alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Larry Greene

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER

777 12 th Street, 3 rd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 916/874-4800 * 916/874-4899 fax www.airquality.org December 10, 2010

Mr. Michael Guzzetta Stationary Source Division California Air Resources Board PO Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

Subject: State Implementation Plan Revision, SMAQMD Rule 451

Dear Mr. Guzzetta:

Enclosed is the information necessary for submittal of Rule 451, Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products, for revision to the State Implementation Plan. Rule 451 was amended on October 28, 2010. Please also forward the information for this submittal to U.S. EPA.

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at (916) 874-4851 or kjwilliams@airquality.org

.

Sincerely,

Kevin J. Williams, Ph.D. Program Coordinator (sent via e-mail)

Attachments:

1. SIP Checklist Rule 451 2. Final Version of Rule 451 3. Underline/Strikeout Version of Rule 451 4. Public Notice Evidence 5. Resolution 6. Written Public Comments 7. Rule Evaluation Form 8. Board Memo 

### 9. Staff Report (includes responses to comments)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 10

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98101

- 3140 OFFICE OF

AIR, WASTE AND TOXICS

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Telephone Call Record

D ATE : M arch 18, 2013

BY: Steve Body, Office of Air Waste and Toxics /S/

Today I had a phone conversation with: Jimmy Jones ( Alcoa Environmental Manager ), Laurie

Shelby ( Alcoa Public Affairs ), and Dave Hulse (Wenatchee Plant Env. Mgr)

. The purpose of

the call was to gather more information on the Alcoa Wenatchee facility operations.

There are 5 potlines, numbered 1 through 5, with #5 being the newest and built during the

B ART timeframe. All the others were built before the BART ‘window’.

Potline #1, #2 and #5 operate all the time. Potline #3 is operated periodically. Potline #4 is

permanently shutdown.

Each potline has its own pollution scrubbing system, with most of the emissions coming from

pot hoods ducted to its own alumina scrubber and baghouse. There are minimal fugitive

emissions from the roof ‘monitors’. #5 Potline emissions is 28.5 g/s.

There are also SO2 emissions from the anode bake furnaces... there are t wo furnaces of

comparable design and production. One is BART eligible, the other built prior to the BART

window. Total SO2 emissions from the bake furnaces of 7.2 g/s was used in the BART

exemption modeling

. In the BART exemption modeling, the total emissions from both

furnaces were used as they are ducted to one stack. This resulted in an over e stimate of BART

SO2 emissions.

For primarily technical (engineering) reasons, it is not practical to operate less than all the pots

in one potline. The pots that are taken off

- line need to be replaced by some other load to

balance the system and results in non

- st able potline operation.

During the call Alcoa provided a September 2007 modeling report prepared by TRC, Inc. the

modeling contractor to Alcoa. (Attached) This report was previously submitted to Ecology to

support Ecology ’ s BART exemption determination in the SIP submittal

. The report showed

the visibility impact on 12 Class I areas surrounding the Wenatchee operations, using the 4 km

grid as well as a refined modeling using a 0.5 km grid. Using the 4 km grid model results, the

only Class I area with an impact of greater than 0.5 dv is Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area at 0.66

dv. The next highest impact was on Glacier Peak Wilderness area at 0.3 dv.

The fine grid (0.5 km) modeling only looked at Alpine Lakes and showed a 0. 4 dv impact

.
Case 1:00-cr-00094-HJW Document 148 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### Gaither v. Wasson and Wife.

Special Judge : *Parties can not agree on*— must *be elected.*

A special judge must be elected by the attorneys at the court, as provided by the Constitution, and not by agreement of pai'tiesto the cause to be tried. A judgment or decree rendered by a special judge selected by agreement, is *coram non judice*and void.

APPEAL from *Carroll*Circuit Court, in Chancery.

Hon. James A. Wilson, acting as Special Judge.

*127
      *Bodge Johnson*for appellant.

Hon. James A. Wilson was not duly elected special judge as by law required, but only presided by consent of counsel. The judgment was *coram non judice*and void.

English, O. J.

It appears from the record, as amended, that this case being ready for hearing on bill, answer and depositions, and the regular judge being disqualified to sit in the case, it was submitted by consent of the solicitors of the parties, to James A. Wilson, Esq., as special judge, ■who as such heard the case, and rendered the decree in favor of Wasson and wife. Appealed from by Gaither.

