alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 16, 2014

SUBJECT: Revised Emissions Data Used in Residual Risk Modeling: Acrylic and

Modacrylic Fibers, Amino/Phenolic Resins, and Polycarbonate Production

FROM: Nick Parsons, US EPA

TO: Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 201 2

- 0 133

1.0 Introduction and Background

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide supplemental information to the December 11, 2013, memorandum entitled, “Emiss i ons D a ta a nd A c u t e Risk Fac tor Us e d in

Re sidual R isk M od e l i n g : Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers, Amino/Phe nolic Resins, and Polycarbonate Production.” This memorandum provides information on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Risk and Technology Review (RTR) database used in estimating residual risk for the Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production (AMF) , Amino/Phenolic Resins Production (APR), a nd Polycarbonate Production (PC) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) source categories. These MACT standards cover only major sources.

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two

- stage regul atory process to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from stationary sources. In the first stage, section 112(d) requires the EPA to develop technology

- based standards for categories of industrial sources. In the second stage, known as the residual risk stage, section 112(f)(2) requires EPA to assess the health and environmental risks that remain after sources come into compliance with the MACT standards. If additional risk reductions are necessary to protect public health with an ample mar gin of safety or to prevent adverse environmental effects, EPA must develop standards to address these remaining risks.

2.0 Revisions to the Data Set Used in Residual Risk Modeling

Since the January 9, 2014, proposed rulemaking covering the RTR for the AMF, APR,

and PC MACT standards (79 FR 1676) , the EPA has received additional information from

commenters on these source categories. This additional information is described in further detail

below.

2.1 AMF Source Category

The EPA did not receive any additional information on the emissions inventory used for the AMF source category. Therefore, the dataset for the AMF source category has not been revised from the version used for the proposal and a revised risk assessment was not conducted.2

2.2 APR Source Category

The EPA has added one additional facility to the APR source category as a result of information received from commenters (OCC in Petrolia, PA). The commenter also provided emissions inventory data from 2011 for the EPA to use in risk modeling. The dataset for the APR source category was revised to reflect the addition of this facility, and this revised dataset was used in a revised risk assessment for the source category.

2.3 PC Source Category

The EPA did not receive any additional information on the emissions inventory used for the PC source category. Therefore, the dataset for the PC source category has not been revised from the version used for the proposal and a revised risk assessment was not conducted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Tandycrafts,
Inc's September 30, 1998 Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such Form 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             913
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,233
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,901
<INVENTORY>                                     47,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,364
<PP&E>                                          47,875
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,211
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,349
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,751
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,528
<OTHER-SE>                                      70,338
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,349
<SALES>                                         51,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,065
<CGS>                                           34,791
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,626
<INCOME-TAX>                                       618
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,008
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,008
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32
 
 SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of RadioShack Corporation (the
“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Julian C. Day,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and James F. Gooch, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify to our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations
 of the Company.
 
 
 
 
 Julian C.
Day
 Chief Executive
Officer
 October 26,
2009
 
 
 
 
 James F.
Gooch
 Chief Financial
Officer
 October 26,
2009
 
 
 A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Amendment No. 3 to Schedule A to Exhibit (10)(j)



 Exhibit (10)(j)(ii) 
 Amendment No. 3 
 to 
 Schedule A to Exhibit (10)(j)
 February 23, 2006 
 The following table sets forth the name of each current director of Potlatch Corporation who has executed the Indemnification Agreement filed as Exhibit (10)(j):

  

			
	 Name of Director
	 	 Date Agreement Executed

	 Michael J. Covey
	 	 February 6, 2006

	 Boh A. Dickey
	 	 August 7, 2000

	 William L. Driscoll
	 	 January 1, 2004

	 Ruth Ann M. Gillis
	 	 November 1, 2003

	 Jerome C. Knoll
	 	 December 31, 2001

	 Lawrence S. Peiros
	 	 February 1, 2003

	 Gregory L. Quesnel
	 	 September 15, 2000

	 Michael T. Riordan
	 	 January 1, 2003

	 Judith M. Runstad
	 	 March 9, 1999

	 L. Pendleton Siegel
	 	 November 1, 1997

	 Dr. William T. Weyerhaeuser
	 	 February 22, 1990
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>      1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              26
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      324
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        412
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   830
<PP&E>                                             443
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              422
<BONDS>                                            222
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                         506
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,662
<SALES>                                            829
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   829
<CGS>                                              548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      695
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    122
<INCOME-TAX>                                        44
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 78
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        78
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Liberatore, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, motion to suppress granted, plea vacated, and matter remitted to Ontario County Court for further proceedings on the indictment. Same memorandum as in *People v Liberatore*([appeal No. 1] 167 AD2d 955 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Reed, J.—criminal possession of stolen property, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 10.2

