alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Updates on Alternative 

Refrigerants for MVACs

Yaidi Cancel

Stratospheric Protection Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

MACS Annual Convention

Orlando, FL 

January 29, 2011

Part I: HFO-1234yf 
Scope

• Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP)

– Program overview

– Rule status

• Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)

• Petition to find HFO-1234yf exempt as 

volatile organic compound (VOC)
What is the SNAP Program?

• Part of U.S. response to Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

• Clean Air Act (sect. 612) 

▫ EPA evaluates/lists substitutes that reduce overall risk 

to human health & environment 

▫ Considers various parameters including: 

 Ozone depletion, GWP, other environmental impacts, toxicity, 

flammability

▫ Lists substitutes in specific uses

 Acceptable, unacceptable, or acceptable w/restrictions
HFO-1234yf SNAP Final Rule 

Status

• Proposed acceptable with use conditions 

for new motor vehicles

• Comment period closed

• Final rule with OMB 

• Anticipated final rule publication: 

Spring 2011
What Alternatives are Already 

Acceptable under SNAP?

• Listed alternatives for MVACs (e.g., HFC-152a)

– For more, go to:

• www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/

• IMPORTANT:

All MVAC refrigerants must use unique fittings 

and labels
Other Rules on HFO-1234yf: 

Final SNUR

• Published on October 27, 2010

• Addresses potential health concerns

• Requires submission of SNUN to EPA 90 days before using 

HFO-1234yf in activities designated as significant new use:

– Use other than:

• Charging MVAC by OEMs in new passenger cars and vehicles

• MVAC servicing by Sect. 609 certified techs

– Manufacture, process, and distribution for servicing, 

maintenance, and disposal
VOC Exemption Petition

• VOC = ground-level ozone (smog) precursor

• Petition to exempt HFO-1234yf (refrigerant) 

and HFO-1234ze (foam-blowing agent) from 

status as VOC

– If petition granted, rulemaking process

• State and local regulators would not be required to 

regulate these compounds as VOCs
Questions?

For More Information:

– SNAP (Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0664)

• Margaret Sheppard: 202-343-9163 

• www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/

– SNUR (Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0918)

• Kenneth Moss: 202-564-9232

– VOC Exemption 

• Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0605 opens at 

www.regulations.gov upon publication

• William L. Johnson: 919-541-5245
Updates on Alternative 

Refrigerants for MVACs

Yaidi Cancel

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Stratospheric Protection Division

MACS Annual Convention

Orlando, FL 

January 29, 2011

Part II: CO2
• Proposed acceptable with use conditions 

for new motor vehicles

• Comment period closed

• Anticipated final rule publication: 

Summer or Fall 2011

CO2 SNAP Final Rule Status
– SNAP:

• Yaidi Cancel: 202-343-9512

• www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/

• Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0488 at 

http://www.regulations.gov

Questions?

For More Information:
Backup Slides
SNAP Process
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 189 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 189

  Expressing the sense of the Congress that every appropriate effort 
 should be made to avert a humanitarian disaster in Bosnia-Herzegovina 
and the other former Yugoslav republics during the winter of 1993-1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 1993

  Mr. McCloskey (for himself, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hyde, and Ms. Molinari) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Foreign Affairs

            November 23 (legislative day, November 22), 1993

   Committee on Foreign Affairs discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of the Congress that every appropriate effort 
 should be made to avert a humanitarian disaster in Bosnia-Herzegovina 
and the other former Yugoslav republics during the winter of 1993-1994.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) the United States, together with the international 
        community, should make every appropriate effort to ensure that 
        the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina have adequate medical 
        supplies, food, and other humanitarian assistance during the 
        winter of 1993-1994 in order to prevent a possible humanitarian 
        disaster;
            (2) the United States should support necessary and 
        appropriate preparations to facilitate a relief effort in order 
        to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster;
            (3) all parties should cooperate with the provision of 
        humanitarian assistance to those in need throughout the former 
        Yugoslav republics, especially Bosnia-Herzegovina;
            (4) the United States should provide similar assistance to 
        the peoples endangered this winter throughout the former 
        Yugoslav republics, especially the former Yugoslav Republic of 
        Macedonia; and
            (5) the United States should expend appropriated funds for 
        such purposes as expeditiously as possible.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6502

PHILIP CORSO; ROBERT J. ROMITO; GEORGE H. VAN WAGNER, III, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus DENNIS R. BIDWELL, Warden; MARIE GRAHAM, Director of Health Services; SANDRA HOWARD, M.D.; A. VICTO RIA; M. RONGO, All in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA96-4070-PJM) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Philip Corso, Robert J. Romito, George H. Van Wagner, III, Appellants Pro Se. Earle Bronson Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for United States Marshals to personally serve the Defendants and directing the Marshals to serve the Defendants by certified mail return receipt requested. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          22,028
<SECURITIES>                                   101,225
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,752
<ALLOWANCES>                                       533
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               180,005
<PP&E>                                         613,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                  67,177
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 808,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,764
<BONDS>                                        491,189
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           225
<OTHER-SE>                                     217,163
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   808,326
<SALES>                                         82,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,049
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,894
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,881
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,013
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,013
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:22-cv-00936-S-BT Document 9 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 36
The State 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 30, 2014

No. 04-14-00287-CR

Sandra MORTIMER,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR9808

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

On April 3, 2014, the trial court filed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating 

that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record was filed. On May 22, 2014, we issued an order stating that this 

appeal will be dismissed unless an amended trial court certification is filed showing that the 

appellant has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by June 23, 2014. See id. 

