alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Data Needed on Chromium Electroplating and Anodizing Facilities

 Facility Data

o Harsh International, Incorporated

o 600 Oak Avenue, Eaton, Weld County, Colorado

o 40:32:00.2508, 104:42:47.4624

 Process Type

o Hard chromium electroplating 

o Previous Chromium anodizing, but no longer operational

o No other plating is reported for this facility.

o Other co-located processes subject to NESHAP: Coating operations possibly 

subject to MACT HHHHHH and an emergency generator possibly subject to 

parts of the area source portion of MACT ZZZZ.

 Tank #5 Design and Operation

o Dimensions unknown. Stack testing calculations indicated a hood inlet area of 

320 in2combined for the two tanks.

o 6,000 Amps rectifier capacity

o Permitted hours of operation: 2,080 for all equipment combined. Actual 

reported hours of operation (2009): 2,080.

 Tank #6 Design and Operation 

o Dimensions unknown.

o 6,000 Amps rectifier capacity

o Permitted hours of operation: 2,080 for all equipment combined. Actual 

reported hours of operation (2009): 2,080.

 Emission Control Technology

o Packed-bed scrubber and surface tension control (Fumatrol)

o Operating Limits –

 Scrubber: Pressure differential between 0.5” W.C. and 2.5” W.C. 

 Duct Velocity Pressure: For tank #5, between 0.26” W.C. and 0.32” W.C. 

For Tank #6, between 0.25” W.C. and 0.31” W.C.

 Surface tension: For tank #5 ≤ 31 dynes/cm, for tank #6 ≤ 27 dynes/cm. 

 Emission Test Data 

o [See Attached Stack Test Review Report]
 Other Available Supporting Documents

o Based on stack testing results, calculated chromium emissions (assuming 

controls and 2080 hours) for the facility is 0.12 lbs / year. Alternatively, using 

AP-42 emission factors and an assumed 99% control, calculated chromium 

emissions for the facility are estimated at 2.13 lbs / year.

o [See Attached Original Permit Application]

o [See Attached Construction Permit]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 17, 2024.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, January 17, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24I0100. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP d/b/a WAL-MART STORE #843 v. CLARA 

DAUGHTRY.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

21SC055
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 17, 2016

NO. 03-16-00207-CR

Torrance Ray Evans, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the district court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

district court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication 

of costs is made.
98-2615.

#### State ex rel. Howard v. Weiher.

Lucas App. No. L-98-1344. On motion for relief fróp jüágjment. Motion denied.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Jon Elliott, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Baymark Technologies,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of October 31, 2003; and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 21, 2004


/s/ Jon Elliott
- -----------------------
 Jon Elliott, President
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 14133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06198]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than April 2, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Georgia A. Gross, Roseburg, Oregon, acting in concert with the 
Gross Family; to acquire voting shares of Commercial Bancorp, and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Farmers State Bank, both in 
Pine Bluffs, Wyoming.


    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 13, 
2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-06198 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
REF ID:A38510 

~CA--t""t t> ~C:RL!i:"S 

\ 9 ~_..,, 

,-

~I: ~ '"4~-~..ei~ er~~\ r=-- f~ .' --~....o.'--~~~·ry, :D. V~~--L. -

~ d-. "'.' m ' "v~ a.e _- ~ :W ~ U~!Wll- l~~) - --- -~· 

f~ i- - ~o..t:..~iil;'.b-~~f'A-"""~~~~~u~~~ 

f ~ ~-- ,, ~ " ~ ~ 1o ~-~"+,___--==----~ 

~ -:m:_ ·. +1-~~ ( 3JJ*') )---------r- ~+ .i. - '"J4 ';(:.._...,__ ... .p;. #t' Qzrt' -

-- s~ -~-=------~~-->=---1~~--lr.a.t.~,.~~.......:=:;::!~-~~~~~~~=-...... 

