alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 00664**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

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

### 00664\00664_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 00664\00664_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 00664\00664_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 00664\00664_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00664\00664_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00664\00664_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00664\00664_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 00664\00664_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 00664\Certification Statment Plant ID 00664.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 00664\Copy of 00664_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 

### 00664\Supplemental Documents\(1 31 2011) Nerija Orentas - flyash system and ponds 00664 Follow up_BV.pdf Questions for Follow Up 

### x 00664\Supplemental Documents\(1 31 2011) Nerija Orentas - Re Steam electric survey response questions.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response 

### 00664\Supplemental Documents\00664_A5-2-BV- Map 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 00664\Supplemental Documents\00664_A5-2-BV- Map 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 00664\Supplemental Documents\00664_BV water mass balance 10-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

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

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT

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 GD Conference Center, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Destler, President of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 13th day of November, 2007.

 

/s/ Peter Destler

Name: Peter Destler

Title: President (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

     Suite 2000
     1211 South West Fifth Avenue
     Portland, OR 97204



               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


The Board of Directors
Potlatch Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-00805, 33-28220, 33-12809, 33-25352, 33-25353, 33-31372, 33-30836, 33-54515
and 33-54517) on Form S-8 of Potlatch Corporation of our report dated 
January 24, 1996, relating to the balance sheets of Potlatch Corporation and
consolidated subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994 and the related
statements of earnings, stockholders' equity, and cash flows and related
financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1995 which report appears in the December 31, 1995 annual
report on the Form 10-K of Potlatch Corporation.  As discussed in our report,
the Company changed its method of accounting for income taxes, postretirement
benefits other than pensions and postemployment benefits in 1993.




                                                KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

March 26, 1996
              

                                                                 Exhibit (23)
#### TAYLOR v. STATE.

No. 18799.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 17, 1937.

W. T. Locke and Elmer H. Parish, both of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for seining in Lake Wichita with a wire seine; punishment, a fine of $25.

It is charged in the complaint and information that appellant did unlawfully set and drag in the waters of Lake Wichita, in Wichita county, Tex., with a net and seine made of wire and other metallic substance. Upon the trial appellant made the point that the information did not allege that Lake Wichita was a fresh water lake, it being asserted that the statute governing this case forbids seining with a wire seine in fresh water.

Article 948, P.C., provides as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person to set or drag in any of the fresh waters of this State any net or seine made of wire or other metallic substance.”

I do not agree with my Brethren in their conclusion. I am inclined to believe that article 926, P.C., which provides as 'follows, “For the purpose of establishing the dividing line between the salt and fresh waters of this State, in so far as it pertains to the fishing laws, all fresh water rivers and streams in this State, and all lakes, lagoons, and bodies of rivers, except tidal bays or coastal waters, such as bays and gulfs, shall be and are hereby declared to be fresh ' water streams and rivers to their mouths, and it shall be unlawful to set nets or drag seines or fish in other ways in such streams, rivers and their connecting lakes, lagoons, and bodies of water mentioned, except in conformity with the laws enacted to govern, apply and control in fresh water fishing,” is sufficient to establish the fact that all lakes in this state, “except tidal bays or coastal waters,” are fresh water lakes, and that it being alleged that Lake Wichita is in Wichita county, which is judicially known to the court to be a great distance from any tidal bays-or coastal waters, makes this information, for every purpose, as though it in so many words alleged that Lake Wichita was a fresh water lake. See Taylor v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 55 S.W. 832. However, the point is of no great importance, and I do not care to record a dissent. Following the views of the majority, we hold that the information should have alleged that Lake Wichita was a fresh water lake, and the judgment will be reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
##### 



Exhibit 10.10
 QUICKSILVER GAS SERVICES LP
PHANTOM UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT
     rd
     
 Signature of Participant
1 The pe tition would als o be bar red und er the pre vious thre e year statu te of limitation s. See T.C.A . § 40-30 -102 (19 90) (rep ealed); Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W .2d 619 ( Tenn . Crim. A pp.), perm . to app. denied , (Tenn. 1994). 

# FILED
March 23, 2000 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON
ANTHONY TYRONE ANDERSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. W1999-01730-CCA- R3-PC ) vs. ) MADISON COUNTY ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. C99-182 ) Respondent. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court u pon the state’s motion to affirm the tr ial court judgment by order pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.In 1989, the petitioner was c onvicted on three counts of bur glary and three counts

of larceny and receiv

ed a forty-five year sentence. This Court affirmed the conv ictions and sentences on appeal, State v. Anthony Tyrone Anderson , No. 3, Madison County (Tenn. Crim. App., Apr. 25, 1990) , and the Supreme Court denied permi ssion to appeal on July 30, 1990. On May 12, 1999, the petitioner filed a petition for post-convicti on relief. Finding that the s tatute of limitations has expi red, the trial court dis missed the petition.
Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a), a person in custody under a sente nce of a court of this state must petiti on for post-conviction r elief within one year of the date of the final action of the highest state app ellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, withi n one year of the date on whic h judgment became final. The Post-Conviction Proc

edure Act provides sev eral limited exceptions

to the one-year statute of limitations, howev er none of them are applicable to the present case. See§ 40-30-202(b). The record r eflects that the petition in thi s case was filed wel l beyond the applicab le statut e of limi tations , and is, t herefo re, untim ely. 12 Accordingly, w

e conclude that the trial cou rt did not err in dismis sing the petitioner’s petition for pos t-conviction relie

f. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Costs shall be taxed to the state.

_____________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E

_____________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

_____________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
**EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS     Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. has issued a report, as of December 31, 2006,of the “Estimate of Reserves and Future Revenue to the Ultra Petroleum Corporation Interest incertain oil and gas properties prepared in accordance with Securities and Exchange Commissionguidelines” for Ultra Petroleum Corp. Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. consents to thereference in Form 10-K to Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc.’s reserve report dated January 30,2007, and to the incorporation by reference of our Firm’s name and report into Ultra’s previouslyfiled Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-132443; 333-13342; 333-13278) and Form S-3(File No. 333-89522).       **NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.**       By: /s/ Frederic D. Sewell         Frederic D. Sewell    Chairman and Chief Executive OfficerDallas, Texas
#### LAFFERTY v. STATE.

No. 16801.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 23, 1934.

B. F. Howell, of Rankin, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for twenty years.

J. W. Hillman v. State, 72 S.W.(2d) 607, this day delivered, is a companion case.

It was charged -in the indictment, in substance, that Lewis Hutchison, J. W. Hillman, and appellant, with malice aforethought, killed George E. Berry by striking and beating him with a piece of iron.

The testimony on the part of the state was, in substance, as follows: Deceased was sitting near his blacksmith shop. Hutchison, Hillman, and appellant walked up behind him and Hillman struck deceased on the head with a piece of iron. Appellant and Hutchi-son were also carrying pieces of iron which they had drawn on deceased at the time Hill-man struck the fatal blow. Deceased was making no demonstration toward the parties at the time they attacked him.

Appellant testified that he had an argument with deceased and that deceased struck him, knocking him down. He testified, further, that as soon as he was able to get up he left the scene. He denied that he attacked deceased.

A physician testified that deceased’s skull was crushed, and that he died from the effects of the wound in two or three days.

No bills of exception are brought forward.

Deeming the evidence sufficient, 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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1488

In re: MACK M. ROBINSON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. (1:21-cv-01730-PJM)

Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023

Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mack M. Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1488 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Mack M. Robinson petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court 

has unduly delayed in ruling on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. He seeks an order from this 

court directing the district court to act. The present record does not reveal undue delay in 

the district court. Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1488 Doc: 9 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
          FROM THE COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET,
          CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN
          THE COMPANY'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
          1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERNCE TO SUCH
          FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            164,215
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      47,449
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  229,899
<PP&E>                                            281,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                     39,954
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    671,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              82,581
<BONDS>                                           525,375
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                               84
<OTHER-SE>                                         22,984
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      671,396
<SALES>                                           140,186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  140,186
<CGS>                                             117,775
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     117,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   74,126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 20,165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (71,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (71,880)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (71,880)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.87)



</TABLE>
Process flow diagram for the use of the new chemical at sites controlled by submitter 

-Repackaging into smaller containersCONFIDENTIAL
<PAGE>
 
                                  Exhibit 23
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. of our report dated March 1, 1996, included in the
Pitt-Des Moines, Inc. 1995 Annual Report.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of Pitt-Des Moines,
Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-34787) pertaining to the Stock Option Plan of 1990 of Pitt-Des
Moines, Inc. of our report dated March 1, 1996, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements incorporated herein by reference, and our report included
in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Pitt-Des Moines, Inc.





                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP      






Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
March 22, 1996
Opinion issued June 8 , 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 22 - 00887 - CV

——————————— JAMES J. LUDWICK , Appella nt

V. HANH - THI BICH NGUYEN , Appell e e On Appeal from the 328th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 21 - DCV - 282033
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, James J. Ludwick , has neither established indigence, nor paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.1 (listing requirements for establishing indigence); 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault) ; see also T EX . G OV ’ T2

C ODE A NN . §§ 51.2 07, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041; Order Regarding Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 1 5

- 91 58
. Appellant failed to respond to our notice of March 6, 2023, concerning the failure to pay for the clerk’s record. In that notice, the Court advised appellant that failure to pay the fee for the clerk’s record could result in dismissal of this appeal
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5 (allowing enforcement of r ule) , 37.3(b) (allowing dismissal of appeal if no clerk’s record filed due to appellant’s fault) , 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case). We dismiss the appeal. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Parkview Group, Inc.
(the Company) for the three (3) month period ended March 31,2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Richard B. Frost, President of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge:

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

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

|                                          | 
|----------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Richard B. Frost                      | 
|                                          | 
|Richard B. Frost                          | 
|President (Principal
  Executive Officer) | 
|May 19, 2009                              | 

---
Exhibit 31.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Dwight McLellan, certify that:

1.   I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report on Form  10-QSB  of Aspen  Racing
     Stables, Inc.

2.   Based on my knowledge,  this  quarterly  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 quarterly report.

3.   Based on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
     information  included  in this  quarterly  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
     quarterly report.

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
     procedures  (as  defined in Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14 and 15d-14) 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
          Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us
          by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the period in
          which this quarterly report is being prepared;

     b.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company'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.

5.   I have disclosed,  based on my most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit  committee of  registrant's  board of directors  (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   All  significant  deficiencies  in the design or operation of internal
          controls  that  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record,  process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
          identified for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
          internal controls; and

     b.   Any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          controls.

Date:  September 19, 2007                /s/ Dwight McLellan
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Dwight McLellan President
                                    and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Prinicpal Executive, Financial,
                                    and Accounting Officer)
|   | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer and Cash Manger during the period from September 19, 2012 through October 31, 2012, and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement and Cash Management Agreement was conducted under my supervision. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer and Cash Manager have fulfilled all of their obligations under the Servicing Agreement and Cash Management Agreement, respectively,  in all material respects throughout such period. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |  By: |  /s/  James Salem                                 |   |
|--------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |      | James Salem                                                      |
|   |      | Executive Vice-President and Treasurer                           |
|   |      |
|   |      |
|   |  By: | / s/  David Power                                      |   |
|   |      | David Power                                                      |
|   |      | Vice-President, Market Strategy and Execution, CorporateTreasury |

----