alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### Sutton, Lisa

From: Maietta, Anthony

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:31 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan; Sutton, Lisa

Cc: Portanova, Mary; Blakley, Pamela

Subject: FW: Ohio: Final SIP Call: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

Here come R5’s emails. I’ll forward the rest as they come!

‐ Tony

Anthony Maietta

EPA Region 5

maietta.anthony@epa.gov

(312) 353

‐ 8777

From: Czerniak, George

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:30 PM

To: Portanova, Mary; Maietta, Anthony

Subject: FW: Ohio: Final SIP Call: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction

From: Czerniak, George

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 1:17 PM

To: bob.hodanbosi@epa.state.oh.us

Subject: Ohio: Final SIP Call: Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction

Bob:

This message is a follow

‐ up to my recent phone call notifying you about the final action the EPA Administrator signed

today to ensure States have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources at all times, including when the source is

operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the

treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are

treated in State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action,

EPA has revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.

The EPA is calling for 36 States, including Ohio, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public health and ensure

consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy. You will have 18 months to submit revisions of

your State plan to EPA. Your revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22, 2016.

As part of our notification to your State about this final SIP call, I have attached to this email a letter from the EPA’s

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe. To inform you of the details on the final action,

including the specific SIP provisions your State needs to address, we have posted a pre

‐ publication version of the

action on our website at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ur banair/sipstatus/emissions.html

.2 The EPA will continue to work closely with you to ensure the SIP revision process is as efficient as possible. If you or

your staff have questions, please contact Mary Portanova, portanova.mary@epa.gov

, (312) 353

‐ 5954.

George

Attachment
**Exhibit13.02**

 

Report of IndependentAuditors

 

To the Partners of

Nestor Partners

 

We have audited theaccompanying statements of financial condition of Nestor Partners (the “Partnership”),as of December 31, 2003 and 2002, including the condensed schedules ofinvestments, and the related statements of operations, changes in partners’capital and financial highlights for the years then ended. These financialstatements and financial highlights are the responsibility of the Partnership’smanagement. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financialstatements and financial highlights based on our audits.

 

We conducted our auditsin accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. Thosestandards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonableassurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights arefree of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements andfinancial highlights. An audit also includes assessing the accountingprinciples used and significant estimates made by management, as well asevaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that ouraudits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

In our opinion, thefinancial statements and financial highlights referred to above present fairly,in all material respects, the financial position of Nestor Partners at December31, 2003 and 2002, and the results of its operations, changes in partners’capital and financial highlights for the years then ended in conformity withaccounting principles generally accepted in the United States.

 
| Ernst & Young LLP |
|-----------------------|
|                  |
| New York, New York    |
| February 17, 2004     |

 

----
#### Bumbalek and another, Plaintiffs in error, vs. Peehl and another, Defendants in error.

*December 18, 1896*

*February 2, 1897.*

*Writ of error: Limitation of appeals.*

The provision of-oh. 215, Laws of 1895, prohibiting appeals to the supreme court from judgments in which the amount involved, exclusive of costs, is less than $100, unless the judge of the trial court shall certify that certain material questions, therein specified, are involved, does not apply to writs of error.

ErRob to review a judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county: R. N. AustiN, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*F. J. LenichecJc,*for the plaintiffs in error.

Eor the defendants in error the case was submitted on the brief of Sylvester, Scheiber, *Riley <& Orth.*

• Cassoday, O. J.

This action is to recover for an alleged instalment of rent, commenced in justice’s court, and from the judgment rendered therein the case was taken by appeal to the superior court of Milwaukee county, where the caS% was retried. At the close of the plaintiffs’ testimony the court directed a verdict in favor of *Peehl*and wife for $43.15, and to reverse the judgment entered thereon the *Rúmbateles*sued out this writ of error.

The defendants in error have moved to dismiss the writ, as being prohibited by ch. 215, Laws of 1895. Since that *128•chapter only relates to appeals, and not to writs of error, it is manifest that the case at bar does not come within its prohibition. True, the word appeal is sometimes used broadly to denote the general nature of appellate jurisdiction, and in that sense may include a writ of error, and so a writ of error may, in such broad sense, include an appeal. But the one had its origin in the civil law, and the other in the common law. *Wiscart v.*Dauchy, 3 Dall. 327. The distinction between them has generally been maintained in practice, and is expressly recognized by our statutes.

