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

"Stotts, Stacy" <SStotts@stinson.com> 

To: 

Nathan Topham/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, <nate.topham@gmail.com> 

Cc: 

"Joseph Stolle" <joseph@shellengr.com>, "Miller, Aaron" <amiller@doerun.com>, 

"Marucheau, Louis" 

<lmarucheau@doerun.com> 

Date: 

06/02/2011 01:20 AM 

Subject

: 

Primary MACT

Nathan – As a follow-up to our conversation today, the stack stacking done in 2009 

is 

a valid stack test. As you know stack tests necessarily have variability due to a 

differences in the conditions, feed etc. at any facility. The test for 2009 does 

(and 

would be expected to) reveal different information for the time frame tested in 2009

than in prior years. This test is valid and was accepted by the state agency and 

can be 

used as a part of the evaluation of comments submitted by Doe Run on the proposed 

Primary MACT rule. 

 

Please contact me if you have any other questions. 

 

 

Stacy Stotts | Partner | Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP 

1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900 | Kansas City, MO 64106-2150 

T: 816.691.3363 | F: 816.412.9326 | M: 816.304.3067 

SStotts@stinson.com | www.stinson.com 

 

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. 

This communication is from a law firm and may contain confidential and/or privileged

information. If it has been sent 

to you in error, please contact the sender for instructions concerning return or 

destruction, and do not use or 

disclose the contents to others. 

Page 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,987,432
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    780,016
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         452,361
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        96,847
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 288,327
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,604,983
<COMMON>                                       284,042
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      507,741
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            727,081
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,518,864
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           25,000
<PREFERRED>                                     78,475
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,175,734
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               1,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      238,312
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   48,188
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     96,492
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 6,670
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,416,248
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                4,604,983
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,009,411
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            66,890
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     787,886
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     854,776
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        154,635
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               5,962
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 160,597
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        55,353
<NET-INCOME>                                   105,244
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  105,244
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        91,047
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       35,933
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         286,496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .91 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91
        



</TABLE>
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 Ever-Glory International Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on  Form 10-Q/A, for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward Yihua Kang, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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, as amended; and





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




Date:
      January 28, 2010
            By:
            /s/ Edward
      Yihua KangEdward
      Yihua KangChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS**





Pursuant
      of 18 U.S.C. 63 1350, the Chief Financial Officer of Conmed Healthcare
      Management, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that this Form 10-Q and the
      financial statements thereto fully comply with the requirements of Sections
      13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
      information contained in the Form 10-Q and the financial statements thereto
      fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of
      operations of the Company.





August
                14, 2008By
                /s/ Thomas W. FryThomas
                W. FryChief
                Financial Officer





**A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to and will be retained by Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. and
      will
      be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.**
1

Werner, Christopher

From: Szabo, Aaron <Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov>

Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 11:14 AM

To: Lorang, Phil; Werner, Christopher; Beaver, Melinda

Cc: Szabo, Aaron

Subject: Summary of Additional Interagency Comments under EO12866 and 13563: EPA NPRM 

-- Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-

AS55)

Attachments: Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_E013563_Regional Haze_

2060....docx

Categories: Regional Haze

Attached please find the summary of additional interagency comments under EO 12866 and 13563 for the draft 

proposed rule entitled, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans (RIN 2060-AS55), and in 

response to the most recent version provided to OMB for review. 

Thank you and please let me know if you have any comments or questions. 

 

Aaron L. Szabo 

Policy Analyst 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget 

202-395-3621 

Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29860]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-481-000]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Technical 
Conference

November 16, 2000.
    On August 15, 2000, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation 
(Transco) submitted a filing to comply with Order No. 637. Several 
parties have protested various aspects of Transco's filing.
    Take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various 
issues raised by Transco's filing will be held on Thursday, December 7, 
2000, at 10 a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. Parties protesting aspects of Transco's filing 
should be prepared to discuss alternatives.
    All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29860 Filed 11-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.
        Here's how you know
      Here's how you know**Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
      **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** (
            A locked padlock
            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Menu

      
        close

            
            
                                              About
          Charter
          Legislation
          Members
          Meetings
          Reports & Resources

                            
                                About
          Contact Us
                  Share
FacebookXLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail Home
 Friday, April 16, 2010 Meeting April 16, 2010
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.

