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

### Ogulei, David

From: Nancy L Paddock [nancy.paddock@veoliaes.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 1:55 PM To: Ogulei, David Cc: Dennis J Warchol Subject: Title V Permit Application - November 2013 clarific ations Attachments: z EGNE2 EUD-1rev4.pdf; A5 Form PTE Summary(2 of 2)r ev4.pdf; Veolia Renewalrev4 page57.pdf; Veolia Renewalrev4 page63.pdf; Veolia R enewalrev4 page65.pdf; Veolia Renewalrev4 page66.pdf; Veolia Renewalrev4 page78.p df; Veolia Renewalrev4 page80.pdf; z EGEN1 EMSSrev4.pdf; z EGEN1 EUD-2rev4.pdf; z EGEN2 EMSSrev4.pdf; Veolia Renewalrev4 page73.pdf

Hello David,

The August 2013 Addendum to Application for Renewal of a Major Source Operating Permit has been modifi ed per our November 7th conversation; see attached files. The attached documents replace corresponding pages fro m the August 2013 document.

My summary of changes to aid the review process:

1. A5 form PTE Summary now includes the two emergency generators. 2. Page 57 adds the generators to our list of air emis sion sources. Emergency generators identified as < 112kW. 3. Please replace page 63 of the original addendum with page 63 in the attac hed file. Content has NOT be changed, but some text has been re-arranged to keep the page numbers the same as in the August 2013 Addendum document. 4. Please replace page 65 of the original addendum with page 65 in the attac hed file. Content has NOT be changed, but some text has been re-arranged to keep the page numbers the same as in the August 2013 Addendum document. 5. Page 66 contains the emissions summary for the emer gency generators. Emergency generators identified

as < 112kW in text and table. 6. Page 73 contains: Row 1 of boiler requirements - C EMS removed; monitoring and recording of tune-up da ta added. The contractor who performs our annual boil er tune-up is able to provide flow d ata and ppm readings for CO and NOx which will enable us to calculate emissi ons from the unit. 7. Page 78 contains recordkeeping requirements for the emergency generators. 8. Page 80 contains reporting requirements for the eme rgency generators. 9. Gen1EMSS - self-explanatory 10. Gen1EUD - identifies generator< 112kW 11. Gen2EMSS - self-explanatory 12. Gen2EUS - identifies generator< 112kW

As agreed, we will be submitting a revised CTAC for m with Doug's signature once we agree on all modifi cations.

I hope this resolves all the issues we discussed. Please contact me if you need additional informatio n.

Thank you.

Nancy Paddock Environmental Engineering Specialist Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C. 7 Mobile Avenue Sauget, IL 62201 618.271.2804 (x-115) 618.271.2128 (fax)

Nancy.Paddock@VeoliaES.com2 www.VeoliaES.com

This e-mail message from Veolia ES Technical Soluti ons, L.L.C. is for the sole use of the intended rec ipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. A ny unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribu tion is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please communic ate with the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and delete it from all computers.
Exhibit 99.1

GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL SERVICES, INC. AND CONSOLIDATEDAFFILIATES

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of General Electric CapitalServices, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period endingDecember 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), I, Dennis D. Dammerman, Chairman of theBoard of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 result      of operations of the Company.

  

 

 

/s/ Dennis D. Dammerman

Dennis D. Dammerman

Chairman of the Board

March 7, 2003

  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

-vs- Case No. 1:18-CV-63 

MPW INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________ 

 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

 Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. 

The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered 

its verdict. 

X Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. 

The issues have been tried or heard and a decision 

has been rendered. 

 

 

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED 

that judgment is entered in accordance with the Consent Decree (doc. 12). 

Date: October 23, 2018 RICHARD W. NAGEL, CLERK 

 By:s/Benjamin J. Codispoti 

 Benjamin Codispoti, Deputy Clerk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOSHUA R. KIRTLEY, 

Defendant. 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Case No. 3:18-mj-00174 

Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington 

BINDOVER ORDER 

This matter was set for preliminary examination on March 22, 2018. Defendant 

appeared with counsel and waived his right to a preliminary examination. The Court 

found the waiver to be knowing and voluntary and therefore orders that Defendant be 

bound over to the grand jury to answer the charge. 

March 23, 2018 s/Sharon L. Ovington 

 Sharon L. Ovington 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 3:18-cr-00041-TMR Doc #: 8 Filed: 03/23/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 23
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Zaxis International Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the “Report”), as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ivo Heiden, President, CFOand Chairman of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Ivo Heiden

Ivo Heiden President, CFO and ChairmanDated: May 16, 2005

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zaxis International Inc. and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
Case: 3:18-mj-00083-SLO Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/09/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 70
Mayor Stanley 

### A Oouse City of Kearney 18 East 22nd Street P. 0. Box 1180 Kearney, NE 68848-1180

July 26, 2012

Dennis 

### J. DeVany Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis Office of Aviation Analysis Department 

### ofTransportation 400 

### -,th Street, SW 

### Washington, DC 20590 TELEPHONE · (308) 233-3216 FAX · (308) 234-6399 E-MAIL · mayor@kearneygov

.org WEBSITE· www
.cityofkearnev.org

''**-~** ·. ._; ...__ . ·:**~** .. 

### RE: Kearney's SupportofDEN-EAR Route Operatedby Great Lakes -.· __-:.._**.:::~; :_** _ _ { :--..**~·,--·-=: ':** **·· .** 

·: ··, Dear Mr. DeVany: The Essential Air Service program has been and continues to be a vital eoonomic lifeline for oommunities across the country, and especially in rural Nebraska. The vitality and continuing growth of our local economy is sustainable in large part because of the air service that has been supported and connections to the national and international air transportation system that exist today. Kearney area residents understand the importance of continuing the existing air service links to Denver with Great Lakes as they are the only bidder for the Kearney route at this time. 

