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

**Plant ID 02601**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

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

### 02601\02601_ Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 02601\02601_ Completeness Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 02601\02601_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 02601\02601_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 

### 02601\02601_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02601\02601_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02601\02601_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02601\02601_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02601\02601_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02601\02601_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02601\02601_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02601\02601_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-GH - D-1 Wastewater Treatment Block Diagram - 1012r9.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-GH - D-2 Wastewater Treatment Block Diagram - 1012r9.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-GH - WB-1 Water Balance Block Diagram - 1012r9.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-GH - WB-2 Water Balance Block Diagram - 1012r9.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-Ghent - Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-Ghent - Part G Gypsum Stack Aerial Photograph.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-Ghent - Part G Sample 1 Revision.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-Ghent - Part G Sample 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-Ghent - Part G Sample 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-Ghent - Part G Sample 3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-Ghent - Part G Sample 4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 02601\Supporting Documents\KU-Ghent-A5-2 - Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

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

.
EX-10.15



 Exhibit 10.15 
  





 
 Michael Wyand 
 Dear Michael;

 Thank you for your very important contributions to EPIRUS in 2013. 

Your new salary for 2014 is $300,000 effective as of April 16, 2014. 

Your new 2014 bonus eligibility is 35%. 
 We look forward to your
contributions in 2014 and value you as a member of the EPIRUS team. 
 Sincerely, 
  


	
	 /s/ Amit Munshi

	Amit Munshi
	Chief Executive Officer
#### Mondl and wife, Appellants, v. F. W. Woolworth Company, Respondent.

*January 13*

February *7, 1961.*

*572For the appellants there was a brief and oral argument by *Henry P. Hughes*of Oshkosh.

For the respondent there was a brief by *O'Leary, Joyce & Goggin*of Neenah, and oral argument by *E. C. Joyce.*

Martin, C. J.

The first question raised by appellants is the propriety of the trial court’s instruction on Mrs. Mondl’s duty to exercise care for her own safety. The court instructed the jury that:

> “Every person must use ordinary care to keep a lookout ahead of and about him, and to apprise himself of possible dangers so that he may regulate his gait or his course accordingly.

> *573“Ordinary care demands that such vigilance be increased where special circumstances exist. The degree of diligence with respect to keeping a proper lookout on the part of a customer in a store — such as the plaintiff was — in order to measure up to the standard of ordinary care which the law requires, varies with the time and place, the conditions which might normally be brought about by weather conditions or by traffic into a mercantile establishment, considering weather conditions, and the opportunity to observe things ahead of and about him or her, and all other circumstances then and there present.”

Appellants argue that this instruction placed upon Mrs. Mondl a greater burden with respect to lookout than the law requires.

Ordinary care is such care as persons of ordinary prudence ordinarily exercise under like circumstances. The existing circumstances necessarily dictate what constitutes ordinary care in each instance. When the circumstances give rise to reasonable anticipation of injury, ordinary care includes the duty to act in accordance with that knowledge. As Mr. Justice Fowler pointed out in *Hamus v. Weber*(1929), 199 Wis. 320, 325, 226 N. W. 392, ordinary care and the element of reasonable anticipation are the same. Negligence exists when the harm could have been reasonably foreseen as probable by a person of ordinary prudence under like circumstances.

The evidence establishes that it was snowing on the morning the accident happened. Thus, Mrs. Mondl would be chargeable with knowledge that individuals with wet shoes would have tracked moisture on the floor of the store, that wet clothing would have dripped on the floor. She should have anticipated the likelihood of a slippery floor. The exercise of ordinary care required that she consider those probabilities and maintain a lookout adequate to apprise her of any such hazards. The instruction given by the trial *574court was not prejudicial to the appellants under the existing circumstances.

Since the second question presented by appellants is predicated upon a determination that the instruction was improper, it is unnecessary to discuss it.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 27, 2023. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 27, 2023 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A24D0170. REBECCA W. MCLAWS v. MICHAEL SPENCER. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 18104259
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 22-0109

_________________

NETZER LAW OFFICE, P.C. and DONALD L. 

NETZER,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

STATE OF MONTANA, by and through 

AUSTIN KNUDSEN in his official capacity as 

Attorney General, and LAURIE ESAU, Montana 

Commissioner of Labor and Industry,

 Respondents and Appellees.

O R D E R

_________________

On Friday, August 19, 2022, Appellants moved for leave to file an overlength reply 

brief, requesting an additional 2,500 words, or a total of 7,500. The brief is due today. 

Appellee State of Montana filed an immediate objection to the motion, and offered to file 

more extensive briefing if further time would be granted. Appellants have demonstrated 

that the case raises constitutional issues of first impression. In the interest of expediency, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to file an over-length reply brief is 

granted in part and denied in part. Appellants are granted leave to file an overlength reply 

brief of 6,250 words, or 1,250 words beyond the limit provided in the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants are granted an extension of time until 

Friday, August 26, 2022, to file their reply brief herein.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. 

