alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NATIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT RESEARCH LA BORA TORY 

Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Office of 

Research and Development 

MEMORANDUM: 

DATE: 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

February 20, 2013 

Status :3.J~ 3 Hg Reference Gas for Compliance Monitoring 

Jeff ~ Air Pollution Technology Branch 

Barrett Parker, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards-Measurement Policy 

Group 

This memorandum serves to describe the technical and commercial status of elemental mercury 

(Hg0

) calibration gas standards at relatively low concentrations (i.e., Hg0 concentrations < 1.0 

Jlg/m3

) used for continuous emission monitoring applications. 

For EPA regulatory purposes, mercury (Hg) calibration standards of known concentration, 

known quality, and known uncertainty are needed to quality assure data recorded by Hg 

continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). These gases are required to be traceable to 

National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) reference materials. 

In support ofEPA and EPA's mercury calibration gas needs, NIST developed the reference 

materials and capabilities to perform the certification of vendor-provided Hg0 calibration gas 

generators as a commercial service. The vendors, in turn, use these NIST -traceable Hg0 

calibration gas generators to "certify" the Hg0 calibration gas gene ator~ deployed in CEMS. 

Initially, NIST possessed Hg0 reference gas concentrations ranging nominally from 0.5 Jlg/m3 to 

38 Jlg/m3

• At EPA's request, NIST has expanded their capabilities to now include Hg0 reference 

gas concentrations ranging nominally from 0.2 J.lg/m3 to 292 J.lg/m3

. 

You asked me specifically about the status ofNIST's 0.2 J.lg/m3 Hg0 reference gas concentration. 

As EPA's technical contact to NIST's Gas Metrology Group, I have had multiple discussions 

with them regarding the status and availability of the 0.2 J.lg/m3 Hg0 reference gas concentration 

and I am able to accurately convey that information on their behalf. 
In short, the 0.2 J.lg/m3 Hg0 reference gas concentration is a gas concentration that NIST can 

provide a certification for to vendors requesting it and, in fact, NIST has done so with at least one 

vendor. It should be stated that NIST's uncertainty associated with this reference gas 

concentration is slightly larger(< 6%, k=l) than the other, more established, reference gas 

concentrations (typically <2%, k=l). NIST is confident that this uncertainty can be reduced to a 

level consistent with the more established Hg0 reference gas concentrations and has plans to 

work on improving the uncertainty within the next year or so. I too am confident that they can 

achieve this goal. 

I hope this provides you a clearer picture of the status of0.2 J.lg/m3 Hg0 reference gas 

concentration as well as Hg0 reference gases overall. If you need any further information, please 

let me know. 

Cc: Frank Guenther, NIST 

Gerald Mitchell, NIST 

Stephen Long, NIST 

Robin Segall, EP A/OAQPS 

Bob Wright, EP A/ORD 

2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 69**  **34**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. STEVE EDWARD GROGANS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Samuel G. Wilson , District Judge. ( 7:11

- cr - 00021

- SGW

- RSB

- 1; 7:13

- cv - 80674

- SGW

- RSB )

Submitted : November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25 , 2014

Before KING and KEENAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Steve Edward Grogans , Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Kartic Padmanabhan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Steve Edward Grogans seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or j udge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court d enies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Mi ller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the deni al of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grogans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Grogans’ motion for the appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Opinion issued August 2, 2012

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-12-00540-CV

———————————

KHYBER HOLDINGS, LLC, A NEVADA LIMITED LIABILITY 

COMPANY, Appellant

V.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR, 

ARGENT SECURITIES, INC. ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-W4, UNDER THE POOLING AND 

SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED 11/1/2005, Appellee

On Appeal from the 157th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-06101

MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

Appellant, Khyber Holdings, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company,

has neither paid the required filing fee for this appeal nor established indigence for 

purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (“A party who is not excused by 

statute or these rules from paying costs must pay—at the time an item is presented 

for filing—whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order.”), 20.1 

(listing requirements for establishing indigence); see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 51.207 (Vernon Supp. 2011), § 51.941(a) (Vernon 2005), § 101.041 (Vernon 

Supp. 2011) (listing fees in court of appeals); Order Regarding Fees Charged in 

Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the 

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 

28, 2007), reprinted in TEX. R. APP. P. app. A § B(1) (listing fees in court of 

appeals). The filing fee was due on June 23, 2012. After being notified that this 

appeal was subject to dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee, appellant did not

adequately respond. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5 (allowing enforcement of rule); 42.3(c) 

(allowing involuntary dismissal of case).

We dismiss the appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# U.S. Coast Guard Supports Pacific Partnership 2022 in Solomon Islands

U.S. Coast Guard District 14 Hawaii Pacific

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). K S/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RA U L PA RG A - RO SA S, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 05- 76592 A ge nc yN o. A 035- 001- 589 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 16, 2010 ** B e f o r e : S C H R O E D E R , P R E G E R S O N , an dR A W L I N S O N , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . R aulP ar ga - R os a s , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s appe a lf r om an i m m i gr a t i on ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d in g s c o n du c te din 

# FI LED MA R 25 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSK S/ Res ea r ch 05- 76592 2 ab sen t i a. W e h av e j u ri sd i ct i o n p u rsu an tt o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e rev i ew fo r ab u se o f d i s c r e t i o n th e d e n i a lo f am o t i o n t o r e o p e nan dr e v i e w d e n o v o qu e s t i o n s o f l aw. G a rc i a v . I

NS , 222 F . 3d 1208, 1209 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( pe rc ur i am ) . W e de nythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T h e a g e n c yd idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g P ar g a - R o s a s ’ m o tio n to re op en because the re cord ref l ec t s thatno t i ce of the F ebruary3, 20 05 , hear i ng w as m a ile dto th e a d d r e s s o f r e c o r do f

P ar g a - R o s a s ’ c o u n s e l. See 8 U . S. C. § 1229( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( not i c e m aybe s e rve d bym a i lon a l i e n ora l i e n’ s c ouns e lof r e c o r d ) ; s e e a ls o G a rc ia , 22 2 F . 3dat12 09 (not i ce t o cou nselof re cord const i tut es n o tic e to a lie n ) ; Fa rh o u d v . I NS , 122 F . 3d 794, 796 ( 9th C i r . 1997) ( a c tua lr e c e ipt of no t i ce by al i en no tre qu i re d t o sat i sf y due proces s) . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1476 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1476

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2018

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit individuals 
  eligible for Indian Health Service assistance to qualify for health 
                           savings accounts.

    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 ``Native American Health Savings 
Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE ASSISTANCE NOT 
              DISQUALIFIED FROM HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 223(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Special rule for individuals eligible for 
                assistance under indian health service programs.--For 
                purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), an individual shall 
                not be treated as covered under a health plan described 
                in such subparagraph merely because the individual 
                receives hospital care or medical services under a 
                medical care program of the Indian Health Service or of 
                a tribal organization.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2018.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Linda C. Potts, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofInsignia Solutions plc;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

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

 

(a)                designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)               evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)                disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officers and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):

 

a)                    all significant deficiencies in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

----

 

b)                   anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  | August 14,  2003         |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |
|   | /s/ LINDA C.  POTTS      |
|   | Linda C.  Potts          |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |
|        |                          |        |  |

 

2

----
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00023-CV

HANK SCOTT, ANNE SCOTT, 

AND SAM SCOTT,

Appellants

v.

JUSTIN SLONE, LYNN PEARCE, 

BECCY ROWE AND ROBERT ROWE,

Appellees

From the 220th District Court

Hamilton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV07112

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Clerk of this Court notified Appellants by letter dated July 31, 2013 that the 

original filing fee of $175.00 and the motion filing fee of $10.00 was due and that unless 

Appellants paid these filing fees within fourteen days, the appeal would be dismissed 

without further notification. More than fourteen days have passed, and Appellants 

have not paid these filing fees.
Scott v. Slone Page 2

This appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b, c); 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO)

LOC. R. 5(c).

