alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
J~iKE9 S7q r u' 

tIN9TED S"rA°rES EN91ROhIMEN3AL PRO`fEC"FION AGEtdCY 

r Q V1tASHINGTQN, D.C. 20460 i = 0 

~$Tqt FROZE4C 

pG; 1 4 KCO5 

oPP CE oP 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Dr. David Moody, Manager 

Carlsbad Field Office 

Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221 

Dear Dr. Moody: 

We received a letter dated December 6, 2006, from the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) 

requesting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the draft 

recertification letter CBFO plans to issue to the Central Characterization Pro_ject (CCP) at the 

Idaho National Laboratory (INL). This request is in aecordance with the CBFO procedures that 

are intended to ensure that the Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIPP) site certifications correlate appropriately with EPA approvals for waste characterization 

activities at DOE transuranic (TRU) waste generator sites. 

In May 2005, EPA performed a baseline inspection of INL CCP's TRU waste 

eharacterization program (EPA-INL-CCP-05.05-08) for complianee with EPA regulations as 

required by the 40 CFR 194.8 (69 FR 42571-42583). On November 1, 2005, EPA issued a final 

inspection report and a letter approving several aspects of the INL CCP waste characterization 

program (EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, Item II-A4-59). On November 16, 2005, BPA approved 

two changes to the INL CCP waste charaeterization program under the tier system described in 

EPA's final inspection report. 

IJpon review of the draft recertifieation letter for INL CCP, EPA determines that it 

appropriately authorizes characterization and certification of the TRIJ solids (S3000), soil/gravet 

(S4000) and debris (S5000) waste at INL CCP. Attachment 3 of the draft recertification letter 

appropriately identifies the procedures for visual examination (HFEF-0I-6890 and NT-AP-09) 

and TRU waste characterization data generation-level review (NT-AP-09) that EPA evaluated in 

May 2005 and approved in November 1, 2005. The EPA limitations concerning the TRU waste 

characterization program for CH retrievably-stored and newly-generated wastes contained in 

EPA's November 1, 2005, approval letter remain applicable. We concur that the waste 

characterization equipment, procedures and waste streams encompassed in your draft 

recertification letter for INL CCP comport with EPA's existing approvals at the site. 

irte[netAdcresQJRL;e httofiwww.epa.gcv 

fteeyeietllRecyelab€e 9 Printedwttt;'1sge:abie OE! 8as®d i.nks or, :C`J%PCStcocse:ner, Pr>-e2ss CnrorL.e Pree Recyc!ed Pape* 
I 

Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft certification letter for 

INL CCP. lf you have any questions or concerns, please contact Rajani Joglekar (202-343 -9462) 

or Ed Feltcorn (202-343-9422). 

cc: Lloyd Piper, CBFO 

Vernon Daub, CBFO 

Courtland Fesmire- CBFO 

Ava Holland, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda- CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO 

Elizabeth Sellers_ iNL 

Jerry Wells, INL 

Allison Pringle, CTAC 

Wayne Ledford, CTAC
May 7, 2010 

By e-mail: expartecommunications@hq.doe.gov

Daniel Cohen 

Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law 

Office of the General Counsel 

Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585–0121 

Re: Ex Parte Memorandum

Dear Mr. Cohen: 

On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, representatives from various signatories to the consensus 

agreement1 met with representatives from the Department of Energy. Advocates for the 

consensus agreement urged the Department of Energy to adopt the entire agreement, except 

provisions relating to building codes which require congressional action. The parties also 

discussed the need to develop effective enforcement mechanisms in general, and in particular if 

the Department of Energy decides to adopt regional standards for the residential heating and 

cooling systems covered by the consensus agreement. 

Advocates for the consensus agreement included Kit Kennedy and Kate Houren of the Natural 

Resources Defense Council; Tim Ballo of Earthjustice; Andrew deLaski of the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project; Steve Nadel of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy; Karen Meyers of Rheem Manufacturing Company; Karim Amrane, Joseph Mattingly 

and David Calabrese of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute; John Mandyck 

of Carrier Corporation; Jeffrey Harris of the Alliance to Save Energy; Jim VerShaw of Trane 

International, Incorporated; two representatives of Lennox International, Incorporated; and 

Dennis Beck of the California Energy Commission (by phone). 

Representatives from the Department of Energy included Scott Blake Harris, Stephanie Weiner, 

Roland Risser, Bryan Miller, and Michael McCabe, in addition to three other representatives 

who arrived after the meeting introductions were completed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

1

 Agreement on Legislative and Regulatory Strategy for Amending Federal Energy Efficiency Standards, 

Test Procedures, Metrics and Building Code Provisions for Residential Air Conditioners, Heat Pumps, 

Weatherized and Non-Weatherized Furnaces and Related Matters, Oct. 13, 2009, at 

http://aceee.org/buildings/Furnace-ACAgreement.pdf. 