AgendaMeeting SummaryMeeting Attendance

April 12, 2010 Meeting Materials

**Presenter/Member Bios:**

Patrick Corvington
	David Harris
	Laurence Tribe
	Stephanie Rondenell**Presentations:**

Juvenile Information Sharing**Legislative and Program Updates:**

Agency Announcements
	HHS Announcements
	DOJ Press Release
  
Date Published: April 16, 2010
 Top

      Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

        
        
                        Facebook
          
                      X
          
                      YouTube
  

      Secondary Footer link menu
            Accessibility
              Plain Language
              Privacy Policy
              Legal Policies and Disclaimer
              No FEAR Act
              Freedom of Information Act
              USA.gov
              Justice.gov
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1110 

CA 16-00665 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR A REVIEW 

UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 

OF A TAX ASSESSMENT BY MAUDE DEVELOPMENT, LLC

C/O WALGREENS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

 

V ORDER

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW AND/OR ASSESSOR OF

THE CITY OF CORNING, CITY OF CORNING,

RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS, 

AND CORNING-PAINTED POST SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT.

 

STAVITSKY & ASSOCIATES LLC, NEW YORK CITY (BRUCE J. STAVITSKY OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

BARCLAY DAMON, LLP, ELMIRA (BRYAN J. MAGGS OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

HARRIS BEACH, PLLC, SYRACUSE (TED H. WILLIAMS OF COUNSEL), FOR

INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT. 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Steuben County

(Marianne Furfure, A.J.), entered June 1, 2015 in proceedings pursuant

to RPTL article 7. The judgment, among other things, denied the

petitions challenging the real property tax assessment for the 2009

and 2010 tax years. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by the attorneys for the parties on October 24 and 31, 2016,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 08387**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  

### x 08387\08387_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08387\08387_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 08387\08387_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

08387\Certification Statement_08387.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS**





Pursuant
      of 18 U.S.C. 63 1350, the Chief Financial Officer of Conmed Healthcare
      Management, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that this Form 10-Q and the
      financial statements thereto fully comply with the requirements of Sections
      13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
      information contained in the Form 10-Q and the financial statements thereto
      fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of
      operations of the Company.






May 14, 2008By
                /s/ Thomas W. Fry
              Thomas
                W. Fry
              Chief
                Financial Officer







**A
      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to and will be retained by Conmed Healthcare Management, Inc. and
      will
      be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.**








Page
          -24
          -
1Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-47, 66 S.Ct.

1180, 1183-84, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 94-60023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

RAUL QUIROZ-HERNANDEZ, ALFONSO HERNANDEZ-LOPEZ and

SERVANDO LOPEZ

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(May 8, 1995)

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion, March 16, 1995, 5th Cir., 1995, _____F3d_____)

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, GARWOOD and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER OF THE COURT:

In his petition for rehearing, Raul Quiroz-Hernandez (Quiroz)

points out that his possession conviction cannot be sustained on

the basis of coconspirator liability given that a Pinkerton1

instruction was not given to the jury. We take note of this fact

and, accordingly, substitute the following in place of Part III, A,
 

2The jury was properly instructed by the district court

regarding 18 U.S.C. §2, the aiding and abetting statute.

2

2 of our opinion:

2.

"Quiroz also contests his possession conviction. As explained

above, to sustain such a conviction the government must prove that

each defendant knowingly possessed the cocaine with the intent to

distribute. Possession can be either actual or constructive, joint

among several defendants, and established by circumstantial

evidence. United States v. Lopez, 979 F.2d 1024, 1031 (5th Cir.

1992), cert. denied, ---U.S.---, 113 S.Ct. 2349, 124 L.Ed.2d 258

(1993). The government proceeded on the theory that Quiroz aided

and abetted in the possession with the intent to distribute the

cocaine.2 To prove aiding and abetting in a criminal venture, the

prosecution must prove that the defendant (1) associated with the

criminal enterprise, (2) participated in the venture, and (3)

sought by action to make the venture succeed. United States v.

Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ---U.S.---, 115

S.Ct. 240 (1994). The evidence supporting a conspiracy conviction

typically supports an aiding and abetting conviction. Id.

Based on the conspiracy evidence discussed above, a reasonable

jury could find that Quiroz willfully associated with the codefendants in this criminal venture. Also, given the evidence

linking Quiroz to the transportation of the cocaine, the jury could

determine that he took affirmative steps to further its possession

and distribution. Furthermore, in light of the large amount of
3

cocaine involved, the jury could conclude that Quiroz intended to

distribute the drug. Thus, the evidence is sufficient to support

Quiroz' conviction for aiding and abetting in the possession and

distribution of cocaine."

Outside of this substantive change, the panel adheres to its

prior opinion and the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED. No member

of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court

having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc,

(FRAP and Local Rule 35) the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is

also DENIED.
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



The undersigned, Jean-Pierre M. Ergas, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BWAY Corporation (the Company) and Kevin C. Kern, Vice-President of
Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended April 3, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: May 18, 2005



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Jean-Pierre M. Ergas            
|Jean-Pierre M. Ergas                
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                                    
|/s/ Kevin C. Kern                   
|Kevin C. Kern                       
|Vice-President of Administration and
|Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 250 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 250

    Congratulating the people of Iraq on their resolve to vote in a 
   national parliamentary election on March 7, 2010, in the face of 
                               adversity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2010

    Mr. Baird (for himself and Mr. Inglis) submitted the following 
 concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Congratulating the people of Iraq on their resolve to vote in a 
   national parliamentary election on March 7, 2010, in the face of 
                               adversity.

Whereas the people of Iraq held a national parliamentary election on March 7, 
        2010;
Whereas insurgent terrorists vowed to disrupt the election with a concerted wave 
        of attacks;
Whereas there were a number of explosions in Iraq just before the polls opened;
Whereas Iraqis went to the polls defying the violence to demonstrate their 
        commitment to democracy; and
Whereas the people of the United States respect and admire the people of Iraq 
        for their courage and bravery: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress congratulates the people of Iraq on their resolve to vote 
in a national parliamentary election on March 7, 2010, in the face of 
adversity.
                                 <all>
```
#### DILBECK v. ESTEP et ux.

No. 2333.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Dec. 12, 1940.

Harry I. Freedman and Franklin E. Spafford, both of Dallas, for plaintiff i’n error.

Tom D. Matthews, of Dallas, for defendants in error.

*219ALEXANDER, Justice.

The parties herein have filed a sworn motion, alleging that the matters in controversy have been settled, and praying that the judgment of the trial court be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court, with instructions to dismiss same at the cost of plaintiff in error.

Said motion is submitted and granted and the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to the trial court to dismiss the same at cost of plaintiff in error.
#### Victor Brancoveanu, Appellant, v Mariana Brancoveanu, Respondent.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 30, 1987, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated August 14, 1989, which, upon an order dated August 2, 1989, granting the defendant’s application to compel the plaintiff to pay her $24,119.57 representing arrears in maintenance expenses on the marital residence, made after a hearing, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the principal sum of $24,119.57. The plaintiff’s notice of appeal from the order dated August 2, 1989, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

During the lengthy divorce proceedings which were initiated in June 1984, the court awarded certain pendente lite relief by order dated January 10, 1985, obligating each of the parties to pay one half of the arrears for expenses related to the maintenance of the marital residence, as well as expenses related to maintenance of the residence until final determination of the action. Following the trial, the amount of arrears and accumulated moneys owing to the defendant as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to pay his share of the maintenance costs of the marital residence were calculated to total $18,827.65, *531and by judgment dated April 30, 1987, the defendant was granted leave to enter judgment against him in that amount. Upon the plaintiffs prior appeal from the judgment dated April 30, 1987, this court remitted to the Supreme Court the issue of the arrears owing because the record failed to reveal how the court arrived at the $18,827.65 award *(see, Brancoveanu v Brancoveanu,*145 AD2d 395). Following a further hearing limited to the issue of these arrears, the Supreme Court ascertained that the amount owed by the plaintiff was $24,119.57 representing one half of the $48,239.13 which the defendant had expended in maintaining the marital residence from January 10, 1985, through April 30, 1987.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, we find that the Supreme Court properly determined to award arrears for the period from January 10, 1985, to April 30, 1987, when the parties’ judgment of divorce was entered. The record reveals that the defendant proffered evidence of the expenses incurred by her during this period through her testimony and documentary proof. The plaintiff, on the other hand, presented no evidence to show that he paid anything for the maintenance of the residence pursuant to the terms of the January 10, 1985, order and asserted that he was not obligated to make any payments once he vacated the marital residence pursuant to court order. The plaintiffs assertion that the order of January 10, 1985, requiring the parties to jointly share maintenance expenses for the house, expired when he was directed to vacate it, is devoid of merit.

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.