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the 

time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.

P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007); see also TEX. R.

APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207(b); § 

51.941(a) (West 2005); § 51.208 (West Supp. 2011). Under these circumstances, we 

suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX.

R. APP. P. 2. The write-off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court does not 

eliminate the fees owed by Appellant.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and 

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed August 22, 2013

[CV06]
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsInspection ManualChange Notices

# Change Notices for 2006

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - 2024
          - 2023
          - 2022
          - 2021
          - 2020
          - 2019
          - 2018
          - 2017
          - 2016
          - 2015
          - 2014
          - 2013
          - 2012
          - 2011
          - 2010
          - 2009
          - 2008
          - 2007
          - 2006
          - 2005
          - 2004
          - 2003
          - 2002
          - 2001
          - 2000
          - 1999
          - 1998
          - 1997
          - 1996
          - 1995

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, March 16, 2020
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276. (217) 782·2829 

James R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph, Suite 11·300, Chicago, IL 60601 • (312) 814·6026 

PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR DOUGLAS P. SCOTT, DIRECTOR 

August 26, 2010 

Ms. Susan Hedman 

Regional Administrator 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Mail Code RA-19J 

Chicago, Illinois 06064-3590 

Dear Ms. Hedman: 

The purpose of this letter is to convey the support of the State ofIllinois for the inclusion 

of the Sandoval Zinc Company Site, located in Sandoval, Illinois, on the National 

Priorities List. 

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's evaluation of the Sandoval Zinc 

Company Site shows that past disposal and operating practices have resulted in 

uncontrolled releases ofhazardous substances to the environment that pose nnacceptable 

risks to human health and the environment. 

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency supports the inclusion ofthe Sandoval 

Zinc Company Site in the next proposed update to the National Priorities List. 

Very truly yours, 

Douglas P. Scott 

Director 

Rockford. 4302 N . .'\·1ain 51., Rockford, IL 61103 • (8151 987·7760 

Elgin. 595 S. State, Elgin, Il60123. (847) 608·3131 


Bureau of land - Peoria. 7620 N. University 51., Peoria, Il 61614. (309) 693-5462 


CollinsvilJe .·2009 Mall Streel, Collinsville, Il62234. (6W) 346-5120 


Des Plaines. 9511 W. Harrison 51., Des Plaines, Il60016. (847) 294-4000 


Peoria. 5415 ,~. University St., Peoria, Il61614. (309) 693-5463 


Champaign. 2125 S. First 51., Champaign, Il61820. (217) 276-5800 


Marion. 2309 W. Main SI., Suite 1 16, Marion, IL 62959. (618) 993-7200
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 10, 2016 521451

________________________________ In the Matter of the Claim of MARIA CAMACHO, Appellant. PUPPY PATHS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: January 19, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________ Maria Camacho, Corona, appellant pro se. Angela Pulci, Puppy Paths, New York City, respondent pro se.

__________ Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 10, 2014, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct. On November 19, 2013, claimant was discharged from her job as a dog walker for failing to walk the dogs for the amount of time that the employer's clients had requested. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant now appeals.-2- 521451

We affirm. "Conduct that is detrimental to an employer's interest and contrary to an established policy has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct" (Matter of Portis [Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d 1195, 1195 [2014] [citation omitted]; see Matter of Cheeseboro [Commissioner of Labor], 84 AD3d 1635, 1636 [2011]). "Whether a claimant's actions rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and its determination in this regard will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence" (Matter of Okano [Bruno, Gerbino & Soriano, LLP–Commissioner of Labor], 114 AD3d 1128, 1128 [2014]; see Matter of Pratt [Cellular Sales of N.Y. LLC–Commissioner of Labor], 125 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2015]). The hearing testimony and documentary evidence provide substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that claimant walked dogs for less than the scheduled length of time, which claimant was aware violated the employer's established policies governing client care and maintaining accurate time sheet records, and that such conduct was detrimental to the employer's best interest. Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
No. 86-1044.

#### Vreeken et al. *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.