Whether a writ of error will lie in a case like this was not •argued by counsel, and is not here determined. While our •constitution prevents the legislature from prohibiting writs of error, yet that provision did not enlarge the scope of the ■writ as it existed when the constitution was adopted, nor prevent the legislature from making reasonable regulations in respect to its use. Const. Wis. art. I, sec. 21; *Jackson v. State,*81 Wis. 131, and cases there cited; *Smith v. Packard,*12 Wis. 371; *Lombard v. Cowham,*34 Wis. 300; *Crocker v. State,*60 Wis. 553, and cases there cited; *State ex rel. Larkin v. Ryan,*70 Wis. 683. For the purposes of this case, we assume that the writ of error properly brought the record before us for consideration, and hence deny the motion to ■dismiss the writ.

The bill of exceptions is not certified to contain all the evidence. It does state that the defendants offered no evidence. The only exception in the record is to the direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. Upon this record we cannot say that such direction was error. On the other hand, such direction of the verdict seems to have been correct.

*By the*Court.— The judgment of the superior court of Milwaukee county is affirmed.
#### Gilmore, Respondent, vs. Chicago, Milwaukee *&*St. Paul Railway Company, Appellant.

*March 9*— April *3, 1895.*

*Railroads: Fences: Killing of horse on trade:*Evidence.

The evidence in this case that plaintiff’s horse, which was killed upon defendant’s track, came upon the right of way at a point where it was unfenced, is *held*sufficient to support a verdict in plaintiff’s favor for the value of the horse.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Pepin county: E. B. Bundy, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellant there was a brief signed by *George P. ■ Carry*and *O. M. Hilliard,*and oral argument by *Mr. Gary.*

*Wm. E. Plwwmer,*for the respondent.

*103Cassoday, J.

The plaintiff owns a farm, upon which he resides, near Round Hill, in Pepin county. The Chippewa river runs through it in a northerly and southerly direction. ' The defendant’s railway runs along the easterly hank of the river at that point. The plaintiff’s dwelling house, outbuildings, and pasture were on the westerly side of the river, -and he had a barn opposite and on the easterly side of the railway track. The plaintiff’s pasture, on the westerly side of the river, was fenced on all sides, except the side adjoin;ing the river, where i-t was unfenced. At the time in question there was no fence for a distance of 1,200 feet between the opposite shore of the river and the raffway track, and never had been. The complaint alleges, in effect, that June JU, 1898, the plaintiff’s mare strolled from said pasture across the river and onto the defendant’s right of way at a point where there never had been any fence on the westerly side thereof, and was soon thereafter, and at a point some distance northward, killed by being struck by a passing train or car, and demands judgment for her value. The answer is a general denial. The verdict is in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the mare, and this is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment entered upon the verdict.

The defendant contends that the preponderance of the ...evidence is to the effect that the mare got onto the right of way through a gate from the plaintiff’s barn on the easterly side thereof, by reason of the plaintiff’s negligence. There is evidence, however, tending to prove that the mare got onto the right of way where it was unfenced, as alleged, and we are constrained to hold that such evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. S. & B. Ann. Stats, sec. 1810; *Bremmer v. G. B., S. P. & N. R. Co.*61 Wis. 114; *Quackenbush v. W. & M. R. Co.*62 Wis. 411. This being so, there was no error in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant.

*By the*Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is af-.iirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2015 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2015

 To clarify the treatment of two or more employers as joint employers 
                under the National Labor Relations Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 9, 2015

Mr. Alexander (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Isakson, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. 
 Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cochran, Ms. Collins, 
Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Flake, Mr. Gardner, Mr. 
Hatch, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Lankford, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
Moran, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Shelby, Mr. 
 Vitter, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Daines, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Lee, Mr. 
  Paul, and Mr. Scott) introduced the following bill; which was read 
 twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify the treatment of two or more employers as joint employers 
                under the National Labor Relations Act.

    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 ``Protecting Local Business 
Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF JOINT EMPLOYERS.

