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

Plant ID 02740

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 02740\02740_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02740\02740_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02740\02740_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02740\02740_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02740\02740_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02740\02740_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02740\02740_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02740\02740_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

02740\Certification Statement Plant ID 02740.pdf Plant certification statement

x 02740\Combined Review for 4676_2740_4391.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02740\Supplemental Documents\02740_A5-2 Aerial Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02740\Supplemental Documents\02740_A5-2 Aerial Photo Map.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02740\Supplemental Documents\02740_A5-3 Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02740\Supplemental Documents\02740_C2-31 fly ash handling system.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02740\Supplemental Documents\02740_D3-1 (Entire Complex) Ponds & WWT.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02740\Supplemental Documents\02740_D3-1 (Green Station Only) Ponds & WWT.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00512

- CR

SERVANDO SANCHEZ

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 117th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22FC

- 0033B

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. February 1, 2024
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


                                                        Formation
Direct Subsidiaries                                       State
-------------------                                       -----

     Apple Hospitality Two, Inc.                            VA
     Apple Hospitality Management, Inc.                     VA
     AHT Res I GP, Inc.                                     VA
     AHT Res I LP, Inc.                                     VA
     AHT Res III GP, Inc.                                   VA
     AHT Res III LP, Inc.                                   VA
     Apple Res III Corporation                              DE

Indirect Subsidiaries
---------------------

     Marriott Residence Inn USA Limited Partnership         DE
     Residence Inn III LLC                                  DE
     AHM Res I GP, Inc.                                     VA
     AHM Res I LP, Inc.                                     VA
     AHM Res I Limited Partnership                          VA
     AHT Res Acquisition L.P.                               DE
Exhibit 4.1

                NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED B YTRANSFER AGENT.
               INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA


                                    AMERICAN
                                   PARAMOUNT
                                   GOLD CORP.

Number                                                                    Shares

AUTHORIZED COMMON STOCK: 150,000,000 SHARES:               CUSIP NO. 02882T 10 5

This certifies that


Is the Record Holder Of

              Shares of AMERICAN PARAMOUNT GOLD CORP. Common Stock

transferable  only on the books of the  Corporation  by the  holder  hereof,  in
person  or by duly  authorized  attorney,  upon  surrender  of this  Certificate
properly  endorsed.  This  certificate is not valid until  countersigned  by the
Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.

Witness the facsimile seal of the  Corporation  and the facsimile  signatures of
its duly authorized officers.



Secretary                             SEAL                             President
<PAGE>
The following abbreviations when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full
according to applicable laws or regulations:

TEN COM - as tenants in common                 UNIF GIFT MIN ACT     Custodian
TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties                            (Cust) (Minor)
JT TEN -  as joint tenants with right          under the Uniform Gifts to Minors
          of survivorship and not as           Act____________
          tenants in common                          (State)

     Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.

For value received, ______________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto


PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE


________________________________________________________________________________
            (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS OF ASSIGNEE)

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________  shares
of the  capital  stock on the books of the within  named  Corporation  with full
power of substitution in the premises.

Dated: ________________________________


NOTICE: THE SIGNATURES TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION
OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER.

* NOTICE SIGNATURE GUARANTEED:

     SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY A FIRM WHICH IS A MEMBER OF A REGISTERED
     NATIONAL STOCK  EXCHANGE,  OR BY A BANK (OTHER THAN A SAVINGS  BANK).  OR A
     TRUST  COMPANY.  THE  GUARANTEEING  FIRM MUST BE A MEMBER OF THE  MEDALLION
     GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

                             TRANSFER FEE WILL APPLY
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1126 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1126

 To exempt the aging process of distilled spirits from the production 
        period for purposes of capitalization of interest costs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2017

  Mr. Barr (for himself, Mr. Guthrie, Mr. Comer, Mr. Massie, and Mr. 
 Rogers of Kentucky) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exempt the aging process of distilled spirits from the production 
        period for purposes of capitalization of interest costs.

    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 ``Aged Distilled Spirits 
Competitiveness Act''.

SEC. 2. PRODUCTION PERIOD OF DISTILLED SPIRITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 263A(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5), and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
        paragraph:
            ``(4) Exemption for aging process of distilled spirits.--
        For purposes of this subsection, the production period shall 
        not include the aging period for distilled spirits (as 
        described in section 5002(a)(8)), except such spirits that are 
        unfit for use for beverage purposes.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (5)(B)(ii) of section 263A(f) 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as redesignated by this section, 
is amended by inserting ``except as provided in paragraph (4),'' before 
``ending on the date''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to interest costs paid or incurred in taxable years beginning on 
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 91-5604.