EERE-2009-BT-STD-0022 DOC ID 1.4.001
Kate Houren 

Legal Fellow* 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 513-6267

khouren@nrdc.org 

*Admitted to practice in New York, not yet admitted to practice in Washington, DC 

EERE-2009-BT-STD-0022 DOC ID 1.4.001
EXHIBIT 99.3
                                                                    ------------

[logo of PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                                Beneficial Life Tower
                                                36 South State Street Suite 1700
                                                Salt Lake City UT 84111
                                                Telephone (801)531 9666
                                                Facsimile (801)363 7371

To the Board of Directors
of Franklin Capital Corporation as Servicer,
The Chase Manhattan Bank as. indenture trustee
under the Indenture dated January 1, 2001 and
Bankers Trust (Delaware) as owner trustee under
the Trust Agreement dated January 1, 2001 related to
the 5.39% and 5.86% Asset Backed Notes:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying management
assertion that Franklin  Capital  Corporation  ("FCC") complied with the minimum
servicing standards  identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's
UNIFORM  SINGLE  ATTESTATION  PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE  BANKERS,  to the extent such
procedures are applicable,  in connection with the Sale and Servicing  Agreement
dated  as of  January  1,  2002,  during  the year  ended  September  30,  2002.
Management is  responsible  for FCC's  compliance  with those minimum  servicing
standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about FCC's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  conducted  in  accordance  with   attestation   standards
established  by the  American  Institute of Certified  Public  Accountants  and,
accordingly,   included  examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  FCC's
compliance  with the  minimum  servicing  standards  and  performing  such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our
examination  provides a reasonable  basis for our opinion.  Our examination does
not provide a legal determination of FCC's compliance with the minimum servicing
standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that FCC complied with the aforementioned
minimum  servicing  standards during the year ended September 30, 2002 is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

/s/PriceWaterhouseCoopers

January 10, 2003
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6228** 

NICHOLAS QUEEN , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. WARDEN DARLENE DREW, Warden, FCI Bennettsville , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Charleston
. Timothy M. Cain , District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 02573

- TMC )

Submitted : May 7, 2012 Decided: May 23, 2012

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Nicholas Queen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Nicholas James Queen, Sr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court ’ s order accepting th e recommendation of the magistrate judge and denyin g relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) p etition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Queen v. Drew , No. 2:11

-

cv - 02573

- TMC (D.S.C. Jan. 12, 2012) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT32.2



CERTIFICATION
PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANTTO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002



In
connection with the amended Annual Report of Capstone Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December31,2013,asfiledwiththeSecuritiesandExchangeCommissiononthedatehereof(the“Report”),I,
HalfordW.Johnson,Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 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
                                         informationcontainedintheReportfairlypresents,inallmaterialrespects,thefinancialconditionandresultsofoperationsofthe Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





/S/ Halford W.Johnson

Halford W.Johnson

Principal FinancialOfficer

February 18, 2015
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 China Prosperous Clean Energy Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Wei Wang, 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, to the best of my knowledge:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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 12, 2010

/s/ Wei WangWei Wang

Chief Executive Officer
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





Lincoln Parke, the President,  Treasurer , Secretary and Director of GreenChek Technology Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended August 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





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





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








Date: June 11, 2010







By:           /s/ Lincoln ParkeName:      Lincoln ParkeTitle:        President and Treasurer(Principal Executive, Financial & Accounting Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SHARE

# ORNL Reporter history series

View a hi-res version of this image

              An early open house at Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Graphite Reactor.            

November 9, 2018

Some less-often-told tales from ORNL's colorful past.

"This wonderful old reactor." Veterans celebrated the Graphite Reactor's 50th anniversary in 1993.

Presidential visit, 1992: George H.W. Bush visited ORNL to sign a CRADA.

When Tiger Teams prowled: Tom Row spearheaded the controversial ES&H audits at ORNL.

First nuclear power: It was generated at ORNL by a toy steam engine.

Galvin Commission: Blue-ribbon panel blunted "surplus labs" claim.

Lofty ambitions: The Tower Shielding Facility was built for a nuclear airplane that never flew. But science soared.

Career opportunities, 1943: George Parker guessed the Manhattan Project secret and became part of it.

Famous visitors: ORNL has had its share.

White hat guys: Early liquid waste disposal was taken seriously.

Amphibian assault: ORNL's famous 'hot' frogs captured the world's attention for a while.

Family lines: Multigenerations at ORNL.

Graphite Reactor model: History minded staff members rescued it from the dustbin.

RIB rescue: Support from the science community, leaders extended Holifield Facility's legacy.

Graphite Reactor 75th: Two veterans recalled events leading up to "critical reached!"

Check out the history articles in the 75th Anniversary issue of ORNL Review.