    Section 2(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(2)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding any 
other provision of this Act, two or more employers may be considered 
joint employers for purposes of this Act only if each shares and 
exercises control over essential terms and conditions of employment and 
such control over these matters is actual, direct, and immediate.''.
                                 <all>
```
---

|Delaware                                       | 001-15495            | 34-1567092                        
|---------------------------------------------- | -------------------- | ----------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (CommissionFile No.) | (IRS EmployerIdentificationNumber)

|1215 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio    | 44114     
|---------------------------------------- | ----------
|(Address of principal executive offices) | (Zip Code)

---

ITEM  5.  OTHER EVENTS.

The Registrant's earnings press release dated January 22, 2002, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1, is hereby incorporated herein by reference, except for the information in the press release contained under the caption "Outlook."

ITEM  7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.

(c)	The following exhibit is filed as part of this Report:

> 99.1 Press Release dated January 22, 2002.



Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on
its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

| | **CHARTER ONE FINANCIAL, INC.**
| | -------------------------------

|Date:     January 31, 2002 | By:   /s/ Robert J. Vana       Robert J. Vana       Senior Vice President, Chief       Corporate Counsel and Corporate Secretary
|-------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Exhibit No. | Description                          
|----------- | -------------------------------------
|99.1        | Press Release Dated January 22, 2002.
EXHIBIT
32.2





PSI
CORPORATION


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Eric
Kash, the Chief Financial Officer of PSI Corporation (the "Company"), certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, 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.





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.








Date:
      October 27, 2008
                By:
                /s/
      Eric KashEric
      KashChief
      Financial Officer and
President
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,281                  10,613
<SECURITIES>                                     5,702                   8,575
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,689                  26,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,619                   7,169
<INVENTORY>                                      1,148                   2,863
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,085                  43,753
<PP&E>                                          38,411                  45,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,910                  32,054
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,183                  69,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,907                  45,266
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           193                     190
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,814                  20,132
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,183                  69,532
<SALES>                                         45,081                  76,103
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,946                  88,262
<CGS>                                            5,637                   8,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,139                  89,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   180                     219
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71                      57
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,055)                   (356)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (233)                   (128)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,228)                   (228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,228)                   (228)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.12)                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)                  (0.01)



</TABLE>
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549



FORM 10-Q



Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934





For the Quarter ended April 30, 1998



Commission File No. 0-10315

ROYAL CASINO GROUP INC.

(Name of Registrant as specified in its charter)





        Utah                            95-4091368

       (State or other jurisdiction of         (IRS Employer

        Incorporation or organization)          Identification
No.)





152 Sherman St.

Deadwood, SD 57732

(Address of principal executive offices)



               (605) 578-1299                     (605) 578-1298

       (Registrant=s telephone number)       (Registrant=s fax
number)





Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, $0.001 Par





Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all
reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to
file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.

[x] Yes	[] No



Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all
documents and reports required to be filed by Sections 12, 13 or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the
distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.

[x] Yes	[] No



As of April 30, 1998 5,519,640 shares of registrant=s $0.001 par
value common stock were outstanding.











[ARTICLE] 5

[LEGEND]

This schedule contains interim summary financial information
extracted from the Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statement of
Operations of Royal Casino Group for the quarter ended April 30,
1998, which statements have been compiled by management.

[/LEGEND]

[MULTIPLIER] 1



[PERIOD-TYPE]	3-MOS	10-Q

[FISCAL-YEAR-END]	JUL-31-1997

[PERIOD-START]	Feb-01-1998

[PERIOD-END]	Apr-30-1998

[CASH]	     79,781

[SECURITIES]	          0

[RECEIVABLES]	     12,969

[ALLOWANCES]    	          0

[INVENTORY]	          0

[CURRENT-ASSETS]                  161,179



[PP&E]	    112,896

[DEPRECIATION]	     16,375

[TOTAL-ASSETS]                    350,700

[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]	          580,086

[BONDS]                                 0

[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]	          0

[PREFERRED]	      1,100

[COMMON]	  5,681,046

[OTHER-SE]			          0

[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]	    350,700

[SALES]	          0

[TOTAL-REVENUES]	          0

[CGS]     	                0

[TOTAL-COSTS]	     

[OTHER-EXPENSES]                   88,208



[LOSS-PROVISION]	      

[INTEREST-EXPENSE]	          0

[INCOME-PRETAX]	    (87,349)

[INCOME-TAX]		          0

[INCOME-CONTINUING]               (87,349)

[DISCONTINUED]	     16,283

[EXTRAORDINARY]	          0

[CHANGES]  			          0

[NET-INCOME]	    (71,066)

[EPS-PRIMARY]	      (.014)

[EPS-DILUTED]	      (.014)
<Page>

                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of SatCon Technology
Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

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

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

     This certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing, except to
the extent that the Company specifically incorporates this certification by
reference.


Date: December 23, 2004               /s/ David B. Eisenhaure
                                      -----------------------
                                      David B. Eisenhaure
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: December 23, 2004               /s/ Ralph M. Norwood
                                      --------------------
                                      Ralph M. Norwood
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


     A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR
OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE
SIGNATURES THAT APPEAR 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 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.