDROXYPYRIDINE-2-THIONE, ZINC SALT, AND APPLICATION 
              ADJUVANTS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.40.58 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to mixtures containing n-butyl-
1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one, 1-hydroxypyridine-2-thione, zinc salt, and 
application adjuvants) is amended by striking the date in the effective 
period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### AKEY v. STATE.

No. 25593.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 19, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the unlawful sale of whisky in a dry area, with a count in the information charging a prior conviction *171for an offense of like character. The punishment was assessed at a fine of $800.

Fessler, an agent of the Liquor Control Board acting as an undercover man and named in the information as the purchaser of the whisky, testified that on the 23rd day of May, 1951, at the appellant’s home, he purchased from appellant two pints of whisky, for which he paid the sum of $8.

It was the province of the jury to convict upon the unsupported testimony of this witness. The facts warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

The construction which appellant would have us apply to his bill of exception is that the state introduced in evidence testimony showing that on the day following the offense here charged he made another sale of whisky.

In the first instance, the bill of exception fails to reflect the name of the witness by which this testimony was given. Moreover, the trial judge sustained appellant’s objection and instructed the jury not to consider such testimony.

We are unable to reach the conclusion that reversible error is reflected notwithstanding such withdrawal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Our attention is again directed to appellant’s bill of exception wherein he complains of the overruling of his motion for mistrial.

This bill reveals that an unnamed witness testified that he returned the next day and again “made a purchase from Dick Akey.” The witness did not testify what he purchased.

The jury having been instructed to disregard the testimony, the trial court properly declined to declare a mistrial.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the 'Court.
1 Attachment 

Brenda,

Please find attached tank data that I hope should help with the calcs you plan to run.

This along with other data we previously submitted should take care of the info you need to do the tank runs.

This contains specific products stored in the tanks at the time of the study and the parameters we use for calculating 

tank emissions.

I have also included tank fitting info for those tanks along with data generated during the DAIL Study.

Please let me know what additional info you may need to complete your review.

Paula LaRocca

Environmental Team Leader, Air

BP Products North America Inc.

HSSE - Environmental

Office: 409-941-8057

Cell: 409-539-9148

Fax: 409-965-0031

paula.larocca@bp.com

 

DAIL Study - BP Tank Info 

LaRocca, Paula M 

to: 

Brenda Shine 

08/25/2009 09:05 AM 

Cc: 

"Duke, Jerry" 

Hide Details 

From: "LaRocca, Paula M" <Paula.LaRocca@bp.com> 

To: Brenda Shine/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: "Duke, Jerry" <Jerry.Duke@bp.com> 

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

EPA Follow up 8-09.xls

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\bshine\Local Settings\Temp\notes87944B\~web8223.htm 1/28/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

KENNETH BELL, ET AL, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CAL-MAINE FOODS, ET AL,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-00461-RP

STATE OF TEXAS’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS 

COUNSEL AND DESIGNATION OF ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE PITMAN:

Intervenor, the State of Texas, files this Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as 

Counsel and Designation of Attorney-in-Charge. In support thereof, the State of

Texas respectfully shows the Court the following: 

1. The State of Texas is represented by the General Litigation Division of 

the Office of the Attorney General of Texas. Assistant Attorney Francesca A. Di 

Troia is currently assigned to this case and has appeared as lead counsel and 

Attorney-in-Charge. This case has been administratively reassigned to Ryan G. 

Kercher, Assistant Attorney General.

2. Ryan G. Kercher has already appeared as counsel in this case for the 

Case 1:20-cv-00461-RP Document 154 Filed 03/18/21 Page 1 of 3
State of Texas.

3. The State of Texas asks this Court to note the withdrawal of Francesca 

A. Di Troia as counsel for this case and to designate Ryan G. Kercher as lead counsel 

and Attorney-in-Charge in the above-styled and numbered cause of action, and 

requests that all future documents on this case be referred to Ryan G. Kercher at the 

address shown below.

4. Notice of this intention will be provided to all counsel of record.

5. This motion is unopposed.

Respectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON

Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER

First Assistant Attorney General

GRANT DORFMAN 

Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

SHAWN COWLES 

Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

THOMAS A. ALBRIGHT

Chief - General Litigation Division

/s/ Francesca A. Di Troia

FRANCESCA A. DI TROIA

Assistant Attorney General

Texas Bar No. 24097596

Case 1:20-cv-00461-RP Document 154 Filed 03/18/21 Page 2 of 3
General Litigation Division

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

(512) 475-4651 | FAX: (512) 320-0667

Francesca.DiTroia@oag.texas.gov

COUNSEL FOR

THE STATE OF TEXAS

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Federal Rule 37(a)(1) and Local Rule CV47(a)(3), I certify that on 

March 15, 2021, I conferred with all parties’ counsel via email to inquire whether 

they were opposed to this motion. Counsel did not indicate any opposition.