Electronically signed by:

Jim Rice

Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 22 2022

08/22/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0109
EXHIBIT
32.2
  WRITTEN
STATEMENT
 PURSUANT
TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  In
connection with Quarterly Report of Lihua International, Inc. and its
subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 30, 2009 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigned, Yang “Roy” Yu  Chief Financial Officer of
the Company certifies, 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 13a-14(b) or
15d-14(b) 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.
 
 Dated:
      July 28, 2009
              By:
              /s/
      Yang “Roy” YuName:
      Yang “Roy” YuTitle:  Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                            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 Golden Tan, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to her 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

Date: October 10, 2007


/s/ Kim McElroy
----------------------------
Kim McElroy
Principal Financial Officer
Principal Accounting Officer
Non-EE Director Compensation Program






    
RPX Corporation
Compensation Program for Non-Employee Directors
(as amended May 19, 2014)
		
	A.
	Cash Compensation


		
	1.
	Directors will not receive any cash compensation for their service on the Board of Directors (the “Board”) or Board committees.


		
	2.
	The reasonable expenses incurred by directors in connection with attendance at Board and Board committee meetings will be reimbursed upon submission of appropriate documentation.




		
	B.
	Equity Compensation


		
	1.
	Initial award of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) with a target value of $175,000.  The RSUs will vest in equal annual installments over 3 years of continuous service, with immediate full vesting in the event of a change in control of the Company.  The Board or Compensation Committee will grant the RSUs under the Company’s 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (the “EIP”) to newly elected directors in conjunction with the non-employee director’s initial appointment or election to the Board.  A non-employee director who previously was an employee of the Company will not receive an initial award.


		
	2.
	Annual award of RSUs with a target value determined based on Board and committee service as set forth in the table below.  The RSUs will vest in full on the earlier of the one-year anniversary of the date of grant or on the date of the following year’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders, provided the director remains in continuous service through the applicable vesting date, with immediate full vesting in the event of a change in control of the Company.  The Board or Compensation Committee will grant the RSUs under the EIP in conjunction with the Company’s Annual Meeting of stockholders.  A non-employee director who previously was an employee is eligible for annual awards.  A non-employee director who joined the Board within 12 months prior to an Annual Meeting will receive a pro-rated annual award, with the target value determined based on the number of days of Board service provided during the prior 12-month period.




	
				
	Board service
	$
	150,000
	


	       plus (as applicable):
	 

	Audit Committee chair
	$
	22,500
	


	Other Audit Committee members
	$
	10,000
	


	Compensation Committee chair
	$
	12,500
	


	Other Compensation Committee members
	$
	6,000
	


	Nominating & Corporate Governance chair
	$
	9,000
	


	Other Nominating & Corporate Governance members
	$
	5,000
	


	Lead Independent Director
	$
	20,000
	







		
	C.
	General 




		
	1.
	The number of RSUs subject to each initial and annual grant will be determined by dividing the target value of a director’s grant by the then current denominator for RSUs as established from time to time by the Compensation Committee.  The Compensation Committee will determine the value of the denominator at least quarterly based on the average value of the Company’s common stock for the previous quarter.  


		
	2.
	All RSUs will be settled by issuing shares upon vesting, unless a deferral program is adopted.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2710 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2710

      To recognize the rights of grandparents in cases involving 
                   international parental kidnapping.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 9, 2000

Mr. Thompson (for himself and Mr. Frist) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To recognize the rights of grandparents in cases involving 
                   international parental kidnapping.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``International Parental Kidnapping 
Grandparents' Rights Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO PARENTAL KIDNAPPING LAW.

    Section 1204 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``parental 
        rights'' the following: ``or grandparental rights'';
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' after the 
                semicolon;
                    (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph 
                (3); and
                    (C) by inserting after paragraph (1), the 
                following:
            ``(2) the term `grandparental rights' with respect to a 
        child, means visiting rights granted to a grandparent, whether 
        arising by operation of law, court order, or legally binding 
        agreement of the parties; and''; and
            (3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking beginning with ``and 
        was in effect'' through the period and inserting ``and the 
        defendant is in compliance with that order.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3624 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3624

 To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent fraudulent joinder.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2015

   Mr. Buck introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 28, United States Code, to prevent fraudulent joinder.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF FRAUDULENT JOINDER.

    Section 1447(c) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``A motion for remand, and any 
opposition thereto, may include affidavit or other evidence showing a 
plausible claim for relief against each nondiverse defendant, or the 
lack thereof, or indicating a good faith intention to prosecute the 
action against each nondiverse defendant or to seek a joint judgment, 
or the lack of such a good faith intent. The district court shall deny 
a motion to remand if it finds that the complaint does not state a 
plausible claim for relief against a nondiverse defendant under 
applicable State law or there is no good faith intention to prosecute 
the action against a nondiverse defendant or to seek a joint 
judgment.''.
                                 <all>
```
Gila River Indian Community 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Air Program 

P.O. Box 97 . Sacaton, Az. - 85247 

Phone; (520) 562-2234 Fax: (520) 562-2245 

FXX TMSMISSION 

Fax: LC.(%- 3bbS 

r 

From: J&M @ I ~VLS 

Date: -( 4 -43% 

6 Re: y& (L'e l?-y 

Pages (including this page): 2 

cc: 

COMMENTS: 
April 19,2005 

P.O. Box 95 

Sacaton, Arizona 85245 

5201562-2234 

520R62-2245 fax 

Air Quality 

CERCWST 

Environmental Education 

and Outreach 

EPCRA 

Hazardous Waste 

Pesticide Conbul 

Solid Wmte 

Water Quality 

Mr. Chris Mendoza 

Coordinator 

District 4 Service Center 

Mr. Mendoza, 

The GRIC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Air Program is 

planning a formal public hearing to be held sometime during the last two 

weeks of June. The DEQ would like to request the use of the District 4 

Service Center as a possible location to conduct the hearing. The meeting 

would be held during the late afternoon through early evening for 

approximately three hours. 

Under the federal Clean Air Act, the GRIC has the authority to manage air 

quality within Community boundaries. The DEQ Air Program is in the 

process of drafting ordinances that will, through a permitting process, place 

limits on the amount of air pollution created within the Community. The 

primary sources that will be affected by the ordinances are the industries at the 

Lone Butte Industrial Park. The public hearing is part of the process required 

by the Clean Air Act to give the Community and others a chance to comment 

on the proposed ordinances. The hearing is open to all interested stakeholders, 

both on and off the Community, who wish to comment on the ordinances and 

the permitting process. 

If the service center is available during that time period, I will get several 

potential dates to you as soon as possible. Please call me at 520-562-2234 ext. 

286 if you have any questions. 

Thank vou. 

Janet Travis 

Environmental Project Associate 

GRIC Dept. of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 97 

Sacaton, AZ. 85247 
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT 

DATE, TIME 

FAX NO./NAME 

DURATION 

PAGE(S) 

RESULT 

MODE 

04/19 16:05 

152041 83665 

00: 00: 35 

02 

OK 

STANDARD 

ECM 

Gila River I~odian Community 

Department ofEnvironmental @&dip 

Air Program 

P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, Az. - 85247 

Phone: (520) 5623234 Pax; (520) 562-2245 

FAX TWSMISSION 

To: T)-Lf 5e~C'u 

Dnte: Lf -1 4 -0s 

Re: 

Pages (iPrcluding this page): 2
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September
30, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 By:
    /s/ Robert W. ZackName:
    Robert W. ZackTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer
Date:November 14, 2007
Exhibit 13.1



Officer Certifications Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code),
each of the undersigned officers of Globant S.A., a corporation organized under the form of a  société anonyme
under the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge
that:



The annual report on Form 20-F for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: April 29, 2016



|/s/ Martín Migoya       | 
|----------------------- | 
|Martín Migoya           | 
|Chief Executive Officer |
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-90,679-01

EX PARTE DANNY JOE GIPSON , Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 10F0430-005-A IN THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM BOWIE COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of indecency with a child by exposure and sentenced to 10 years’

imprisonment. He filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and

the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that he was denied the opportunity to file an appeal. The record indicates

that Applicant indicated a desire to appeal his conviction, but that he was denied his right to do so

through no fault of his own. Ex parte Riley, 193 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The

habeas court has determined that Applicant did not have the opportunity to file an appeal.

Relief is granted. Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Jones v. State,

98 S.W.3d 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Applicant may file an out-of-time appeal of his conviction
2

in cause number 10F0430-005 from the 5th District Court of Bowie County. Within ten days from

the date of this Court’s mandate, the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If

Applicant is indigent and wants to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel

to represent him on direct appeal. All deadlines shall be calculated as if Applicant was sentenced

on the date of this Court’s mandate. Should Applicant decide to appeal, he must file a written notice

of appeal in the trial court within thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Applicant’s remaining allegations are dismissed.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles. 

Delivered: April 8, 2020

Do not publish
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION
    OF CEO PURSUANT TO
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
    SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  Form 10-Q
      By:
    /s/  Rene
    R. Joyce   Title:
    Chief Executive Officer of Targa
    Resources GP LLC,     A signed original of this written statement required by
    Section 906, or other document authenticating,
    acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
    in typed form within the electronic version of this written
    statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the
    Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and
    furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
    upon request.
 68