~ Jrr-lt-~ ~~~ 

~ ~ 

r~ ~- ... .. .. ~;yr '. ~ ~ Crt...aJ...,) L -~ -- \f~ .L -

\ \ 

_ _. __ '!.,. ____ ~--------------~---~ 

~ 

' 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 09-17-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

t -------------------
8IGPO (AS) 

Attn: Mr. Curran 

REF ID:A63566 

.a.en&uent to Contract llo. I\\ l.8--ll9-•c-109, 

267-ml-58 (58-ID/PR-1580) Ml". William 'I. Fr1e&lan 

'J!«l 3 Oct 58 

F. G. '!ate/4o57 /dmt 

Ccmtiming Terbal agreement between SIQPO and '?KG on 3 Oct 581 all materials ~ed under the ref'erenced contract considered u a whole viU be clasa1t:led 

CONP.IIJEN'lIAL". Individual parts v111 be alassitied on their am merits. 

PCB mE DlR:reTOR or 'fRAilfDO: 

ARTHUR J • J'lO!:ZlJ'.All 

Chief', Plana and Techniques Gl'O\lp 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 11-18-2013 pursuantto E.O. 1352e 

----,
Dismissed and Memorandum Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed August

15, 2024. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-24-00351-CV

NO. 14-24-00362-CV 

NO. 14-24-00459-CV

NO. 14-24-00460-CV 

IN THE MATTER OF C.K.G., Appellant

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 2024-00894J & 2024-00895J

MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION

The majority treats these appellate cases as interlocutory appeal, and perhaps 

they are. But we need not decide that issue because these appeals are brought by a 

parent in this juvenile-justice proceeding, not by or on behalf of the juvenile 

appellant. See generally Juvenile Justice Code, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 56.01 (right 

to appeal).
2

Appellant’s father filed the following four notices of appeal on May 13, 

2024:

Notice is hereby given that [Father] parent/guardian of [C.K.G.] 

hereby appeals the ORDER APPOINTING GUARDIAN AD-LITEM 

given by the Court on May 9, 2024 pursuant to Texas Family 

Code § 61.004. [Father] (Hereinafter “FATHER”) objects to the 

appointing of any ad litem guardian who is not a parent of [C.K.G.]. 

Appointing a Homosexual guardian over a Heterosexual male would 

violate and infringe upon the parents and child’s religious beliefs 

protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

This unlawful action was taken without notice in violation of Texas 

Family Code § 61.003. The FATHER asserts and contends that the 

Court DID NOT satisfy certain requirements of Due Process of Law 

that must be satisfied before entering such ORDER. The Court did not 

provide the Parents {Father} and [Mother] with sufficient notice, in 

writing or orally in a recorded court hearing, of any proposed ORDER 

in regards to guardianship, AND the Court failed to provide the 

parents sufficient opportunity to be heard on the matter.

[Father] hereby invokes an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE against

all request from any COURT APPOINTED GUARDIAN. The

TRANSCRIPT AND RECORD will reflect that the Court Judge did 

not provide the parent with due process of law during the proceeding 

in which the Court entered its Original ORDER therefore this ORDER 

should be vacated and stricken from the RECORD. Texas family 

Code § 61.055(g)

TRANSCRIPT AND RECORD SHOULD BE SENT OVER

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS. [Father] REQUEST THAT THE 

ENTIRE RECORD BE SENT. NOTHING OMITTED.

The notices of appeal must be brought by or on behalf of appellant. See Juvenile 

Justice Code, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 56.01(c)(1); see In re A.E.E., 89 S.W.3d 250, 

253–54 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.).

I would allow the notices of appeal to be amended if Father wished to clarify 

that he was bringing the appeals on behalf of appellant. See Tex. R. App. P. 
3

25.1(g). The court, however, has not given Father notice of this jurisdictional 

problem and an opportunity to cure.

The court neither follows the precedent from our sister court, nor explains

why it does not. I respectfully dissent to the failure to give notice to Father.

/s/ Charles A. Spain

Justice

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Spain and Poissant.
99-1215.

#### State ex rel. Sevayega v. Russo.

In Mandamus. On motion to dismiss. Motion to dismiss sustained. Cause dismissed.

Moyer, C. J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 15, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 15, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0500. EDITH MAE PAGE v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00484

- CV

___________________________

Origi nal Proceeding 297th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. S

- 13468

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; a nd W omack , J. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### J USTIN 

### S ANCHEZ 

### , R ELATOR2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Justin Sanchez is a civilly committed sexually violent predator. On September 8, 2023, Sanchez filed an “ Unauthorized Petition for Release” in the trial

court. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.122 (c ivilly commi tted person may file petition for release without authorization of Texas Civil Commit me nt Office). On December 18, 2023, Sanchez filed a pet ition for writ of mandamus in this Court asking that the trial court be ordered to either rule on the petiti on or set it for a hearing. See id. § 841.12 4(a) ( if tr ial court does not deny petition, it must conduct
h ear ing on petition no later than 60 days after it is filed).
The trial court denied Sanchez ’ s petition on January 3 , 2024. Because Sanchez has obtained the relief he requested in his mand amus petition, th e petition should be
dismissed as moot. See In re Coope r , No. 02

- 16

- 00430

- CV, 2016 WL 7339118, at
*1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Dec. 19, 2016, orig. proceeding ) (per curiam) (mem. op.). Accordingly, Sa nchez ’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot

. Per Curiam
Delivered : January 5 , 2024
#### Emerick vs. Krause.

*April 23*

May *10, 1881.*

*Costs defined.*

In the statute which provides that if the plaintiff in certain actions recover less than fifty dollars damages, “he shall recover no more costs than damages” (subd. 4, sec. 2918, R. S.), the word “costs” includes *disbursements.*

*359APPEAL from tlie Circuit Court for *Marathon*County.

Action for slander. The plaintiff recovered six cents damages. The court gave judgment on the verdict against the defendant for the damages assessed, for six cents costs, “ as per statute,” and also for disbursements taxed and allowed at $86.27. The items of such disbursements are: State tax, $1; fees of sheriff, $1.20; clerk, $10; commissioner, $1.50; witnesses, $71.82; notary, 75 cents.

The defendant appealed from that part of the judgment which required him to pay such disbursements.

The cause was submitted on the brief of *Silverthorn da JEwrley*for the appellant, and that of *Carl H. Mueller*and *Eldred & Grace*for the respondent.

Lyon, J.

The disbursements taxed against the defendant and included by that name in the judgment, are *costs,*within the meaning of the statutory provision which limits the plaintiff’s recovery of costs to six cents. R. S., 771, sec. 2918, subd. 4. Section 2921 provides that “when allowed, *costs*shall be as follows: . . . All the necessary disbursements and fees of officers allowed by law, including suit tax,” etc. This 'plainly shows that disbursements are included in the general term “ costs.” True, in the same section occurs the expression, “costs, exclusive of disbursements; ” but it is employed only as a convenient mode of stating a limitation in certain classes of actions, of what are usually termed attorneys’ fees. Other statutes.mention “costs and disbursements; ” but we suppose this form of expression was adopted, not for the purpose of making a distinction between costs and disbursements, but because it is a phrase in common use amongst lawyers, like “goods, wares and merchandise,” and best expresses the subject matter of those statutes.

The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff to support the judgment is rested entirely upon the peculiar phraseology of the statutes above mentioned. It is ingenious, *360but does not seem to be supported either by principle or authority. ^ So far as we know, the authorities are all against it. These all hold that the costs are the expenses incurred by a party in the prosecution or defense of an action or judicial proceeding, and that they consist of the fees of attorneys, solicitors, or other officers of the court, and such disbursements as are allowed by law. We have never before heard of a case in this state or elsewhere in which disbursements have been recovered *eo nomine*when the statute denied costs in the case.

*By the*Court.— That portion of the judgment appealed from is reversed.
##### 



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 of Brantley Capital Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Robert P. Pinkas, Chief Executive Officer of Brantley Capital Corporation,
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. /s/ ROBERT P. PINKASRobert P. Pinkas
Chief Executive OfficerApril 29, 2004
llTANDAlllD l'llRM ~F 

ITED STATES • GOVERNMENT 

TO AJ'SA•li&,, Attn1 LDCR Ba1elett DATE 7 liaroh 1961 

PROM AFSA-00! 

