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

Sanitized Copy Attachment 4 GPC Slice Table
CERTIFICATIONS

                             Certificate 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 Phlo Corporation and Subsidiaries
(the "Company") the Company on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, James B. Hovis, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: November 28, 2005



/s/ James B. Hovis
----------------------------
James B. Hovis
Chief Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer














                                       14
From: Hector.Ybanez@holcim.com

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 09/15/2010 02:37 PM

Subject: another question

Keith

another question

for greenfield kilns that use to have a 50 ppm THC standard but these kilns

are existing kilns under this rule,

the promulgation of the final rule eliminated the 50 ppm THC standard so

these sources would not have an applicable THC standard till 3 yrs after

September 9 - Correct?

thanks

_____________________

Hector Ybanez

Corporate Manager, Environmental

122 West Carpenter Freeway

Suite 485

Irving, Texas 75039

Phone (214) 524 - 2814

Cell (972) 268-1139

Hector.Ybanez@holcim.com

hybanez@gmail.com

www.holcim.com/us

This e-mail is confidential and intended only for the use of the above

named addressee. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete

it immediately and notify us by e-mail or telephone.
#### WINGATE et al. v. WHITNEY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.

No. 2053.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

May 18, 1939.

Martin & Allred, of Hillsboro, for plaintiffs in error.

J. Fred Rose, of Hillsboro, for defendant in error.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

Whitney Independent School District brought suit against A. R. Wingate and others to recover for certain taxes alleged to be due the School District and to foreclose a tax lien on the land against which the taxes had been assessed. Judgment by default was entered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant sued out writ of error.

While plaintiff alleged the levy of a tax by the School Board, and that the property in question had been duly assessed, it wholly failed to allege specifically, or even generally, that the levy of such taxes had been authorized by a vote of the people residing within the district. An independent school district has no inherent or implied authority to levy taxes for the maintenance of schools but can do so only when so authorized by a vote of the property tax paying voters within the district. 37 Tex.Jur. 990; Constitution, art. 7, sec. 3, Vernon’s Ann.St.; Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School District, Tex.Com.App., 290 S.W. 1083. Consequently, where such school district undertakes to foreclose a lien for taxes claimed to have been levied and assessed by it, the petition must allege, at least in a general way, the existence of all the facts and the taking of all the steps necessary to the creation of the lien, including the authorization of the tax by a vote of the property tax payers within the district. 40 Tex.Jur. 243 ; 37 Tex.Jur. 1024; Miller v. *386Crawford Ind. School Dist., 26 Tex.Civ.App. 495, 63 S.W. 894; Geffert v. Yorktown Ind. School Dist., Tex.Com.App., 290 S.W. 1083. See, also, Baade v. City of Waco, Tex.Civ.App., 59 S.W.2d 433; Citizens National Bank of Waco v. City of Waco, Tex.Civ.App., 94 S.W.2d 1182, and authorities there cited.

Since plaintiff’s petition wholly failed to allege that the qualified voters within the district had authorized the levy of the taxes sought to be collected, the petition did not state a cause of action and was therefore insufficient to support a default judgment.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
From: "Stephen Mandel" <StephenM@spectragases.com>

To: John Schakenbach/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Joe Elkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 04/10/2008 02:57 PM

Subject: PGVP

John,

It was interesting to see the comments.

First off, Spectra Gases Inc is very supportive of the EPA’s efforts to assure the quality of gases 

being sold as EPA Protocol. Spectra would, of course, prefer that the program be funded totally 

by EPA but we understand the constraints and are prepared to pay our fair share.

The comments about ISO 17025 are noted, but if EPA was to require ISO 17025 certification of 

an EPA Protocol Gas manufacturer it would force the small companies out of the market. In 

checking with our quality people the cost to hire an outside consultant (if you are a small 

company you wouldn’t have the internal staff) to prepare the documentation necessary would 

probably be in the $40,000 to $50,000 range. This is, of course, a one time fee but these 

documents do require updating on a continual basis. Next the company has to hire the 

certification agency (A2LA). This may cost $15-20,000. This is for the initial period and then again 

every three years. There would then be periodic audits that will cost in the neighborhood of 

$5,000/year.

As to the proposed cost ($6,000 to $7,000/ year), any company that is producing Protocols has to 

have an investment that is in excess of $500,000 in equipment for blending and analysis, in 

standards, and in cylinders and valves. So an increase of 1.5% is nothing (other than a 

smokescreen). However, if as has been suggested there are some companies manufacturing 

Protocols that do not utilize SRMS or NTRMs then indeed the minimal cost of the PGVP program 

may indeed be a big cost to them.

John, the importance of US EPA Protocol Gases being of known quality is most important. The 

utility industry bases many of their decisions on what these gases are telling them. Federal and 

State Agencies use EPA Protocol Gases to evaluate the quality of the air that we all breathe. Do 

we want this data to be suspect because we don’t know with any certainty the quality of the 

standards that are being used? 

Stephen B. Mandel, QEP

Spectra Gases Inc

908-252-9300 ext 6218
#### McWYNN v. STATE.

No. 16889.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1934.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

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.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit May 26, 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT MARKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MARILYN SCAFE; KANSAS PAROLE BOARD; PHILL KLINE, Attorney General of Kansas,

Respondents - Appellees.

. No. 04-3333 (D.C. No. 03-CV-3029-GTV)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HENRY , BRISCOE , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Robert Marks appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The districtcourt granted Mr. Marks a certificate of appealability on the question of whe ther his trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the circumstances u nder which officers searched Mr. Marks’ truck. We exercise jurisdiction under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and affirm. As stated by the district court, this case is gover ned by the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDP A), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). See Penry v. Johnson , 532 U.S. 782, 792 (2001). The Kansas state courts adjudicated Mr. Marks’ claim onits merits, so, under AEDPA, we may only grant a writ of habeas corpus if the de cision (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly es tablished Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United State s” or (2) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2 ). “When applying these deferential AEDPA standards, we review the districtcourt’s legal analysis of the state court decision de novo.” Saiz v. Ortiz , 392 F.3d 1166, 1176 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted). “[W]e focus on the result of the state court decision, not its reasoning.” Id. Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, the distric t court record, the state-3-

court record, and the applicable law, we cannot con clude that the decision of the Kansas Court of Appeals was contrary to or an unrea sonable application of Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The judgment of the distric t court is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated July 28, 2004.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
From: "Higgins, Cortney" [Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]

Sent: 08/06/2012 01:25 PM GMT

To: Chuck French; Ann Johnson

Subject: FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hard and

Decorative Chromium Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing, and Steel Pickling Residual Risk and Technology

Review Rule



### Hi Chuck and Ann,

Consistent with our EOs, attached are the handouts from this meeting.

Regards,

Cortney

----- Original Appointment

-----

From: Echols, Mabel E.

Subject: E.O. 12866 Meeting on the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hard

and Decorative Chromium Electroplating, Chromium Anodizing, and Steel Pickling Residual Risk and

Technology Review Rule

When: Friday, Aug ust 03, 2012 3:00 PM

- 3:30 PM (UTC

- 05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Room 10103 New Executive Office Building



### This meeting was requested by Christian Richter, The Policy Group on behalf of the National Association

for Surface Finishing.
TS- AMID10/20/40

Attachment #5

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 2

Worker/ Occupational Exposure Information on the New Chemical Substance s at

Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter

– Manufacture and Processing
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 73454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20420]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


International Product Change--Priority Mail Express 
International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package 
International Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express 
International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package 
International Service contract to the list of Negotiated Service 
Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification 
Schedule.

DATES: Date of notice: September 10, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-
7820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 29, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail 
International & First-Class Package International Service Contract 45 
to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2024-583 and CP2024-591.

Sarah Sullivan,
Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2024-20420 Filed 9-9-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-96294) of Carey Institutional Properties
Incorporated of our report dated March 20, 2003 relating to the consolidated
financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Shareholders, which
is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report dated March 20, 2003 relating to the
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 26, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1948 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1948

  To abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes as a defense in 
                    inter partes review of patents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 5, 2017

Mrs. McCaskill introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes as a defense in 
                    inter partes review of patents.

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

SECTION 1. ABROGATION OF TRIBAL IMMUNITY IN CERTAIN PATENT CLAIMS.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
(25 U.S.C. 2703).
    (b) Abrogation of Immunity for Purposes of Inter Partes Review.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an Indian tribe may not 
assert sovereign immunity as a defense in a review that is conducted 
under chapter 31 of title 35, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Martin, Michael (OSn

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Everyone:

l. - ,-\~~,-:.:~;~T (>9;

-, ,;~''JnRTJ'Tl(IN

Martin, Michael (OSn . /';:'''O-'P''E-R'~-h()~:()

Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:26 AM .,',ht I • ,,\ .,,-,

Russ Volk (rvolk@cedarcity,org); Joe Burgess (mayorburge.ss@c.~~arcity,org) " r" 2

Brad Rawson; Devany, Dennis (OST) l~l3 ~.:P I I 1-'-, ii- ;)

Essential Air Service at Cedar City

SkyWest CDC Bid 2014-2015.pdf

I would like to update you on the Essential Air Service (EAS) situation at Cedar City, and give you an opportunity to offer

any comments on the record before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and

International Affairs, On July 30, 2013, we issued Order 2013.7-22 requesting proposals from airlines interested in

providing EASfor a new term. In response to our request, SkyWest, the incumbent, was the only air carrier to submit a

proposal.

I have attached SkyWest's proposal for your review and it is also available on www,regulations,gov under the Docket

number DOT-OST-2003-16395. I request that you review the proposal and submit any comments you may have as soon

as possible, but no later than Thursday, September 26. Please send your comments directly to me via e-mail at

michaeIJ.martin@dotgov. Also, please forward this e-mail to all relevant parties.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Regards,

Michael Martin

United States Department of Transportation

Essential Air Service (EAS) and Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP)

(202) 366-6494

1
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 Annual
Report of Cephalon, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank Baldino, Jr.,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based
on my knowledge, that:  (1)                The Report fully complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and  (2)                The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
result of operations of the Company.  /s/
  Frank Baldino, Jr.Frank
  Baldino, Jr., Ph.D.Chairman and Chief
  Executive OfficerFebruary 12,
  2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         181,446
<SECURITIES>                                   150,205
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,309
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               440,763
<PP&E>                                       1,704,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                 335,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,115,920
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          302,772
<BONDS>                                      1,122,993
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,736
<OTHER-SE>                                     870,682
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,115,920
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,406
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,426
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,213
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (53,396)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       388
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (53,784)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (53,784)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GREAT BAY POWER CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,960
<SECURITIES>                                    11,164
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,384
<PP&E>                                         109,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,935
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,064
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            84
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,925
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,940
<SALES>                                          8,437
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,437
<CGS>                                            8,572
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,572
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (153)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (288)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (288)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered April 30 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00026
- CV
RICHARD GEHRKE AND P ACIFIC COMPANIES, IN C., Appellant s V.
MERRITT HAWKINS & AS SOCIATES, L LC, Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 18
- 09562



### O RDER Before the Court is appellee ’ s April 3, 2019 unopposed motion for consideration of supplemental in camera record. Appellee explai ns that, pursuant to the parties ’ “ Agreed Protective Order, ” the parties filed certain confidential documents with the trial court electronically with redactions, but submitted copies of those documents to the trial judge and
each other without redaction. The copies submitted to the trial judge no longer exist, and appellee seeks to have filed via hand delivery an “ in camera supplemental record ” containing
those documents.
We GRANT the motion to the extent we ORDER the parties deliver a copy of the
confi dential documents to the trial court clerk for inclusion in a supplemental clerk ’ s record no later than May 9, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(e). The supplemental clerk ’ s record shall befiled no later than May 14, 2019 and shall be filed under seal. As appellee references the “ in

camera supplemental record ” in its response brief, we further ORDER appellee to file an amended brief with citations to the supplemental clerk ’ s record within ten days of the filing of
the record. Appellants ’ reply brief , whic h is currently due May 23, 2019, shall be filed within ten days of the filing of appellee ’ s amended brief.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre and the parties.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JU STICE