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

Plant ID 02623

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 02623\02623_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02623\02623_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02623\02623_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02623\02623_Part A.XLS Plant submitted survey file

x 02623\02623_Part B.XLS Plant submitted survey file

x 02623\02623_Part C.XLS Plant submitted survey file

x 02623\02623_Part D.XLS Plant submitted survey file

x 02623\02623_Part H.XLS Plant submitted survey file

02623\Certification Statement Plant ID 02623.pdf Plant certification statement

02623\Supplemental Documents\02623_DH Site General Boundary-Map1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02623\Supplemental Documents\02623_DH Site Plant Details-Map2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02623\Supplemental Documents\02623_DH-BottomAsh-Drawing-Schm5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02623\Supplemental Documents\02623_DH-BottomAsh-Screen-Schm6.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02623\Supplemental Documents\02623_DH-FlyAsh-Drawing-Schm3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02623\Supplemental Documents\02623_DH-FlyAsh-Screen-Schm4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02623\Supplemental Documents\02623_DH-waterbalance-Schm1.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02623\Supplemental Documents\02623_DH-WWT1-Schm2.xls 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 .
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly report of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Xinhua Wu,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

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

                                                      Date: November 8, 2006

                                                      By: /s/ Xinhua Wu
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I,
Darrell Borne, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
that:

This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|Date: October 29, 2004 |  | /s/DARRELL BORNEDarrell Borne
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

30

---



QuickLinks
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3917 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to modernize and improve 

the Medicare payment methodology for radiopharmaceuticals under the 

hospital outpatient prospective payment system and to ensure equitable 

payment and patient access to certain low volume, high cost radiopharmaceuticals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Mr. STUPAK (for himself and Mr. PITTS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition 

to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to modernize 

and improve the Medicare payment methodology for 

radiopharmaceuticals under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system and to ensure equitable payment and patient access to certain low volume, high 

cost radiopharmaceuticals. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3917 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Nuclear Med3 icine Payment Group Clarification Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PAYMENT GROUP STANDARDS FOR NUCLEAR MEDI5 CINE PROCEDURES AND RADIOPHARMA6 CEUTICALS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The last sentence of section 

8 1833(t)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 1395l(t)(2)) is amended— 

10 (1) by inserting ‘‘, including for a nuclear medi11 cine group the cost of any associated diagnostic 

12 radiopharmaceutical that is included in the payment 

13 for the service’’ after ‘‘(or mean cost, if so elected) 

14 for an item or service within the group’’; and 

15 (2) by inserting ‘‘or in the case of services with16 in a nuclear medicine group’’ after ‘‘Federal Food, 

17 Drug and Cosmetic Act’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 subsection (a) shall apply to items and services furnished 

20 on or after January 1, 2010. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10679

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT W. HUDSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BILL LONG, 

DISTRICT CLERK OF DALLAS COUNTY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CV-912-P

- - - - - - - - - -

January 14, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert W. Hudson, Jr., Texas prisoner No. 550733, moves this

court for appointment of appellate counsel to appeal the district

court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. 

The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

The district court did not err in denying Hudson’s requests

for mandamus relief. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior

Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973); 28 U.S.C. § 1361. We

AFFIRM the dismissal of Hudson’s claim for monetary damages 
No. 98-10679

-2-

because our review of the record shows that the underlying claims

that Hudson wished to raise in state court were frivolous. See

Ruiz v. United States, No. 97-20950, 1998 WL 770642, at *2 (5th

Cir. Nov. 20, 1998). The district court lacked the authority to

assume jurisdiction over Hudson’s attempts to modify the terms of

a state-court child custody order. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504

U.S. 689, 703-04 (1992). 

AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR COUNSEL DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

HECTOR TRINIDAD,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 237 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
----

| (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. |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:   August 18, 2015 | By:    | /s/  Kyle Kennedy                                                                                                                                        |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | Kyle Kennedy                                                                                                                                                  |   |
|                               |   | President,Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and acting Principal Accounting Officer) |   |
Non-Employee Directors Deferred Stock Units Program



 Exhibit 10.10 

Summary of Terms of Outside Director Deferred Stock Units 

Type of Award. Each Deferred Stock Unit (a “DSU”) gives a director the right to receive one share of Common Stock at a future date.

 Stock Incentive Plan. The DSUs and related shares of Common Stock are granted under the Company’s 2001 Stock Incentive Plan.

 Amount of Award. $125,000 per year; the closing stock price on the date of grant is divided into $125,000 to determine the number of
DSUs issued to each outside director. 
 Timing of Award. Grants are made annually immediately after the annual meeting. 

Payment of Award. The award will be paid, to the extent vested, upon cessation of board service unless deferred. 

Payment Deferral. A director can elect to defer payment of the award beyond the scheduled payment date, subject to the requirements of
Section 409A. 
 Payment Form. The award will be settled in shares of Common Stock equal to the number of DSUs in a director’s
account at the time of payment. No fractional shares will be issued. Any fractional shares will be rounded down to a whole number of shares. 

Vesting. A DSU award vests over three years, one-third immediately after each of the next three annual meetings after the grant date. 

Accelerated Vesting. Vesting would accelerate on: 
  

	 	•	 	 change of control 


  

	 	•	 	 retirement at normal retirement age, i.e., age 71 


  

	 	•	 	 death 


  

	 	•	 	 disability 


 Dividend
Equivalents. On each date on which the Company pays a dividend on Common Stock, DSUs will receive the benefit of the value of such dividend. Not less often than annually the value of such dividends will be divided by the closing stock price
and the resulting number of additional whole or fractional DSUs will be credited to the directors. 
 Restrictions on Transfer. DSUs are
not transferable before payment date. 
  
