alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Imperial County Air Pollutio n Control District Rule 400

400

- 1 RULE 400 FUEL BURNING EQUIPMENT

- OXIDES OF NITROGEN (Adopted prior to 2/21/72; Revised 11/19/85; 9/14/99)

A. Applicability

A.1 This Rule shall apply to nitrogen oxides emissions from new and existing stationary Fuel Burning Equipment.

A.2 Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as preventing the maintenance, alteration, or Modification of an existing Fuel Burning Equipment unit

which will reduce its mass rate of Air Contaminant emissions.

B. Requirements

A Person shall not build, erect, install, use, or expand a ny non

- mobile Fuel Burning Equipment unit within Imperial County unless the discharge of nitrogen oxides into the Atmosphere does not exceed 140 pounds per hour of nitrogen oxides, calculated as nitrogen dioxide (NO2);

C. Test Procedures

C.1 All Fuel Burning Equipment covered under Section B shall demonstrate compliance through emission compliance testing not less than once every

12 months

, except the testing shall be conducted not less than every 36 months for emission units which operate less than 100 hours per 12 month period (as demonstrated by operational logs) and which emit less than 5 tons of NOx per 12 month period.

C.2 All emission rates shall be based on an hourly average.

C.3 The results of all compliance and test reports shall be retained for two (2)

yea rs from the date of each entry and made available to Air Pollution Control District personnel upon request. Title V facilities shall maintain these reports for five (5) years.

D. Test Methods

D.1 Compliance with the NOx emission limits in Section B shall be det ermined

u sing U.S. EPA Method 7, 7A, 7C, 7E, or any other applicable EPA approved test method.

D.2 Measurements of stack flow rates shall be determined using U.S. EPA Method 2, or any other applicable EPA approved test me thod.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 273 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 273

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 25, 2013

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees.

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

SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF 2013 PAY ADJUSTMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 147 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2011 (Public Law 111-242; 5 U.S.C. 5303 note), as amended by section 
114(a) of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 (Public Law 
112-175; 126 Stat. 1316), is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking the matter after 
        ``ending on'' and before ``shall be made'' and inserting 
        ``December 31, 2013,''; and
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking the matter after 
        ``ending on'' and before ``no senior executive'' and inserting 
        ``December 31, 2013,''.
    (b) Elimination of Delayed Adjustment.--Section 114(b) of the 
Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013 is repealed.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 15, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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 Tektronix, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 27, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard H. Wills, President and Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:

        (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:  January 5, 2005

/s/ RICHARD H. WILLS
-------------------------------------
Richard H. Wills
President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MARLTON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,029
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,783
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,642)
<INVENTORY>                                     11,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,656
<PP&E>                                          11,159
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,309)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,076
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           743
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,170
<SALES>                                         21,482
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,482
<CGS>                                           17,417
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,322
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,600
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,241)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (986)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,255)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,255)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.A** **CERTIFICATION**     I, James C. Yardley, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    of Tennessee Gas Pipeline 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 registrant as of,    and for, the periods presented in this Report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I    are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure    controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act    Rules 13a-15(e)    and    15d-15(e))    for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or    caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed    under our supervision, to ensure that material information    relating to the registrant, including its consolidated    subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those    entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is    being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this Report    our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by    this Report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this Report any change in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that    occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably    likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal    control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I    have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal    control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s    auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board    of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in    the design or operation of internal control over financial    reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the    registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and    report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves    management or other employees who have a significant role in the    registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: May 7, 2007 /s/  *JamesC. Yardley*    James C. Yardley    Chairman of the Board and President    (Principal Executive Officer)    Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
“An order or decree rendered on the final settlement of a personal representative is not subject to collateral 1

attack, except where there is fraud, misrepresentation, accident, or mistake, or where the court acted without jurisdiction

or the order or decree was wholly void.” 34 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators § 868 (1998) (footnotes omitted).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

October 25, 2006 Session

LINDA RIGGAN WOOD, ET AL. v. TERRY RIGGAN LOWERY, ET AL.

A Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County

Nos. CH-03-1197-1, CH-04-0254-3 The Honorable Walter Evans, Chancellor

No. W2006-00901-COA-R3-CV - Filed March 6, 2007

Holly M. Kirby, J., Separate Concurrence:

I concur fully in the majority opinion in this case, with the exception of the majority’s

discussion of one issue. The majority notes that the executrix, Ms. Wood, was bound “to the

exercise of that degree of diligence, prudence, and caution which a reasonably prudent, diligent, and

conscientious business [person] would employ in the management of [their] own affairs of a similar

nature.” In re Estate of Inman, 588 S.W.2d 763, 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979). The majority finds

that the trial court implicitly determined that Ms. Wood acted in accordance with this standard,

insofar as she was attempting to recoup the original investments made by her father in Revelation

and Lowery Riggan Company. It is unclear whether the majority holds that the evidence

preponderates in favor of this implicit finding, because the majority then goes on to note that, in

order to collaterally attack an estate that has been closed without appeal, Ms. Lowery would be

required to make allegations in the nature of fraud, mistake, or the like, and no such allegations were

made.1

To the extent that the majority’s opinion can be read to find that the trial court correctly

found that Ms. Wood acted in a reasonably prudent manner, I must disagree. Certainly she acted in

good faith, and it appears that her investment decisions were similar to those made by her father prior

to his death. But her investment decisions were nevertheless unwise and imprudent. The fact that

the Decedent invested heavily in Revelation and Lowery Riggan Company does not authorize the

executrix to continue such unwise investments with the estate assets entrusted to her care.
-2-

Nevertheless, I concur because, as noted by the majority, Lowery’s allegations are insufficient

to collaterally attack an estate that has been closed.

__________________________________________

HOLLY M. KIRBY, JUDGE
Exhibit 32.3

Certification Pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

This certification is provided pursuant to ss.  906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 of HorizonOffshore, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report).

I, Bill J. Lam, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or    15(d) of the Securities 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.

|   
		/s/ Bill J. lam                                    

  
Bill J. Lam

President and Chief Executive Officer

March 15, 2004 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### BROWN v. STATE.

No. 22451.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 31, 1943.

Tom M. Miller, of Graham, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for ■misdemeanor theft; the punishment, a fine of $100 and ninety days in jail.

To show appellant’s guilt, the State depended, primarily, upon the testimony of an accomplice, who testified that he and appellant stole the property as alleged. Appellant was found in the possession of the stolen property, recently after it had been stolen, which fact, the State contends, furnished the corroboration of the accomplice necessary to establish appellant’s guilt.

In proving such recent possession, and as a part of its case, the State introduced appellant’s declaration, made to the officers at the time his possession of the stolen property was first challenged, to the effect that he came into possession of the property by purchase; and, in addition thereto, the ' State introduced the written confession of the appellant, in which he stated that he obtained the stolen property from the accomplice by purchase. Other than the testimony of the accomplice, there is no testimony contradictory of the explanation by appellant.

It is insisted that the facts are insufficient to support the conviction. With this contention we are in accord because the State, by the introduction of the confession showing appellant’s innocence, destroyed its case as made by the testimony of the accomplice. Brown v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 9, 70 S.W.2d 192.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Richard H. Wills, certify that:

     (1)   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Tektronix,
Inc., for the fiscal quarter ending February 28, 2004;

     (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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

     (4)   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

           (a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

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

           (c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

     (5)   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

           (a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

           (b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Dated:  April 12, 2004

/s/ RICHARD H. WILLS
----------------------------------------
Richard H. Wills
President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies that, to his knowledge:



| | 1) | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 25, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | the information contained in the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 25, 2006 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                    |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|/s/ Carl H. Guild, Jr.              |  |  |  | /s/ Michael P. Malone                
|Carl H. Guild, Jr.                  |  |  |  | Michael P. Malone                    
|President & Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
|                                    |  | 
|Date: May 8, 2006                   |  |  |  | Date: May 8, 2006
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-1008 Directorate ID: 2013-SW-064-AD

Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model 269A, 269A-1, 269B, 269C, 269C-1, 

269D, and TH-55A Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 1,085 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to detect and prevent excessive wear of the splined 

coupling, which could lead to failure of the tail rotor (T/R) driveshaft and subsequent loss of 

control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $14,853 to replace the T/R driving spline and driveshaft

$14,836 to replace a T/R driven spline and driveshaft

$5 to replace a grease fitting

Labor per Helicopter

(1.8 work-hour x $85/work-hour

for the inspection and lubrication 

of the T/R driveshaft splined 

fittings)

(0.25 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection of the 

grease fittings)

(1.8 work-hour x $85/work-hour 

for the inspection of the 

driveshaft, fittings, internal stops, 

and drive spines)

(1.6 work-hour x $85/work-hour 

to replace the T/R driving spline 

and driveshaft)

(1.5 work-hour x $85/work-hour 

to replace a T/R driven spline 

and driveshaft)

(0.25 work-hour x $85/workhour to replace a grease fitting)

$153

$21

$153 per inspection cycle

$136

$128

$21

Total Cost per Helicopter $153 for the inspection and lubrication of the T/R driveshaft 

splined fittings

$21 for the inspection of the grease fittings

$153 for the inspection of the driveshaft, fittings, internal 

stops, and drive spines (per inspection cycle)

$14,989 to replace the T/R driving spline and driveshaft

$14,964 to replace a T/R driven spline and driveshaft

$26 to replace a grease fitting
2

Total US Fleet Cost $166,005 for the inspection and lubrication of the T/R 

driveshaft splined fittings

$22,785 for the inspection of the grease fittings

$166,005 for the inspection of the driveshaft, fittings, internal 

stops, and drive spines (per inspection cycle)

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Stephen Kowalski