                           Short Term Loan Contract--
                               September 28, 2003

Contract number:           2003-022

Debtor (Party A):          Yangling Bodisen Biology Science and Technology
                               Development Co. Ltd

Address:                   North Part of Xinqiao Road, Yang Ling Agricultural
                           High-Tech Industries Demonstration Zone

Postcode:                  712100

Telephone Number:          + 029 8707 4954

Principal:                 Ms. Qiong Wang

Date of Contract:          September.28, 2003

Loan provided from:        Sub branch of Xinong Road, Xianyang City Commercial
                           Bank

Address:                   Xinong Road, Yangling Agricultural High-Tech
                          Industries Demonstration Zone

Postcode:                  712100

Telephone Number:          + 029 8701 1750

Lender (Party B):          Ms. Mengling Tian

Date of Contract:          September 28, 2003

Type of loan:              Collateral loan

Use of loan:               Operational Funding

Loan Amount:               Five Million RMB

Loan Term:                 12 months- from September 28, 2003 to
                               September 27, 2004.

Interest Rate:             6.84% per annum


Calculation of Interest Rate and Settlement of Loan: Interest rate is calculated
on the day the loan is withdrawn. Interest on the loan in the contract is
settled quarterly. The settlement day is fixed, and is on the 20th day of the
last month of each quarter.

The loan interest rate as stipulated and agreed by both parties (A&B) may be
subject to variation followed by the Central Bank changes to the base rate. In
the event of such action Party A will notify Party B of any adjustments made to
the loan interest rate.

                                        2
<PAGE>
Yangling Bodisen Biology Science
and Technology Development Co. Ltd

By: /s/ Qiong Wang
    --------------
        Qiong Wang

Sub branch of Xinong Road,
Xianyang City Commercial Bank

By: /s/ Mengling Tian
    -----------------
        Mengling Tian


                                        3
* 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. 97-40157

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SOLEDAD MADRIGAL-VIRRUETA, also 

known as Soledad Virrueta-Madrigal,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-96-CR-191

- - - - - - - - - -

December 10, 1998

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Soledad Madrigal-Virrueta appeals her conviction for

possession with intent to distribute marijuana. She contends

that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she knew that a

hidden compartment in the van contained marijuana and that,

therefore, the district court abused its discretion in denying

her motion for judgment of acquittal.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and hold that the district court did not plainly err in denying 
No. 97-40157

-2-

Madrigal-Virrueta’s motion for judgment of acquittal. United

States v. McCarty, 36 F.3d 1349, 1358 (5th Cir. 1994) (plain

error standard applies when defendant fails to move for a

judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence); United

States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting

types of behaviors that may be circumstantial evidence of guilty

knowledge). Even if the sufficiency issue had been preserved,

the evidence was sufficient. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d at 543-47.

AFFIRMED.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment. 

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. 100 North Senate Avenue 

Governor Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 

(317) 232-8603 

Thomas W. Easterly Toll Free (800) 451-6027 

Commissioner www.idem.IN.gov 

June 25, 2012 

George T. Czerniak 

Acting Director, Air and Radiation Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region V 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, Illinois 60604-3950 

Dear Mr. Czerniak: 

Re: Clarification on Indiana's Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to address the 2006 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS). 

This letter is in response to a request by your staff for clarification regarding the 

permitting of greenhouse gases (GHG) in Indiana's prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) program. 

On December 30, 2010, U.S. EPA issued the "Narrowing Rule," which limited U.S. 

EPA approval of State PSD programs for GHG-emitting sources. Specifically, U.S. 

EPA's Narrowing Rule eliminated the PSD obligations under Federal law for sources 

below EPA's "Tailoring Rule" thresholds (e.g., 75,000 tons per year) expressed as a 

carbon dioxide equivalent (COze). 

U.S. EPA approved revisions to Indiana's SIP adopting the Federal thresholds for 

GHG-emitting sources on September 28, 2011. Therefore, Indiana meets all applicable 

requirements related to GHG in our PSD program for the purposes of Indiana's 

infrastructure SIP addressing the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Cc: Andy Chang, U.S. EPA 

Christine Pedersen, IDEM 

Scott Deloney, IDEM 

Recycled Paper (i) 

Sincerely, 

)~ Sc.M-3 

Keith Baugues 

Assistant Commissioner 

Office of Air Quality 

An Equal Opportunity Employer Please Recycle 0
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of J. S., A Child

Appellate case number: 01-19-00146-CV

Trial court case number: 2018-00409J

Trial court: 314th District Court of Harris County

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in which the trial court terminated

the parental rights for both the mother, A.W.H., and the father, H.L.S., to their daughter, 

J.S. On April 4, 2019, appointed counsel for H.L.S. filed his appellant’s brief on the merits. 