SUBJECT c .. nta m Dewloiment ot language Tranalating Equipment 

1. Jlr. Friect.a haa dlnoted • to thlmt you tor yoar cQlll8nta on Mr. 

Harold P. Edll.tmdlon'a letter and tor the proposed reply, Appended here'to 

area 

(1) Jleaorqdm tor tJa reoord entitled "Dewlopaant ot Language 

Translating lquipment, dated 12 Feb 1961,. ot whioh 1ou requaated the return. 

(2) Copy or the lettar sent by Mr. J'riedman to Mr. Edmuiidacm (an 

aolmowledgement of Iii'. ldamdsm'• letter had ilreaq been sent by llzo. 

Friedan under date 18 J'eb 19&1). 

(I) Quarterl.7 Report of Pll'ojecta and Publioationa of the 1WIL. 

It 7ou do not wish to teep thi• report,, Mr. Friedman augge•ta it be turned 

cmtr to the AFSA-0:5 l4bfal"'J. 

I. The atuq en Genm:a aptax pattttJ"U hu been gt. ftD,, a1 you nqueated. 

to Dr. Bachus ot Al'SA-36 for tvtber detailed 1tuq. Jiit. i'rS.edan bu 

upreaaed interest ln aeeiq the reaulta ot this stud¥• 

s Imla 

.Aa above 

MARY c. LUE 

Captain,, BC 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-10-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
# EUR-Lex - - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

#

**Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7206 — Bain Capital/Anchorage Capital/Ideal Standard) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance **

*
Official Journal C 089 , 28/03/2014 P. 0054 - 0054 *

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.7206 — Bain Capital/Anchorage Capital/Ideal Standard)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 89/06

1. On 20 March 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [1] by which the undertakings Bain Capital Investors, L.L.C. ("Bain Capital", United States) and Anchorage Capital Group, L.L.C. ("Anchorage Capital", United States) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the undertaking Ideal Standard International, SA ("Ideal Standard", Luxembourg) by way of acquisition of shares. Ideal Standard is currently controlled by Bain Capital.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for Bain Capital: private equity investment firm,

- for Anchorage Capital: registered investment adviser managing private investment funds across the credit, special situations and illiquid investment markets of North America and Europe,

- Ideal Standard: manufacture and supply of kitchen and bathroom products.

3. On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2], it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4. The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.7206 — Bain Capital/Anchorage Capital/Ideal Standard, to the following address:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the "Merger Regulation").

[2] OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

--------------------------------------------------
c REF ID:A5221·~ 0 

p 

y 

OCSigO-Jll.5 (M-134) eve/gab 

Convertor, type M-13~-Tl. 

Officer in Charge, Signal Corps i..aboratories, 

·]'ort ~onmouth, N. J. 

C0Nf\DEN1\AL 

April 12, l?JJ. 

1. There is attached a copy of the report of service test of 

Gonvertor, type M-134-Tl which indicates that this model is not 

satisfactory due to its inability to operate at the speed desired. 

The service testing agency has recommended that a new model of a 

Convertor, type M-134 be constructed by converting a commercial 

cipher machine as recommended in the attached proposed cryptogra~hic 

machine. 

2. It is desireri that your Laboratories ~roceed with this 

development by converting the cryptographic machine which was 

delivered to your Laboratories by Lieut. Elder on March 30th, in 

accordance with the attached proposal. 

J. This office should be kept advised of the status of this 

project, and any com:nents or recommendations relative to the attached 

report or proposed new cryptographic machine should be submittea to 

this office with the least practicable delEzy". 

By order of the Chief Si£nal Officer: 

Incls. 

report 

prop9sed .new cryptography 

HU'GH MITCHELL, 

Major, Signal Gorps. 

• 

CONFIBENll~\l 

Peclassified and approved for release by NSA on 11-19-2013 pursuant to E.O. 1352§
# STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURTOF APPEAL, FIRSTCIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER MARTIN VERSUS ISC CONSTRUCTORS, L.L.C. AND CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2023 CW 0073 

### MARCH 13, 2023 In Re: ISC Constructors, LLC, apply~ng for supervisory writs,

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 669821. BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT MRT WRC CHH