### Media Contact

### Contact

cabagewh@ornl.gov

865.574.4399
Contact Summary

April 30, 2012 Bob Mastropietro, VP Technology, Lodge Cottrell Telephone: 908 - 304 - 2616 Mr. Mastropietro was contacted for information on the performance of existing ESP at portland cement plants. He stated that existing ESP, with any modifi cations, could probably reduce PM to about 0.01

– 0.02 gr/dscf. He thought they could be modified to reach levels as low as 0.002

– 0.004 by adding additional fields, but that it would be costly and may be limited due to the additional space requirements.
Other

1912.752
#### Else, Appellant, vs. Cannon and others, Respondents.

*December 3*

December *30, 1953.*

*512For the appellant there was a brief by *Brendemuehl & Brendemuehl*of Oconomowoc, and oral argument by *Alvin G. Brendemuehl.*

For the respondents there was a brief by *George A. Hartman, Robert G. Hartman,*and *Leo C. Hartman,*all of Juneau, and oral argument by *Leo C. Hartman.*

Gehl, J.

Plaintiff contends that when the purchasers surrendered their equitable interest in the real estate to the vendors, the holders of the legal title, a merger resulted, and that in this action to foreclose his lien he may reach both interests and require their sale for satisfaction of his claim.

The question presented is dealt with in two prior decisions of this court. *Milwaukee Loan & Finance Co. v. Grundt, 207*Wis. 506, 242 N. W. 131, and *Delap v. Parcell,*230 Wis. 152, 283 N. W. 305. The facts appearing in those cases are quite similar to those considered here. Out of these earlier cases we read the following:

1. Where an equitable title and a legal title reach the same person after some other interest has attached itself to the equitable estate, a merger is not presumed.

2. An intent to merge must be proved (no such intent is established in the instant case).

3. If a purchaser under a land contract has any equity when he surrenders to the vendor, the equity continues to exist after the surrender to the extent that some other intervening attached interest is not cut off by the surrender.

4. If a purchaser still has an equity after surrender, only such equity can be sold in proceedings brought to enforce *513the interest of another which has attached between the date of the contract and the surrender.

5. The court may determine from the evidence the value of the premises and the amount due under the land contract and whether at the time of trial and after surrender the purchaser has any equity left.

In *Peters v. Bossman,*184 Wis. 254, 199 N. W. 65, it was held that the vendor’s knowledge that the work of the intervening claimant was being done is immaterial.

Applying the rules cited it follows that the plaintiff may have a sale in his foreclosure action but that only the equity which the purchasers had at the time of the surrender may be sold.

*By the Court.*— Judgment reversed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
MENTORING PROGRAM: STATEMENT OF EXPECTATIONS

Instructions:	 In order for participants to have a successful	and effective mentoring relationship, it is

important for both individuals to understand the expectations and parameters of their partnership.	

Please	review this document with your mentor or mentee	and document the	expectations and

parameters of your partnership.

The mentor commits to supporting the agreed upon learning goals; to working to create a	useful,

honest, and	confidential mentoring partnership; and	to	helping the mentee meet career objectives by

accessing appropriate	learning resources and providing personal support.

The mentee commits to making a	genuine effort toward reaching agreed upon learning goals and to

working to create a useful,	honest,	and confidential mentoring partnership.

The partnership should adhere to the following guidelines:

1. Confidentiality is of the utmost importance. The content of mentoring conversations should

remain between the mentor	and the mentee to the maximum	extent appropriate.

2. Establish the time and location for mentoring	sessions through mutual agreement in advance.

Both	parties are accountable for ensuring that meetings occur regularly and	refrain	from

excessive	demands on each other’s time.

3. reasonable amount of work time may be devoted to mentoring activities so long as the

activities promote	your professional development and have management approval.

4. The initial meetings shall focus on the following topics (no more than three):

1.

2.

3.

5. The mentor and	mentee are responsible for regularly assessing progress toward	the stated

goals, evaluating	their process, and offering	constructive	feedback	to each other.

6. Neither party shall use the others’ position for personal gain.

7. Either party may terminate the relationship. Before terminating the relationship; however, the

parties shall constructively discuss any differences with	each	other. If the partnership	is

terminated, the mentor	and mentee are each responsible for	notifying Governmentwide

Mentoring by sending an email to gwmentoring@opm.gov.

1
	 	 		

							

								 	 							

	 	 	

MENTOR: ________________________ MENTEE: __	___________________________

PRINT	NAME: _____________________	 PRINT	NAME:_ ________________________

DATE: ___________________________ DATE: _______________________________

2
# L_2011193EN.01001701.xml

| 23.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 193/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 193/17

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 719/2011

of 20 July 2011

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Saucisson de l’Ardèche (PGI))

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Saucisson de l’Ardèche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Saucisson de l’Ardèche’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 July 2011.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOŞ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 247, 14.9.2010, p. 12.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.2.   Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

FRANCE

Saucisson de l’Ardèche (PGI)

---
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 Winland Online Shipping Holdings
Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned 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 his
knowledge:




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




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




Date:
      May 15, 2009
              By:
              /s/ Jing YanName:
              Jing
      YanTitle:
              Chief
      Financial Officer and Principal Financial
                and
      Accounting Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, 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 Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.