On April 16, 2019, Michellé Placzek, appointed counsel for A.W.H., filed an appellant’s

brief concluding that she could advance no arguable grounds for appeal and that the appeal

by A.W.H. is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 

(1967); In re K.D., 127 S.W.3d 66, 67 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) 

(Anders procedures are appropriate in a parental termination appeal).

Counsel’s Anders brief stated that she was filing a motion to withdraw and had

complied with all Anders requirements; however, counsel did not file a motion to withdraw 

with the Clerk of this Court nor did she provide a certification that she had served the 

Anders brief and motion to withdraw on A.W.H., with her last known address, or that she 

had informed A.W.H. that she had a right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se 

response. If appointed counsel believes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must request 

permission to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (stating that, in Anders cases, appointed counsel must 

inform client of right to file pro se response to Anders brief and right to review appellate 

record, must facilitate client’s right to review record by providing client with form motion 

directed to court of appeals to access record, and must notify court of appeals that counsel 

has complied with these requirements). An Anders brief must accompany a motion to 

withdraw, neither the brief nor the motion may be filed on its own. See Anders, 386 U.S. 

at 744.

On April 23, 2019, this Court ordered A.W.H.’s appointed counsel to comply with 

the requirements of Anders by filing the required motion to withdraw and certification of 

service of the brief and motion on A.W.H. with the Clerk of this Court within five days of 
2

the date of the order. Appointed counsel did not file the required motion to withdraw and 

certification.

This case is scheduled for submission on the briefs on August 6, 2019. The 

compliance deadline for disposing of this appeal is August 23, 2019. Accordingly, the 

Court orders appellant’s appointed counsel, Michellé Placzek, to file the required motion 

to withdraw, certificate of service of the brief and motion on A.W.H., and certification that 

counsel notified A.W.H. of her pro se rights and supplied her with a form motion to access 

the appellate record with the Clerk of this Court within 5 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: July 19, 2019
EX-10.15



 






EXHIBIT 10.15




AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO

INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN




     This Amendment No. 7 to the Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. Incentive Stock Plan, as
previously amended (the “Plan”) hereby makes the following amendments, effective as of November 16,
2005.



     Section 4.01 of the Plan is amended and restated as follows:




          “4.01 Elective Crediting of Stock Units: Any Eligible Employee may elect to
apply up to fifty percent (50%) of his or her Incentive Award for a Plan Year toward the
crediting of Stock Units. The election must be (i) made in writing on the participation
form approved for use under the Plan, (ii) signed by the Eligible Employee, and (iii)
submitted to the Corporation no later than June 30 of the Plan Year for which the Incentive
Award is awarded; the election shall be irrevocable after that date. If an Eligible
Employee who has made an election under this Section 4.01 for a Plan Year retires or
otherwise terminates Employment before the date that Incentive Awards are awarded for that
Plan Year, the election shall have no effect.”



All other terms and provisions of the Plan remain in full force and effect.
#### BURNS v. STATE.

No. 24396.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 8, 1949.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, .Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense 'of assault to murder and assessed a penalty of three years in the penitentiary.

The record, as brought forward, contains neither bills of exceptions nor a statement of facts. The proceedings appearing regular, and nothing being presented for review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6476

MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus HUTTONSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; WILLIAM S.HAINES, Warden; JAMES T. PARKER, Administrator, Huntington Work Release Center; PAUL KIRBY, Commissioner, Division of Corrections, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-15-2) Submitted: October 17, 2001 Decided: December 12, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Michael A. Williams appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 2001), pursuant to Williams’ request for voluntary dismissal. A Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. Unioil, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co. , 809 F.2d 548, 555 (9th Cir. 1986). We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Williams’ appeal of this nonappealable order. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### WELLS v. STATE.

No. 25686.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 30, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

James Pearson, County Atty., Sweetwa-ter, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $350.

The evidence is sufficient to support the conviction. No bills of exception appear in the record.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit
31.2




CERTIFICATION




I, Darryl
S. Nakamoto, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Hoku Scientific, Inc. (the
“Registrant”); and




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.*





Date:
      July 29, 2009
                        By:
                        /s/ DARRYL S. NAKAMOTODarryl
      S. NakamotoChief
      Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)




*           Paragraphs
3, 4 and 5 of the form of certification are omitted because this Amendment No. 1
on Form 10-K/A does not include the information as to which such paragraphs
relate.