### The City has experienced dissatisfaction with Great Lakes in a variety ofareas:

• Customer Service, locally and through the call center • Care for locally provided facilities • Stop-overflights scheduled during peak Kearney flights (i.e. 6:15a.m

. EAR-MCK-DIA) • E-ticketing issues • Frequent, significant maintenance delays • Loss of Brasilia service; unpredictable Brasilia service • Lack of Great Lakes marketing expenditures in local area Kearney area residents understand the value of 

### this air service and are appreciative of the continued support from the Department of Transportation in assuring this crucial link continues. The SCASD grant received from the DOT in 2010 and subsequent service study was an excellent example of the cooperation between the DOT and the City of Kearney to provide quality essential air service. As a result of that study, the City wilf continue to pursue opportunities 

### to improve air service in Kearney, up to and including pursuing a new commercial carrier for the 2014 EAS bid. The City of Kearney will continue to invest in the Kearney Regional Airport, as we have done over the past fiVe years in oooperation with the FAA with $5.25 million in capital investment and $19 million planned in the next five years. Sincerely yours, CITY OF KEARNEY

# ~~G.~ Stanley A. Clouse Mayor SAC:sjb
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, William J. McEntee, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Interep National Radio Sales, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

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

a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

b) (Intentionally
omitted)

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:

a) All significant deficiencies
and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrants internal controls over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2006 |  | /s/ William J. McEntee, Jr.                      
|                     |  | William J. McEntee, Jr.                          
|                     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder

, 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.

September 7 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk September 7 , 2017

15 62 40 ( 43 )

HOME

- OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY

, Plaintiff

- Appellee

, and

AUTO

- OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

SC: 15 62 40

v COA: 33 1934

Ingham CC: 15

- 000025

- CK

RICHARD JANKOWSKI, and JANET

JANKOWSKI

, Defendant s

- Appellant s

. _____________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff

- a ppellee to extend the time

for filing its answer is GRANTED. The a nswer will be accepted as timely filed if

submitted on or before September 8 , 2017.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         44,227
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               66,738
<PP&E>                                         3,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 98,470
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          582,954
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       16,145
<OTHER-SE>                                     (500,629)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (484,484)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               333,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (333,966)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (333,966)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (333,966)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)



</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS
EASTLAND , TEXAS
JUDGMENT

Julie McLeod, individually and as * From the 104 th District Court independent e xecutor of the Estate of Taylor County, of Barry McLeod, Trial Court No. 27260

- B.

Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00 076

- C V * A pril 2 8 , 20 2 2

Wanda McLeod, individually and * Opinion by Bailey
, C. J. derivatively on behalf of McLeod (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Property Development, LLC, and Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.) Michel Manfredonia,

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion, we reverse the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it imposed a constructive

trust on Julie McLeod as the executor of the Estate of Barry McLeod, and we render judgment that Wanda McLeod ta ke nothing on her request to impose a constructive trust as a remedy

. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed 70% against Julie McLeod, individually and as independent e xecutor of the Estate of Barry McLeod, and taxed 30% against Wanda McLeod, individually and derivatively on behalf of McLeod Property Development, LLC.
----

EXHIBIT 32.1

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO    13 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 WiFiMed Holdings Company, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Simon, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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.

Date: May 19, 2006

/s/ Jeffrey Simon                 Jeffrey Simon    Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          37,249
<SECURITIES>                                23,435,256
<RECEIVABLES>                                  322,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,795,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          334,979
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,460,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,795,430
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              (331,376)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (331,376)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20802 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARTHA C. RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 96-CR-97-2

- - - - - - - - - - February 5, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Martha C. Rivera argues that the district court clearly erred in refusing to reduce her offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 based on her minor role in the offense. We have reviewed the record, including the presentence report, the briefs, and the transcript of the sentencing hearing, and find that the district court did not clearly err in refusingNo. 96-20802 - 2 - to make an adjustment for Rivera’s role in the offense. Rivera is not entitled to the adjustment merely because she may have been less culpable than her co-defendant in the case. See United States v. Morris , 46 F.3d 410, 426 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 2595 (1995). Rivera’s argument that she is entitled to a reduction under § 3B1.2 because she meets the criteria of § 5C1.2 is unsupported.
AFFIRMED.
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

DEC 15 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

vs.

GUILLERMO RUIZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 00-2150

(D.C. No. CR-99-1075-LH)

(D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**

Defendant-Appellant Guillermo Ruiz appeals from his sentence upon a plea

of guilty to conspiracy to distribute more than 100 grams of heroin, contrary to

21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B). Although Mr. Ruiz was determined to have an

offense level of 19 and a criminal history category of II based upon 3 criminal

history points, resulting in a guideline range of 33-41 months, he was sentenced
- 2 -

to the mandatory minimum of 60 months and 4 years supervised release required

under the statute. He appeals from the district court’s denial of a downward

departure that would make him eligible for the “safety valve” provision contained

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and USSG § 5C1.2. Our jurisdiction arises under 18

U.S.C. § 3742(a) and we affirm.

We review the district court’s interpretation of § 3553 and USSG § 5C1.2

de novo. United States v. Gigley , 213 F.3d 503, 505 (10th Cir. 2000). Section

3553(f) is plain and unambiguous on its face. The safety valve is available only

to those defendants who do not have more than one criminal history point. 18

U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1); USSG § 5C1.2. Mr. Ruiz was therefore not eligible for the

safety valve. United States v. Owensby , 188 F.3d 1244, 1246-47 (10th Cir.

1999). Even had the district court departed downward in an effort to more

appropriately reflect Mr. Ruiz’s criminal history, Mr. Ruiz would still not have

been eligible for the safety valve. Id. at 1246.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge