alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4(k)


 


December 6, 2004


 


PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL


 


DPL Capital Trust I


1065 Woodman Drive


Dayton, OH 45432


 


Dayton Ventures LLC


c/o Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. LP


9 W. 57th Street


New York, NY 10019


 


Dayton Ventures, Inc.


c/o Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. LP


9 W. 57th Street


New York, NY 10019


 


Lehman Brothers Inc.


745 Seventh Avenue


New York, NY 10019


Attention:  Jeremy Heckerling


 


GLG Neutral Market Fund


c/o GLG Partners LP


Attn:  Antonio Dos Santos


1 Curzon Street


London W1J5HB


England


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


Reference is made to that certain
Securityholders and Registrations Rights Agreement (the “Agreement”), by and
among DPL Inc., DPL Capital Trust I, Dayton Ventures LLC and Dayton Ventures, Inc.
dated March 13, 2000.  Capitalized
terms used herein but not defined herein have the respective meanings given
them in the Agreement.


 


This letter agreement will confirm that Section 8.3 of the Agreement shall be amended to read in full as follows:


 


SECTION 8.3  Amendments and Waivers.  Except as provided herein, no modification,
amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective
against any party hereto unless such modification, amendment or waiver is
approved in


 

















 


writing by all Holders
holding 10% or more of the Warrants and Warrant Shares then outstanding.  If there is no 10% Holder, then the modification, amendment or waiver must be approved in writing by a majority of the Holders of the Warrants and Warrant Shares then
outstanding.  The failure of any
party to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement shall in no way be
construed as a waiver of such provisions and shall not affect the right of such party thereafter to enforce each and
every provision of this Agreement in accordance with its terms.


 


 


Very truly
yours,


 


 


	
  DPL INC.

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name: James V. Mahoney

  
	
   

  	
  Title: President and Chief Executive
  Officer

  
				



 


 


Confirmed and Agreed to:


 


 


	
  DPL CAPITAL TRUST I

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name: James V. Mahoney

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Administrative Trustee

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated: December 6, 2004

  
				



 

















 


	
  DAYTON VENTURES LLC

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated:

  	
   

  	
   

  
						



 


 


	
  DAYTON VENTURES, INC.

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated:

  	
   

  	
   

  
						



 


 


	
  LEHMAN BROTHERS INC.

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated:

  	
   

  	
   

  
						



 

















 


	
  GLG MARKET NEUTRAL FUND

  
	
   

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated:
#### Algie J. WALLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 75-4038

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1976.

*237Algie J. Walls, pro se.

Ronald L. Knight, U. S. Atty., John D. Carey, Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for respondent-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, GOLDBERG and GEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Algie J. Walls appeals from the denial by the district court of his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1970), arguing that his sentencing court’s failure to make affirmative findings of fact that he would not benefit from treatment under the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq. (1970),1 invalidated his sentence.

Appellant pled guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) (1970) (bank robbery coupled with assault with a dangerous weapon) and received a twenty-year sentence. He was under 21 years old at the time and subject to the special sentencing provisions of the Youth Corrections Act. The trial court explicitly stated, “The defendant is a Youth Offender and will not derive benefit from treatment under subsection (b) or (c) or section 5010, Title 18, U.S.C.A. . . ” Defendant argues that because the trial court did not include supporting reasons for his finding of “no benefit,” we should vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing by the district court. We decline to do so on the authority of *Dorszynski v. United States,*418 U.S. 424, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974). *Dorszynski*held that before sentencing a youth offender as an adult the sentencing judge must make a finding that there would be no benefit to sentencing under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5005 et seq. (1970). 418 U.S. at 444, 94 S.Ct. 3042. In so doing, the Court rejected a requirement that trial judges state reasons supporting their “no benefit” finding, holding that requirement too intrusive upon the trial court’s sentencing discretion. Although the defendant was sentenced eight months prior to *Dorszynski,*this circuit applied *Dorszynski*retroactively in *Hoyt v. United States,*502 F.2d 562 (5th Cir. 1974).2 Accordingly, the trial judge’s explicit finding that the defendant would not benefit from sentencing under the Youth Corrections Act clearly complies with *Dorszynski.*He did not err in not providing supporting reasons for his decision.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Under the Youth Corrections Act, a federal trial judge may provide a youthful offender with rehabilitative treatment rather than retributive punishment. *See United States v. Dover,*489 F.2d 688, 689 (5th Cir. 1974).

2

. In *United States v. James,*528 F.2d 999, 1023 (5th Cir. 1976), we suggested that *Hoyt*did not decide the question of retroactivity of *Dorszynski.*In *Robinson v. United States,*536 F.2d 1109 [(5th Cir., Aug. 13, 1976)], we stated, and reaffirm today, that *Hoyt*applied *Dorszynski*retroactively. 536 F.2d at 1110.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MATTHEW ROBERT MCGUIGAN,

Appellant,

v.

ROOPA P. PERSAUD and PENINSULA APPRAISAL SERVICES, INC.,

Appellees.

No. 4D21-2106

[April 21, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; David Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 20-18220 

(08).

Matthew Robert McGuigan of Mill Stone Legal Group, LLC, Coral 

Springs, for appellant.

Wayne M. Alder of Fisher Broyles, LLC, Pompano Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### John Irvin DUNLAP v. STATE.

No. 26037.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 15, 1952.

No attorney on appeal.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for the theft of property over the value of fifty dollars. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

Since perfecting his appeal, appellant has filed a written motion requesting the privilege of withdrawing the same. The request is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23.3
NOTICE REGARDING LACK OF CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN & Co.
ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO. (Andersen) was the independent auditor of UNITED DEFENSESYSTEMS, a Saudi limited liability Company, (the Company) for the year endedDecember 31, 2001. After reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable toobtain from Andersen a reissued audit report with respect to the financialstatements of the Company as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 (the2001 financial statements). In accordance with regulations of the Securitiesand Exchange Commission, the Company has filed with this Annual Report on Form10-K a copy of the previously issued audit report dated February 17, 2001 ofAndersen with respect to the 2001 financial statements. Because this AnnualReport on Form 10-K is incorporated by reference into the Company’s previouslyfiled registration statements (Form S-8 No. 333-60207 and333-101673 and Form S-3 No. 333-105550 and 33-110966), it isdeemed to be a new registration statement relating to the securities offeredtherein. After reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable to obtainAndersen’s written consent to the incorporation by reference of its February17, 2001 audit report into those registration statements. As a result, Andersenmay not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act1 for anyuntrue statements of a material fact contained in the 2001 financial statementsor any omissions of a material fact required to be stated therein. Accordingly,persons acquiring securities under those registration statements may be unableto assert a claim against Andersen under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act.
1 Section 11(a) of the Securities Act provides that if part of a registrationstatement at the time it becomes effective contains an untrue statement of amaterial fact, or omits a material fact required to be stated therein ornecessary to make the statements therein not misleading, any person acquiring asecurity pursuant to such registration statement (unless it is proved that atthe time of such acquisition such person knew of such untruth or omission) mayassert a claim against, among others, an accountant who has consented to benamed as having certified any part of the registration statement or as havingprepared any report for use in connection with the registration statement.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03146**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 03146\03146_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03146\03146_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 03146\03146_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 03146\03146_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03146\03146_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03146\03146_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03146\03146_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03146\03146_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03146\Certification Statement Plant ID 03146.pdf Plant certification statement x 03146\Supplemental Documents\Part A Attachments.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 03146\Supplemental Documents\Part C Attachments.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 03146\Supplemental Documents\Part D Attachments.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Exhibit 32

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


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Marlton  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert B.
Ginsburg,  Chief  Executive Officer of the Company,  and Stephen P. Rolf, Chief
Financial  Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on theiR
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 result of operations of
         the Company.



/s/ Robert B. Ginsburg                               /s/ Stephen P. Rolf
    ------------------                                   ---------------
    Robert B. Ginsburg                                   Stephen P. Rolf
    Chief Executive Officer                              Chief Financial Officer
    August 5, 2004                                       August 5, 2004

                                       28
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 1, 2014

t0325 

# Order

Clerk April 1, 2014

148062

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

P laintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148062

COA: 311042

Sanilac CC: 12

- 006940

- FC

JOSEPH LEE BROCKITT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350



Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Superior
Uniform Group, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Michael
Benstock

---

Michael Benstock

Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Andrew D. Demott, Jr.

---

Andrew D. Demott, Jr.

Chief Financial Officer





Date: May 7, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

m 01-20417

Summary Calendar

_______________

DALE D. NESFIELD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

NATIONAL MARITIME UNION; NICHOLAS BACHKO COMPANY, INCORPORATED;

AND

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

m H-99-CV-2634

_________________________

November 29, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

I.

Dale Nesfield, a pro se litigant, appeals the

dismissal of claims related to his job termination by Nicholas Bachko Company, Incorporated, that have already been rejected twice by

this court. See Nesfield v. United States Coast

* 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 circum- stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2

Guard, No. 00-20081 (5thCir. Aug. 22, 2000)

(unpublished); Nesfield v. Nat’l Maritime

Union, No. 99-21022 (5th Cir. June 16, 2000)

(unpublished). On the second occasion, Nesfield was sanctioned and fined $100 for filing

a frivolous appeal and was warned that “further frivolous appeals willresult in the imposition of additionalsanctions.” Nesfield v. United States Coast Guard, at 2. 

Despite this warning, Nesfield has chosen

to file yet another appeal raising the same issues. He now claims that his case should be

reconsidered because the defendants’ actions

have allegedly triggered the onset of his diabetic condition. 

The district court held that Nesfield had

failed to provide sufficient evidence either to

reinstate his case or to begin a new lawsuit. A

dismissal under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) is

subject to de novo review. Jackson v. City of

Beaumont Police Dep’t, 958 F.2d 616, 618

(5th Cir. 1992). Denial of a FED.R.CIV. P. 60

motion to set aside an earlier judgment is subject to review only for abuse of discretion.

TravelersIns. Co. v. Liljberg Enters., Inc., 38

F.3d 1404, 1408 (5th Cir. 1994). 

We need not decide which standard is applicable here, because Nesfield has failed to

presentsufficient evidence to justifyoverruling

the district court’s decision under either. The

appeal isfrivolous and must be dismissed. 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.

II.

“This court is authorized to impose sanctions upon those who pursue frivolous appeals,” and “[a] litigant’s pro se status does

not preclude imposition of [such] sanctions.”

Lyons v. Sheetz, 834 F.2d 493, 495-96 (5th

Cir. 1987). Because Nesfield has chosen to ignore this court’s warning to desist from filing

further frivolous appeals, it is ordered that he

be sanctioned with a fine of $100; he is ordered to remit payment to the clerk of this

court within thirty days of the issuance of the

mandate in this case. Nesfield is once again

warned, in the strongest possible terms, that

further frivolous appeals can, and likely will,

result in the imposition of additionalsanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS

IMPOSED.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00338

- CR

Marcus S. Carter

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 432nd District Court

o f Tarrant County (1345217D )

Apr il 30, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

____________________ Justice Sue Walker
### o^-i^-ooo^k-cO* ^o'^W^ OOtUW -y /RECEIVED AUG0 3 Z015 THiRDCOUWrOF.APPEALS. 

### rrV^clii^ OekW- Swat-~3Ljvvn vnoV J^-or ^UY^ ;(L_-H\aV< W V<\ A^W °v\\ ^3>^Vco^ . ZJ— <^'\<WV -ev*v\ Va^owlJ kv^V mv-\Y\\

quV "X_ a^V^A c^o X- Vavjj. Arc \ \W o(r\-v"^ fiacW It-tst I^VvnaJv^^ox Ground -VW/W D<«-\Vj S>0 T^" Vnuvt,^ up ex<x*r^-Vw_ T\cxV<V Mro ^aV«-~VU_ C^Vvdw^ »OU \/jtoW y^L\W 

## -^U Cr^y ^a\\ 3£- ^ Y^^\ok4 qv^ CWqo ou*n c^VaJj2- / Qe_c\.o*o V© cmto c, dov\6 K-O^act.s^x . \aJW\Qa 4TM,

£. 0^6 

### VO \cV-) V>W&vW b^A v^O-3 $4>n\<lA C^^^Wo4iv\ 

## -T isxV^r =>n^0~3l.^M<W v>^Vx\ fV\*yILX^1.o\j r ^^ S?AW* a^V^ "X-Wa3 -bo\/^ U| y*W •$» G-s^faw



### <^\- ,/t ^-\\<A WloVW qfW iMoVi^ jf» yvwy 

# avt*^w ^**^wMr H*^ GT\^VTAHH^--^Y \^ ^\V\"VS OaV XT VgV^V V^^T? 4-Ka-V vT^OWnovx 

## jpJ\^ \o,^W W- ^Q^U o\W vA^v/vy^ucIa« Q^6 ;X- prow ^^ ^,^1" — ^~. , -_^^., v- 

### ^\^ 0"'c5O G>U^ \/oia j?
ISW0- OV\<U_ -\-o\^ yv^_ vV SViU 0*^Mr VnO^ yv-s_ V\Q QV\5^ CarN * „ fc•••J m i r 71 W in -•J n O — 0 (T\. o C/3 O 5. o^ 0
r

-

o *p y 3 u > - r r «j \ I ••-• 8

. -. I «
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________ 

) 

LAWRENCE P. NOVAK, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

 v. ) Civil Action No. 11-0466 (RLW) 

) 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On April 27, 2012, the defendants filed a renewed motion for summary judgment [Dkt. 

#29]. Because a ruling on the motion potentially could dispose of this case, in its May 1, 2012 

Order, the Court advised the plaintiff, among other things, of his obligation to file an opposition 

or other response to the motion. Further, that Order expressly warned the plaintiff that, if he 

failed to file his opposition by May 31, 2012, the Court would treat the motion as conceded. To 

date, the plaintiff neither has filed an opposition nor requested additional time to do so. The 

Court will treat the defendants’ motion as conceded. 

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

DATE: June 18, 2012 ROBERT L. WILKINS 

United States District Judge
# Mission-Ready The industry-leading UAS that invented and continues to define the agile ISR category.

Search and Rescue Disaster Response Force Protection Combined Arms Target Following Battle Damage Assessment Pattern of Life Border Security Asset Protection Wildlife Monitoring Agricultural Assessment Communications Relay Networked Operations Anti-Piracy Fire Fighting

## Mark 4 Launcher Trailer mounted, pneumatically actuated, expeditionary



## GCS Point-and-click, real-time control



## SkyHook ® No nets, runway-independent recovery system



# Performance, meet practicality Agile, virtually undetectable and on station until the job is done, hardworking ScanEagle delivers persistent imagery on land or at sea at a fraction of the cost of other surveillance methods. The aircraft’s superior live video feeds keep you one step ahead of the situation, whether your mission is agricultural assessment or force protection. And because no nets or runway are required, you can keep your footprint small, even when the stakes are big. 

# ScanEagle ® 

## Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)

10.2 ft / 3.11 m 5.1 ft / 1.55 m

## Dimensions Length (EO dome): 5.1 ft / 1.55 m Length (EO900/MWIR dome): 5.6 ft / 1.71 m Wingspan: 10.2 ft / 3.11 m 

## Weights Empty structure weight: 30.9-39.68 lb / 14-18 kg Max takeoff weight: 48.5 lb / 22 kg Max payload weight: 7.5 lb / 3.4 kg


## Performance

Endurance: 24+ hours Ceiling: 19,500 ft / 5,944 m Service ceiling: 15,000 ft / 4,572 m Max horizontal speed: 80 knots / 41.2 m/s Cruise speed: 50-60 knots / 25.7-30.9 m/s Engine: heavy fuel (JP-5 or JP-8) or gasoline engine 

## Payload Integration On-board power: 60 W for payload 

## Sensor and Data Options

› Turret: EO, EO900 (two EO imagers), MWIR, Dual

imager (EO and MWIR)

› Video datalink: Analog, digital encrypted

› C2 datalink: Encrypted, unencrypted EO900/MWIR DOME

EO DOME

ScanEagle is a registered trademark of Insitu. Information contained herein is subject to change without notice. Some technologies may not be available in all areas. Copyright © Insitu, 2015. All rights reserved. PR080315Insitu Inc. 118 East Columbia River Way Bingen, WA 98605 USA

+1.509.493.8600 insitu.com contactus@insitu.com 

### Decision-making superiority delivered
From:Dean, Warren SEA <warren.dean@siemens.com>

Sent:Monday, June 08, 2009 3:30 PM

To:Schaffner, Karen S.

Subject:RE: NOx Chapters: Siemens TDL NH3 slip

OK

-----Original Message-----

From: Schaffner, Karen S. [mailto:ksschaffner@rti.org]

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 1:23 PM

To: Dean, Warren SEA

Subject: NOx Chapters: Siemens TDL NH3 slip

Good Afternoon, Mr. Dean: Thank you very much for the information on Siemens TDL ammonia

monitoring system you shared today. I have included a summary of our discussion below and hopefully I

understood you clearly. Please feel free to correct me or expand on. Thank you, Karen Schaffner

The Siemens TDL for ammonia monitoring is in place at approximately 90 to 100 full-scale coal-fired

units in the U.S. Facilities measure NH3 slip concentration after the SCR (and SNCR) and before the air

heater.

Some facilities measure at up to 3 points in the duct between the SCR and AH (for example, at 10 foot

distances) to account for or eliminate any stratification. The Siemens TDL unit has a capital cost of

approximately $40,000 for one point of measurement; measurement at three points could be up to

$70,000 for capital cost.

Karen Schaffner

Air Quality Engineering Group

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Rd (800 Park, C311)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

phone: (919) 316 3740

fax: (919) 541 7155