#### Irvin *v.*Kentucky.

Ct. App. Ky. Certiorari denied.

Justice White would grant certiorari.
#### American International Speciality Lines Insurance Company, Appellant, v United States Olympic Committee, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 40]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about December 14, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment to the extent of declaring that defendant’s claim is one covered by the subject policy and that plaintiff is obligated to reimburse defendant for its defense costs in the underlying litigation, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The existence of insurance coverage is determined from the plain meaning of the language in the policy *(see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. [Generett],*134 AD2d 196, 197). An insurer seeking to invoke an exclusion under its policy must establish that the exclusion applies in the particular case, is expressed in *459clear and unmistakable language and is subject to no other reasonable interpretation. *(Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-American Corp.,*80 NY2d 640, 652.) Any ambiguity in an exclusion must be resolved against the insurer and in favor of coverage *(Consolidated Edison Co. v Hartford Ins. Co.,*203 AD2d 83, 84).

The subject policy expressly includes coverage for recovery against the insured on a theory of implied contract, and the underlying action against the insured is limited to theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit *(Kalfin v United States Olympic Comm.,*209 AD2d 279). Recovery in quantum meruit is treated as subsumed in a claim for breach of implied contract *(see, Heydt Contr. Corp. v Tishman Constr. Corp.,*163 AD2d 196, 197), as is recovery on a theory of unjust enrichment *(see, Matter of Argersinger,*168 AD2d 757, 758). Therefore, sufficient has been shown to justify a declaration in the insured’s favor.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Asch and Williams, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 28, 2015

a1019

Order 

Clerk

October 28, 2015

147920

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147920

COA: 317265

Jackson CC: 12-004455-FH

PHILLIP DAROLD BANNISTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of July 29, 2014, the application for leave to appeal the September 6, 

2013 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People 

v Lockridge (Docket No. 149073). On order of the Court, the case having been decided 

on July 29, 2015, 498 Mich 358 (2015), the application is again considered. Pursuant to 

MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the 

Jackson Circuit Court to determine whether the court would have imposed a materially 

different sentence under the sentencing procedure described in Lockridge. On remand, 

the trial court shall follow the procedure described in Part VI of our opinion. If the trial 

court determines that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the 

unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it may reaffirm the original sentence. If, 

however, the trial court determines that it would not have imposed the same sentence 

absent the unconstitutional constraint on its discretion, it shall resentence the defendant. 

We do not retain jurisdiction.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1488 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1488

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To retitle Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore as Indiana Dunes National 
                     Park, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Indiana Dunes National Park Act''.

SEC. 2. INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE RETITLED AS INDIANA DUNES 
              NATIONAL PARK.

    (a) In General.--Public Law 89-761 (16 U.S.C. 460u et seq.) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``National Lakeshore'' and ``national 
        lakeshore'' each place it appears and inserting ``National 
        Park''; and
            (2) by striking ``lakeshore'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``Park''.
    (b) Nonapplication.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(1) shall 
not apply to the title of the map referred to in the first section of 
Public Law 89-761 (16 U.S.C. 460u), or to the title of the maps 
referred to in section 4 of Public Law 89-761 (16 U.S.C. 460u-3).

SEC. 3. PAUL H. DOUGLAS TRAIL.

    The 1.6 mile trail within the Indiana Dunes National Park 
designated the ``Miller-Woods Trail'' is hereby redesignated as the 
``Paul H. Douglas Trail''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 1, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1488

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To retitle Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore as Indiana Dunes National 
                     Park, and for other purposes.
```
#### STEPHEN HENSHAW *vs.*LEVI B. BRANSON.

June 1843

A County Court cannot order an execution upon the return of a levy on land under a justice’s execution, unless it also appears on the return, that there were *no*goods to be levied on, or when it appears on the return that goods were levied on, though not sufficient to satisfy the execution, and it does-not appear how those goods were disposed of.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Randolph County, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Battle presiding.

The case was this. An execution, tested the 23d of September, 1841, issued on a judgment obtained by the plaintiff against the defendant, before a magistrate, came to the hands of the Sheriff of Randolph, who on the same day made return thereon, that he had levied on the goods and chattels of Branson, one of the defendants, and also on three tracts of lands adjoining each other and the lands of other persons in the return named, on one of which the said Branson lived. On the 26th of April, 1842, the plaintiff made a further in-dorsement on the execution, in the nature of a return or as an amendment of his former return, “ there are goods and chattels but not sufficient to be found.” At the August Term, 1842, of the County Court of Randolph, the execution, thus levied, returned and endorsed, was brought into Court, and .advertisement was then ordered to be made to notify Branson of the levy on his lands. At the ensuing Term, November 1842, the plaintiff prayed the Court to order a *venditioni escponas*to issue to sell the lands. This prayer the Court refused, and the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, and the order of the County Court being there affirmed, the plaintiff appealed to this Court.

*299No counsel for the plaintiff.

*Swaim*for the defendant.

GastoN, J.

We are of opinion that the Court properly refused the writ prayed for. Without considering several other objections, and apparently grave objections, which stand in the way of the remedy pursued by the plaintiff, it will be sufficient to state, .that the provisions of the acts of 1794 and 1803, as embodied in the Revised Statutes, ch. 62, sec. 16, are explicit, that a justice’s execution shall not be levied on land, except where there is a want of goods to satisfy it, and if any goods be seized, and a levy made on land, because of the insufficiency of these goods to discharge the execution, the return of the officer shall set forth “ what money he has made of the goods,” and what land he has levied upon. The intention of the Legislature is manifest, that no proceedings shall be had for a sale of the land,’ except it be the return of a levy thereon, until the goods seized shall have been disposed of.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

In connectionwith this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Mission Community Bancorp (the“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2003, I, William C. Demmin,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             This Form 10-KSB forthe period ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             The informationcontained in this Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 
| Date:  March 28, 2004 |                                                   |
|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |                                                   |
|                            |                                                   |
|                            | By:/s/  William C. Demmin                              |
|                            | William C.  Demmin                                     |
|                            | Executive  Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |
|                                 |                                                        |  |  |

 

----
## App endix B. Legal Description for N orthern Ada County

PM10 Maintenance AreaThis page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.

## App endix B. Legal Description for N orthern Ada County

PM10 Maintenance Area

The legal description of the Northern Ada County PM 10 area boundaries is as follows:

Beginning at a point in the center of the channel of the Boise River where the section line

between Sections 15 and 16 of Township 3 North, Range 4 East, crosses the Boise River.

Northern Boundary

Thence down the center of the channel of the Boise River to a point opposite the mouth of

Mores Creek.

Thence in a straight

- line going 44 degrees nort h and 38 minutes west until said line intersects

the north line of Township 5 North in Range 1 East.

Thence west to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 5 North, Range 1 West.

Western Boundary

Thence south to the northwest corner of Section 6, Town ship 3 North, Range 1 West.

Thence east to the northeast corner of Section 5, Township3 North, Range 1 West.

Thence south to the southeast corner of Section 32, Township 2 North, Range 1 West.

Thence west to the northwest corner of Section 6, Township 1 No rth, Range 1 West.

Thence south to the southwest corner of Section 31, Township 1 North, Range 1 West.

Southern Boundary

Thence east to the southeast corner of Section 33, Township 1 North, Range 4 East.

Eastern Boundary

Thence north to the point of begi nning.This page intentionally left blank for correct double

- sided printing.
#### Will of Grover.

*November 7*

December *4, 1928.*

*348For the appellant the cause was submitted on the brief of *Coe Brothers*of Barron.

*Chas. A. Taylor*of Barron, for the respondent.

Crown hart, J.

A primary duty imposed on executors and administrators is to collect debts due the estate. 11 Ruling Case Law, p. 267; 23 Corp. Jur. p. 1189; secs. 312.04 and 313.11, Stats. And of course this duty extends to collection of debts from the heirs and legatees. 11 Ruling Case Law, p. 267. There is no duty devolving upon an executor or administrator to advance payment of a legacy to a donee or an inheritance to an heir until an order of distribution has been entered by the county court, although he may do so at his own risk. *Williams v. Ely,*13 Wis. 1.

In the performance of his plain duty the executor here brought an action in the circuit court, in the county where the debtor resided, to collect a promissory note given by the debtor to the decedent, which was past due and about to be outlawed by the statute of limitations.

The debtor attempted to set up as a defense that he would be entitled to a legacy under the will in excess of the amount due on the note, and then made the claim that the court had no jurisdiction to try the issue because the estate was in probate in another county, and the county court had primary jurisdiction to construe the will.

*349The fallacy of the debtor’s claim is apparent. It was his duty to pay his obligation to the estate, and make his claim for the legacy in the county court which has jurisdiction to construe the will and order the proper distribution of assets after other liabilities are paid.

The circuit court was not required to construe the will, within the issues as made by the pleadings *(Cawker v. Dreutzer, ante,*p. 98, 221 N. W. 401), nor did the county court have jurisdiction of an action on the note.

*By the Court.*— The order of the circuit court is affirmed.
No. 90-881.

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

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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

# Indo-Pacific Land Power Conference 

U.S. Army Pacific Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More