25.2(d) (providing an appellate court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the 

defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.”). We further ordered all 

appellate deadlines suspended until further order of the court. 

On June 20, 2014, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion asking us to extend 

the suspension of appellate deadlines until a full clerk’s record and a reporter’s record are filed. 

However, because all appellate deadlines have been suspended, no reporter’s record will be filed

in this appeal. And, nothing in the motion explains why the reporter’s record is required in this 

appeal. 
The motion is therefore DENIED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of June, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit31.1**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuantto Section 302 of the**

**Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002**

 

I, James W. Bullock, certify that:

 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Endocardial Solutions, Inc.;

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

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

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’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 controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

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

 
| Date: August  9, 2004 |
|-----------------------|
|                  |
|                  | /s/ James W.  Bullock |   |
|                  | Signature |
|                  | Name: James W. Bullock |
|                  | Title: Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 23 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 23

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 26 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the Architect of the Capitol to transfer the catafalque to 
                the Supreme Court for a funeral service.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer to the custody of the Chief Justice of the United States the 
catafalque which is presently situated in the crypt beneath the rotunda 
of the Capitol so that the said catafalque may be used in the Supreme 
Court Building in connection with services to be conducted there for 
the late Honorable Thurgood Marshall, former Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 26, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, the undersigned officer of Stratus Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge:
 
 (1) This
Report on Form 10-K for the ear ended December 31, 2008 (“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.
 
 Date:  April
      15, 2009/s/
      Paul FellerName:
      Paul FellerTitle:     Chief
      Executive Officer
 
 The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
#### Manufacturers Trust Company, Respondent, *v.*Arthur Diamond, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 21, 1957.

*Harry A. Roth,*for appellant.

*Robert S. Carlson*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Where the holder of a check presents it at the bank at which it is payable, receives the money, and surrenders the paper, the transaction is completed and cannot be rescinded except for fraud or mutual mistake *(Oddie*v. *National City Bank,*45 N. Y. 735; *Bankers Trust Co.*v. *Wells,*215 App. Div. 343).

The judgment and order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.

Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur; Hofstadter, J., concurs in result.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.
— TERM,

1712.

#### Philemon Lloyd’s Lessee *against*Vincent Hemsley.

EJECTMENT for a tract of land called *Carter’s*inheritance.

The Jury found the following special verdict, to wit:

We of the Jury do find for the plaintiff, if the honourable Court are of opinion, that the statute of the *twenty-first*of King James the first, entitled “ An act for limitation “ of actions, and for avoiding of suits in law,” do not ex*29tend into this Province, and be not applicable to this cause, otherwise we find for the defendant.

Robert Eagle, *Foreman.*

*Wornell*Hunt, for plaintiff.

*Thomas*Bordley, for defendant.

The Provincial Court gave judgment on the special verdict for the plaintiff.

Vide Lib. I. O. No. 1. folio 399.
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|East Coast (PADD 1) Natural Gas Used as Feedstock for Hydrogen Production (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|East Coast (PADD 1) Natural Gas Used as Feedstock for Hydrogen Production (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 5,149  | 4,178 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3,346  | 4,815  | 6,313  | 5,261  | 5,723  | 5,865  | 5,558  | 5,954  | 5,331  | 5,605 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5,983  | 6,345  | 6,202  | 5,265  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

 September 30, 2020

a0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2020

160415 & (57)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant,

v SC: 160415

COA: 342001

Calhoun CC: 2017-001326-FC

KYLAND ANDREW HUDSON,

Defendant-Appellant/

Cross-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 29, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as crossappellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the 

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Cite as Hogya v. Hogya , 2022
- Ohio
- 2465.]



## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LAKE COUNTY PAIGE HOGYA,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

- vs - HOPE C. HOGYA,

Respondent

- Appellant. CASE NO. 2022 - L - 051
Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division

Trial Court No. 2021 DV 000121

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Decided: July 18, 2022 Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Paige Hogya , pro se, 7673 Holly Drive, Mentor on the Lake, OH 44060 (Petitioner

Appellee). Hope C. Hogya , pro se, PID# 517804, Lake County Adult Detention Facility, 104 East Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (Respondent

- Appellant).

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J. {¶1} Appellant, Hope C. Hogya, filed a pro se appeal, but no entry was attached. {¶2} The trial court docket reveals that on June 28, 2021, appellee, Paige Ho g ya, petitioned the Lak e County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, for a domestic violence civil protection order against her sister, appellant . The trial court issued an order of protection on July 8, 2021 , effective for one year for appellee and her daughter. On July 13, 2021 and July 20, 2021 , two motion s to modify or terminate the protection order were filed

. On Octob er 13, 2021, th e trial court denied the motions.2

Case No. 2022

- L

- 051 Appellant filed a motion for contempt of a domestic violence civil protection order . In an entry dated October 22, 2021, the trial court dismissed the motion for contempt. {¶3} The docket confirms that since October 22, 2021, the trial court has issued

no other entry. This appeal was filed on June 13, 2022. Pursuant to App.R. 3(D) and Loc.R. 3(C)(2), appellant is required to attach to the notice of appeal a copy of the entry being appealed, or the appea l may be dismissed

. Specialized Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v.
Kovach , 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2022

- G

- 0002, 2022

- Ohio

- 1014 , ¶ 3

. Here, appellant did not attach the entry being appealed to her notice of appeal, and the last entry issued by
the trial court was on October 22, 2021. An appeal from that entry or any other former entry would be untimely pursuant to App.R. 4(A). {¶4} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s appeal is dismissed , sua sponte

. {¶5} Appeal dismissed.

MATT LYNCH, J. , JOHN J. EKLUND, J. ,
concur

.