/s/ Francesca A. Di Troia

FRANCESCA A. DI TROIA

Assistant Attorney General

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been 

filed and served electronically through the Court’s Electronic Case File system on 

this the 18 day of March, 2021, upon all counsel of record. 

/s/ Francesca A. Di Troia

FRANCESCA A. DI TROIA

Assistant Attorney General

Case 1:20-cv-00461-RP Document 154 Filed 03/18/21 Page 3 of 3
#### UNITED FARM EQUIPMENT & METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 236 et al. v. INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 11, 1954.

*556, Robert ,W. Zollinger, Louisville, Sydney Berger, Evansville, Ind., for appellants.

Wm. H. Abell, Ogden, Galphin & Abell, Louisville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgments are of fines of $1,000 and,$5,Q00, respectively, for criminal contempt of court for violating a labor strike injunction.. KRS -21.060 denies the right of appeal of judgments in civil cases punishing'for contempts except, as construed, to. have deterpiined whether the punishment was illegally imposed or is excessive. See Commonwealth v. French, 130 Ky. 744, 114 S.W. 255; French v. Com., 30 Ky.Law Rep. 98, 97 S.W. 427; Adams v. Gardner, 176 Ky. 252, 195 S.W. 412. Neither of the judgments here may be so regarded.

The motions for appeals are, therefore, overruled and the judgments stand affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00456-ADA

ORDER RESETTING TELEPHONIC SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

 The Court hereby sets and directs the parties, or counsel acting on their behalf, to appear by

phone for a telephone conference on September 18, 2020 at 03:00 PM . Please call (866) 434-5269

with access code 9678090 to be included in the hearing. 

 SIGNED on 17th day of September, 2020.

______________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 24 Filed 09/17/20 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10** 

**- 7703** 

LARRY E. PATTERSON

Plaintiff

– Appellant,

and

ELMO A. REID, JR.; JAMES R. CLARK,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TIMOTHY M. KAINE, Governor of the State of Virginia, sued i n his official and individual capacity; JOHN W. MARSHALL, Secretary of Public Safety of Virginia, sued in his official and individual capacity; HELEN F. FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia Parole Board, sued in her official and individual capacity,

Defe ndants

– Appellees,

___________________________

DEREK T. FRITZINGER; MELVIN C. DODSON,

Movants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. James R. Spencer

, Chief District Judge. ( 3:08

- cv

- 004 90

- JRS )

Submitted : June 30, 2011 Decided: July 5, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Larry E. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Larry E. Patterson appeals the district court ’ s order

denying his motion for relief judgment, filed pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b)

. On appeal, we confine our review to the

issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Because Patterson ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis

for the district court’s disposition, Patterson has forfeited

appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly , we affirm

the district court ’ s judgment . We dispense with oral a rgument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### MELVIN FINTON v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.1

October 27, 1911.

Nos. 17,287—(61).

Discretion of court.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in a personal injury action in reducing a verdict of $1,900 to $1,200, and denying a new trial, after two verdicts for plaintiff. [Reporter.]

Action -in the' district .court .for Ramsey comity to recover $15,000 for personal injuries. The answer put in issue the allegations of the complaint respecting plaintiff’s injuries. The case was tried before Kelly, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff' for $1,900. From an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, if plaintiff consented to a reduction ot the verdict to $1,200, it appealed.

Affirmed.

*M. L. Countryman*and *W. L, Clift,*for appellant.

*Kennedy & Kennedy,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 132 N. W. 1134.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was a railway mail clerk, and was injured while riding in a mail1 ear on- defendant’s road.' The train ran off the track, the ear was derailed andi upset and took fire." The plaintiff recovered a verdict of $1,900, which was. reduced by the trial court to $1,200. The defendant complains that the verdict, as reduced by tlie court was not justified by the evidence, was excessive, and. was given under the influence of passion and prejudice. An examination of the record leads to the' conclusion that the objections are not well-founded, and that the trial court did not. abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.

Affirmed.

Bunn, J., took no part.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of TransMontaigne GP L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company and general partner of TransMontaigne Partners L.P. (the "Company"), hereby certifies
that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



| |  | /s/DONALD H. ANDERSONDonald H. Anderson Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 13, 2005
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks