alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/14/2010 06:41PM -----

To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

From: "Matt Todd" <ToddM@api.org>

Date: 05/14/2010 06:13PM

cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: UA/UC White Paper

Melanie,

The attached “white paper” supports the use of the Urbanized Area and Urban 

Cluster Census

2000 approach for defining urban areas. This is consistent with the approach 

used to identify

sources as rural or urban in 40 CFR 63 Subpart HH (ONG NESHAP). The Census 

Bureau

evolution of the urban / rural classification scheme has exploited Geographic 

Information System

(GIS) technology and leveraged population data to improve and refine 

definitions over time. As

we discussed during our meeting, relying on the outdated 1990 Census 

classification scheme and

urban-1 / urban-2 definitions would classify many counties in oil and natural 

gas production

locations like Wyoming as “urban”, which is an inappropriate determination 

based on a common

understanding of these terms.

API does not believe that EPA is limited to the narrow and outdated 

definitions of U1 and U2

from the 1990 Census approach referenced in the Urban Air Toxics Strategy 

(UATS), instead the

UATS recognized that urban areas would evolve by proposing that “the area in 

which standards

will apply should be made separately for each source category.” The UATS 

simply relied upon

the common contemporary Census Bureau definitions, and there is no compelling 

reason to

ignore subsequent improvements in the knowledge base.

On a related note, API would like to reiterate concerns expressed in our 

original comments

regarding treatment of oil and gas operations under §CAA112(n)(4)(B). API 

comment 2.1 (page

11 of 100) requested that EPA consider proximity to urban areas.

CAA §112(n)(4)(B) states:

The Administrator shall not list oil and gas production wells (with its 

associated

equipment) as an area source category under subsection (c) of this section, 

except that

the Administrator may establish an area source category for oil and gas 

production wells

located in any metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan 

statistical area

with a population in excess of 1 million, if the Administrator determines 

that emissions

of hazardous air pollutants from such wells present more than a negligible 

risk of adverse

effects to public health [emphasis added].

This implies that the congressional intent is to restrict oil and gas site 

area source applicability

requirements to urban areas with greater than 1 million people in MSA and 

CMSAs.

If you have any questions regarding this white paper or desire additional 

discussion surrounding

this important issue, please contact me at the number below. Thank you for 

your consideration of

this request.

Matt

Matthew Todd

API

1220 L Street NW

Washington DC 20005

202.682.8319

www.api.org
Exhibit 31.2
                           CERTIFICATION

I, David T. Nguyen, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Portsmouth Square,
Inc.;

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

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: April 25, 2006                           /s/ David T. Nguyen
                                              ---------------------------
                                              David T. Nguyen, Treasurer
                                              and Controller (serving as
                                              Chief Financial Officer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 6, 2016

NO. 03-15-00325-CV

Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Appellant

v.

Jessica Lukefahr, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on May 4, 2015. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellant 

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
# Official Journal L 327/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 327 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6416 September 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 327

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6416 September 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

1

| | | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1428 of 24 February 2020 ON THE STATE AID SA.31662 – C/2011 (ex NN/2011) implemented by Romania for Timișoara International Airport – Wizz Air (notified under document C(2021) 1065) ( OJ L 308, 1.9.2021 ) | 41 |

Corrigenda

*

Corrigendum to Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1428 of 24 February 2020 ON THE STATE AID SA.31662 – C/2011 (ex NN/2011) implemented by Romania for Timișoara International Airport – Wizz Air (notified under document C(2021) 1065) ( OJ L 308, 1.9.2021 )

( OJ L 308, 1.9.2021 )

41

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 17930.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 19, 1936.

Vickers & Campbell, of Lubbock, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for one year.

Since the conviction of the appellant, the law upon which the prosecution is founded has been repealed. See Meadows v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 481.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2981 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2981

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that congressional 
testimony by Department of Veterans Affairs employees is official duty, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2015

Mr. Huelskamp introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that congressional 
testimony by Department of Veterans Affairs employees is official duty, 
                        and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY BY DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES AS OFFICIAL DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 715. CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY BY EMPLOYEES: TREATMENT AS OFFICIAL 
              DUTY.

    ``(a) Congressional Testimony.--An employee of the Department is 
performing official duty during the period with respect to which the 
employee is testifying in an official capacity in front of either House 
of Congress, a committee of either House of Congress, or a joint or 
select committee of Congress.
    ``(b) Travel Expenses.--The Secretary shall provide travel 
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with 
applicable provisions under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, to 
any employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs performing official 
duty described under subsection (a).''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``715. Congressional testimony by employees: treatment as official 
                            duty.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.2**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in post-effective amendment No. 1 to theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-63740) of Powell Industries, Inc. of our report datedDecember 8, 2006, except with respect to Note C, and the matter discussed in the third paragraph ofManagement’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, as to which the date is May 23,2007, relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, which appears in this Form 10-K/A./s/PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLPHouston, Texas
#### BRECHEEN et ux. v. STATE.

No. 3264.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Jan. 2, 1936.

A. T. Folsom, of Wink, for plaintiffs in error.

H. E. Wassell, Co. Atty., of Wink, for the State.

PELPHREY, Chief Justice.

This is a suit for taxes -alleged to be delinquent on property in the town of Wink, Tex. The original petition was filed on March 25, 1933, and named “C. L. Brecheen and wife” as the defendants. A recovery was sought for the years 1930 and 1931 only, and Brecheen and wife were alleged to be the record owners. Citation was issued and served on C. L. Brecheen alone. This citation commanded the officer to summon C. L. Brecheen and wife, but did not name her. On January 18, 1934, an amended petition was filed in which “C. L. Brecheen and wife, Mrs. C. L. Brecheen” were named as defendants. In this petition a recovery for the years 1930, 1931, and 1932 was sought, and C. L. Brecheen and wife, Mrs. C. L. Brecheen, were named as the record owners of the property. Subsequently a citation was issued in which the officer was commanded to serve only Mrs. C. L. Brecheen, and it was so served.

Neither of the parties appearing, a joint and personal judgment by default was rendered for the amount of the taxes alleged to be due for the years 1930, 1931, and 1932, together with interest and penalty.

From such judgment an appeal by writ of error has been perfected.

Opinion.

Plaintiffs in error present only one assignment of error, while defendants in error have filed no brief.

*260Plaintiffs in error attack the judgment' because of the alleged insufficiency of the citations served upon them. They claim that the citation served upon C. L. Brecheen was insufficient to sustain a default judgment against him because Mrs. Brecheen’s name did not appear in either the petition or the citation, and that, the record showing that Mrs. Brecheen is the wife of C. L. Brecheen, and he not being before the. court, the judgment against her cannot stand.

 The record here reveals that both parties were the record owners of the property at the time this suit was filed. As such, it was necessary that they be made parties defendant in the suit and cited. The citation reciting C. L. Brecheen and wife was insufficient to sustain a judgment ’ by default -against Brecheen. Article 2022, R.S.1925; Temple Lumber Co. v. McDaniel et ux. (Tex.Civ.App.) 24 S.W. (2d) 518, and cases cited.

It is also necessary to join the husband in a suit' against the wife. Articles 1984 and 1985, R.S.1925; 23 Tex.Jur. § 287, pp. 333, 334, and 335.

There being no service shown sufficient to support a judgment by default against C. L. Brecheen and he not being before the court, the default judgment against both parties must be reversed and the cause remanded, and it is so ordered.
#### DOUGLAS et al. v. PARISH, District Judge.

No. 1780-6272.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

June 30, 1934.

Robert P. Brown, James Cornell, R. G. Hughes, and W. A. Anderson, all of San Angelo, for relators.

Kerr & Gayer and Geo. T. Wilson, all of San Angelo, for respondent.

HARVEY, Presiding Judge.

This is an original proceeding for mandamus instituted in the Supreme Court by the relators, Frank Douglas and others, against the honorable O. B. Parish, judge of the district court of Tom Green county, to compel the latter to render and enter judgment in a certain cause pending in said court, in which the relators are the defendants and the First National Bank of Eldorado, Tex., is plaintiff. It appears that said cause came on for trial before a jury in said court, and that a .number of special issues were submitted to the jury. The jury, it is alleged, reached an agreement as to what answers they would make to some of said special issues, but were unable to reach an agreement in respect to the others. The mandamus is sought 'against Judge Parish to compel him to render and enter judgment for the defendants in said cause, in accordance with the answers to such of the special issues in respect to which the jury is alleged to have reached an agreement. Even if meritorious grounds for mandamus were shown, still the writ should not issue, for the reason that a real party in interest whose rights would be affected, namely, the First National Bank of Eldorado, is not a party to the present proceeding. City of Houston y. Allred (Tex.Gom.App.) 66 S.W. (2d) 655.

The petition for mandamus is dismissed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
[No. 41409-7-I.

Division One.

November 13, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Darrell Everybodytalksabout, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 97-1-01122-8, Donald D. Haley, J., entered September 16, 1997. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, J.; Grosse, J., concurring separately; Becker, A.C.J., dissenting.
Exhibit 10.10 




ASSIGNMENT OF
DEDUCTIBLE LIABILITY PROTECTION POLICY PROCEEDS 



For good and valid consideration,
Gevity HR, Inc. (“Insured”) hereby transfers and assigns to Continental Casualty
Company (“Insurer”), effective as of 12:01 am June 30, 2004, the sole right to
collect any and all proceeds (including any return or unearned premiums or any other
payments or refunds) payable under Deductible Liability Protection Policy No. 5014190,
issued to Insured by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Vermont. In the event of
commutation of the Deductible Liability Protection Policy, the Insured also hereby
transfers and assigns to the Insurer the amount of any commutation payment payable to the
Insured in conjunction with said commutation (collectively, together with the other
property assigned hereunder, the “Assigned Property”) except as may otherwise be
agreed between the Insurer and the Insured. The Insured warrants and represents that no
assignment of the Assigned Property has been made to any third party and that the Insured,
acting through its duly authorized officer or representative, has the full authority and
power to transfer and assign the Assigned Property to the Insurer and that the rights so
transferred and assigned herein are free of lien, encumbrance or adverse claim. 



This assignment is irrevocable on the
part of the Insured and may only be revoked or terminated with the written consent of the
Insurer. 



This assignment shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the Insured and the Insurer, their successors and assigns. 



Dated: October 20, 2004 


			
	By: /s/ Peter C. Grabowski
		
	Title: Senior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
		
	Name: Peter C. Grabowski
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 Possis Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K/A for the year ended July 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert G. Dutcher,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

     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.

October 17, 2006                /s/      Robert G. Dutcher
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                             Robert G. Dutcher
                             Chief Executive Officer




                                       66
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 Zones, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Firoz H. Lalji, Chairman and
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1) 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); 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:
                May 12, 2006/S/
                FIROZ H LALJIFiroz
                H. LaljiChairman
                and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
DAVID PAYET ,

Appellant ,
v. Case No. 5D2 2 -1080 LT Case Nos. 2018-C F -0 3658 1

2018 -C F -036781-A 2018-C F -029819
STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee

. ________________________________/
Decisio n filed Octo ber 11, 2022 3.850 Appeal from t he Circuit Court for Brevard County, Tesha Ballou, Judge. Dav id Payet, Cocoa, p ro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.

WALLIS , EISNAUGLE and HARRIS , JJ., conc ur.
##### 



Exhibit 10.11
 TARGA RESOURCES PARTNERS LP
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT
         1. Definitions.




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



2. Indemnity of Indemnitee.
 3. Additional Indemnity. provided
 4. Contribution.
 3




---



##### 



5. Exceptions.
 Claims Initiated by Indemnitee
 Insured Claims
 Claims Under Section 16(b)
 Unlawful Claims
 Unauthorized Settlement
 6. Choice of Counsel.
 4




---



##### 



7. Advances of Expenses.
    8. Right of Indemnitee to Indemnification Upon Application; Procedure Upon Application.
 5




---



##### 



9. Indemnification Hereunder Not Exclusive.
 10. Continuation of Indemnity.
 11. Partial Indemnification.
 6




---



##### 



12. Acknowledgements.
 13. Enforcement.
 14. Severability.
 15. Liability Insurance.
 16. Miscellaneous
 Governing Law
 Entire Agreement; Enforcement of Rights
 Construction
 7




---



##### 



Notices
 Counterparts
 Successors and Assigns
 Subrogation
 8




---



##### 



TARGA RESOURCES PARTNERS LPBy Targa Resources GP LLC,its general partnerBy:
Name:
    
    /s/Rene R. Joyce

Rene R. JoyceTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerAddress: 1000 Louisiana, Suite 4300
Houston, Texas 77002TARGA RESOURCES GP LLCBy:
Name:
    
    /s/Rene R. Joyce

Rene R. JoyceTitle:
    
    Chief Executive OfficerAddress: 1000 Louisiana, Suite 4300
Houston, Texas 77002INDEMNITEE:/s/Robert B EvansRobert B. Evans