  

August 2009
Exhibit 13.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND RULE 15d-14(b),

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Anchor Lamina Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended August 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Periodic Report), we, Roy M. Verstraete, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John C. Tough, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|Dated: December 17, 2003 |  | 
|                         |  | 
|                         |  | 
|                         |  | 
|Dated: December 17, 2003 |  | 
|                         |  | 
|                         |  |
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3892 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3892

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 101 West Highway 64 Bypass in Roper, North Carolina, as the ``E.V. 
                         Wilkins Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. E.V. WILKINS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 101 West Highway 64 Bypass in Roper, North Carolina, shall 
be known and designated as the ``E.V. Wilkins Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``E.V. 
Wilkins Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 13, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3892

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 101 West Highway 64 Bypass in Roper, North Carolina, as the ``E.V. 
                         Wilkins Post Office''.
```
----

|   | (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. |
|--------|------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:  August 18 , 2009 | By:    | /s/  Christopher Gilcher                        |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | Christopher Gilcher                                  |   |
|                               |   | Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) |   |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1230

JENNIFER MICHELLE FOGEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

VICKI DENISE FOGEL,

Plaintiff,

versus

TWO UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES OF THE MORALE, WELFARE &

RECREATION DEPARTMENT, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina; UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-94-40-H1)

Argued: May 6, 1997 Decided: May 30, 1997

Before RUSSELL and HALL, Circuit Judges, and Joseph F. ANDERSON,

Jr., United States District Judge for the District of South

Carolina, sitting by designation.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: David Peter Voerman, DAVID P. VOERMAN, P.A., New Bern,

North Carolina, for Appellant. Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON

BRIEF: Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Fogel sued both the United States and "Two Unknown Employees

of the Morale, Welfare & Recreation Department, Marine Corps Air

Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina," and we are unable to find

that these "unknown employees" were ever formally dismissed from

the case. The United States has never disputed that these "unknown

employees," whose identities became known but who were never added

as parties, were acting within the scope of their federal employment when the events constituting the alleged negligence occurred.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1), the United States should have been

the only defendant below. However, this case has always proceeded

as if the United States was indeed the only defendant. For

example, the district court's memorandum orders include only the

United States in the caption, and the defendant is referred to

throughout as the United States or "the government."

3

PER CURIAM:

Jennifer Fogel appeals the order granting judgment after a

bench trial to the United States* in this negligence action brought

pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671

et seq.; she also appeals the order denying reconsideration of the

judgment. We agree with the district court that, under the premises liability law of North Carolina, an intervening criminal act

of a third party breaks the chain of causation between the negligence of the premises owner and the injury caused by the criminal

act, except in three narrowly defined circumstances not present in

this case. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Fogel v. United States, CA-94-40-H1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 28,

1995) ("Order").

AFFIRMED
ex41form8a12b_spb052710.htm


Exhibit 4.1


 



	
NUMBER

	  	
shares


	  	
 


FORMED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

	  
	  	  	  
	  	
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.

	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	
See Reverse for


Certain Definitions


	  	  	  
	  	
TOTAL AUTHORIZED ISSUE


 SHARES $0.01 PAR VALUE


COMMON STOCK

	  
	  	  	  



 




	This is to Certify that 	     SPECIMEN	  is the owner of





 



	
                                                                                                                                                                             


	  
	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  
	
transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.


 


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


	
 


Dated

	  	  
	  	  	  
	  	  	  





 



 



	 	 	 





 




 









  





  











  






 


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 TRANSFERS MIN ACT- 	 	
Custodian



	
 


	  	  	  	
(Cust)

	
(Minor)


	
TEN ENT

	
- as tenants by the entireties

	under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act. 	 	 
	  	  	 	  (State)	
 


	
JT TEN

	
- as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common

	  
	  	
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 INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE)


 


	
  


 

	  
	
 


  

	  	
 Shares


	  	  






represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint



	 	 Attorney





 


to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.


 





	
Dated

	  	  	  	  
	  	
In presence of

	  	  	  






 





	  	  	  








 



NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE 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 WHATEVER.
Thomas H. Adams, Executive Director American Coal Ash Association 15200 E. Girard Ave., Suite 3050 Aurora, CO 80014 720.870.7987 fax – 720.870.7889 www.acaa-usa.org 

# ACAA 

# Memo

To: Mathy Stanislaus, EPA Assistan t Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response From: Thomas Adams CC: Barry Breen, Matt Hale, John Sager Date: August 7, 2009 Re: Purity of Gypsum

During our meeting of July 24, 2009, a statement was made that flue gas desulfurization gypsum, also known as synthetic gypsum, is purer that gypsum mined from natural sources. A question was raised as to the relative purities of the materials. In research with a variety of sources, it was noted that the FGD gypsum in North America is consistently more pure than mined gypsum. However the levels of purity vary on the mine and on the source of the FGD gypsum. The more important factor, and a factor which also favors FGD gypsum, is the consistency of the gypsum regardless of whether it is minded or collected from a scrubber in a power plant. Si nce FGD gypsum is manufactured by the scrubbing process, it is inherently more consistent in quality that material extracted from gypsum mines. We are surveying industry for more information. Additional information is available from: Mr. Michael Gardner, Executive Director The Gypsum Association 6525 Belcrest Road, Suite 480 Hyattsville, MD 20782 301.277.8686 mgardner@gypsum.org

1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS




We have issued our reports dated March 2, 2000, accompanying the consolidated
financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
Schlotzsky's, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1999. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in
the Registration Statements of Schlotzsky's, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File
No. 333-57077, effective June 17, 1998 and File No. 333-37785, effective
October 14, 1997 and file No. 333-03809, effective May 15, 1996).




GRANT THORNTON LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 2, 2000