A special judge must be elected by the attorneys of the court, as prescribed by the Constitution, and can not be agreed on by the parties to a suit, and a judgment or decree rendered by a special judge selected by agreement, is *corara non judice*and void, as held in *Dansby v.*Beard, *39 Ark., 254.*

The decree must be reversed, set aside and held for naught, and the cause remanded to be heard anew by a competent court.
Order entered May 31, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01024-CR

JESSICA JEWEL CORIN BENTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-41572-X

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s May 30, 2019 motion for extension of time to file its brief. 

We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief received on May 30th filed as of the date of this 

order.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Marten Transport, Ltd. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), each of the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,to the best knowledge of the undersigned:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date: March 10, 2006 | /s/ Randolph  L. Marten               |   |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | Randolph L. Marten                    |
|                      | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                      |                                  |
|                      | /s/ James J.  Hinnendael              |   |
|                      | James J. Hinnendael                   |
|                      | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32

                    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 Comet Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
we, Richard B. Stuart and Jack M. Gertino, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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: April 12, 2004           /s/ Richard B. Stuart
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Richard B. Stuart, Chief Executive Officer


Dated: April 12, 2004           /s/ Jack M. Gertino
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Jack M. Gertino, Chief Financial Officer
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lincare Holdings Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, John P. Byrnes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/    JOHN P.
BYRNESJohn P. ByrnesChief Executive Officer


August 9, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         139
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7020
<ALLOWANCES>                                   200
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7105
<PP&E>                                         6903
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3270
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4251
<BONDS>                                        406
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       38
<OTHER-SE>                                     6148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10843
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               48590
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  39485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7028
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               87
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             214
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1776
<INCOME-TAX>                                   710
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1066
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1066
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .29
        


</TABLE>
IV 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 34 

Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental 

to the United States economy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2021 

Mr. SCALISE (for himself and Mr. MCKINLEY) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would 

be detrimental to the United States economy. 

Whereas a carbon tax is a Federal tax on carbon released 

from fossil fuels; 

Whereas a carbon tax will increase energy prices, including 

the price of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and home 

heating oil; 

Whereas a carbon tax will mean that families and consumers 

will pay more for essentials like food, gasoline, and electricity; 

Whereas a carbon tax will fall hardest on the poor, the elderly, and those on fixed incomes; 

Whereas a carbon tax will lead to more jobs and businesses 

moving overseas; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 34 IH 

Whereas a carbon tax will lead to less economic growth; 

Whereas American families will be harmed the most from a 

carbon tax; 

Whereas, according to the Energy Information Administration, the share of energy consumption during 2019 in the 

United States that was derived from fossil fuels was approximately 80 percent; 

Whereas a carbon tax will increase the cost of every good 

manufactured in the United States; 

Whereas a carbon tax will impose disproportionate burdens 

on certain industries, jobs, States, and geographic regions and would further restrict the global competitiveness of the United States; 

Whereas American ingenuity has led to innovations in energy 

exploration and development and has increased production of domestic energy resources on private and Stateowned land which has created significant job growth and 

private capital investment; 

Whereas the energy policy of the United States should encourage continued private sector innovation and development and not increase the existing tax burden on manufacturers; 

Whereas the production of American energy resources increases the ability of the United States to maintain a 

competitive advantage in today’s global economy; 

Whereas a carbon tax would reduce America’s global competitiveness and would encourage development abroad in 

countries that do not impose this exorbitant tax burden; 

and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 34 IH 

Whereas the Congress and the President should focus on progrowth solutions that encourage increased development of 

domestic resources: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that a carbon 

3 tax would be detrimental to American families and busi4 nesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 3, 2020

NO. 03-19-00460-CV

In the Matter of X. J.

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES BAKER AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order adjudicating delinquency and disposition signed by the trial 

court on May 17, 2019. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds 

that there was no reversible error in the order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order 

adjudicating delinquency and disposition. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, 

no adjudication of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 98 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 98

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill S. 3373, the Secretary of the Senate 
shall make the following cor-

              

rection: Amend the long title so as to read: ``An Act to improve health 
care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances, and for 
other purposes.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 13, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 98

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

   Directing the Secretary of the Senate to make a correction in the 
                    enrollment of the bill S. 3373.
```
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 769 

Recognizing October 2020 as ‘‘National Principals Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 12, 2020 

Ms. SMITH (for herself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. KING, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. DURBIN, 

Mr. BRAUN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. BOOZMAN, and Mr. VAN HOLLEN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing October 2020 as ‘‘National Principals Month’’. 

Whereas the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Association of Elementary School 

Principals, and the American Federation of School Administrators have declared October 2020 to be ‘‘National 

Principals Month’’; 

Whereas principals are educational visionaries, instructional 

and assessment leaders, disciplinarians, community builders, budget analysts, facilities managers, and administrators of legal and contractual obligations; 

Whereas principals work collaboratively with teachers and 

parents to develop and implement clear missions, high 

curriculum standards, and performance goals; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 769 ATS 

Whereas principals create school environments that facilitate 

great teaching and learning and continuous school improvement; 

Whereas principals demonstrate leadership and play important roles in meeting the needs of students, families, and 

communities while responding to the coronavirus pandemic; 

Whereas the vision, actions, and dedication of principals provide the mobilizing force behind any school improvement 

effort; and 

Whereas the celebration of National Principals Month would 

honor elementary school, middle school, and high school 

principals and recognize the importance of principals in 

ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality 

education: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes October 2020 as ‘‘National Prin3 cipals Month’’; 

4 (2) honors the contributions of principals in ele5 mentary schools, middle schools, and high schools in 

6 the United States; and 

7 (3) supports the goals and ideals of National 

8 Principals Month. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Motion Denied as Moot; Order filed July 11, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00274

- CV

____________ SAMER W. YACOUB , Appellant

V.

SURETEC INSURANCE CO MPANY, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1003979



### ORDER
Appellant filed a brief in this appeal on June 27, 2013 . The c ourt has determined that appellant has not properly presented th is cause in his brief on file. Appellant failed to substantially compl y with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate P rocedure. In particular, appellant has failed to file a complete statement of facts, and failed to provide a clear and concise argument for each contention made with appropriate citations to the record and to legal authority. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f), (g), (i ).2

Litigants who appear pro se must comply with the applicable procedural rules and are held to the same standards that apply to licensed attorneys. See Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn , 573 S.W.2d 181, 185 (Tex. 1978); Steffan v. Steffan
, 29 S.W.3d 627, 631 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). Accordingly, the court issues the following order:

P ursuant to Rule 38.9(b), we STRIKE the brief filed June 27, 2013, and
ORDER appellant to file an a mended brief complying with the Rules of A ppellate
P rocedure on or before August 9, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(b). If appellant
fails to file an amended brief on or before August 9 , 20 13 , the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R . App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
Jeffery L. STANTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3372

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0393

ANGELA E. HELVEY,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

POPLAR PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant and Appellee.

I go

illimpa

AUG 2 8 2020

Bovven Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

O R drikof rvIontana

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the

Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant's opening brief

filed on August 25, 2020, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with

the below-referenced Rules and must be resubmitted.

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(a) requires a table of contents, with page references, and a

table of cases, statutes and other authorities cited, with referenced to the pages of the brief

where they are cited. M. R. App. P. 12(1)(b) requires a statement of issues presented for

review. M. R. App. P. 12(1)(c) requires a statement of the case. The statement shall briefly

indicate the nature of the case and its procedural disposition in the court below. Appellant's

brief lacks any of the above elements.

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(d) requires that the statement of facts portion of a brief

contain references to the pages or the parts of the record at which material facts appear.

Appellant's brief contains no citations to any record.

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(e) requires a statement of the standard of review for each

issue presented, together with a citation of authority. Appellant's brief asserts no standard of

review.

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(f) requires a summary of the argument before the argument

portion of the brief. The summary of the argument should include a heading identifying

it as a separate section. The summary should be a clear and concise statement of the

arguments made in the body of the brief. The Appellant's brief makes no summaiy of the

08/28/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0393
argument.

M. R. App. P. 12(1)(i) requires appellants to attach an appendix including "the

relevant judgment, order(s), findings of fact, conclusions of law, jury instruction(s),

ruling(s), or decision(s) from which the appeal is taken together with any written

memorandum or rationale of the court, and those pages of the transcript containing any

oral ruling in support." Appellant's brief contains no order from which the appeal, is

taken.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the referenced brief is rejected.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order the

Appellant shall electronically file with the Clerk of this Court a revised brief containing

the revisions necessary to comply with the specified Rules and that the Appellant shall

serve copies of the revised brief on all parties of record;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than

those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained

in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of ihe revised brief.

The Clerk is directed to mail a true copy of this Order to the Appellant and to all

parties of record.

DATED this 28th day of August, 2020.

For the Court,

Byg14 

Justice

Page 2