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

Plant ID 00066

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

00066\00066_ HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 00066\00066_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00066\00066_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00066\00066_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00066\00066_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00066\00066_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00066\00066_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00066\00066_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00066\00066_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_AP1-2 Flow diag.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_AP3 Flow diag.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_AP4 Flow diag.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_AP5 Flow diag.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Infilco proposal 8-9-07.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 1_Alb station aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 2_Alb disposal sites aerial.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 3_Alb station topo.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 4_Alb disposal site properties.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 5_Alb Leachate sample pts.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 6_Alb wetlands.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Map 7_Alb outfalls.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Part F Section 5 F5-6 Landfill-1 GW Drawing.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_Part F Section 5 F5-6 Ret-Landfill-1 GW Drawing.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_WB-1_Alb NPDES flow diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_wwt-1 flow diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00066\Supporting Documents\00066_wwt-2 flow diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 00066\00066_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

00066\00066_ Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

00066\00066_Certification Statement.pdf Plant certification statement

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk June 25, 2012

s0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144823

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144823

COA: 307786

Wayne CC: 10

- 008780

- FH

JIMMIE LEE BROWN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 21, 2012

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
TELEPHONE CONTACT SUMMARY

FROM: Sandy Burns

RTI International

DATE OF CONTACT: June 17, 2010

ORGANIZATION CONTACTED:

Fulton County Processing, Ltd.

7800 State Route 109

Delta, Ohio 43515

PERSON CONTACTED:

John Grossheim, Processing Manager

(260) 668-3189

PURPOSE OF CONTACT:

For information on facilities’ use of Smooth Clean Surface (SCS) technology.

SUMMARY OF CONTACT:

Fulton County Processing was chosen to contact because it is listed on the SCS website 

as using both pickling and SCS processes. Mr. Grossheim confirmed that not all steel can 

be treated with SCS. SCS-treated steel cannot be galvanized, painted or enameled. 

Because SCS leaves the last layer of scale, these finished will not adhere and will fall out; 

powder coating is the only finish that will adhere. In addition, sharp bends will cause the 

last layer of scale to powder, which can cause problems with process equipment. 

Mr. Grossheim stated that the benefits of SCS are no oil residue left on the steel, and no 

pickling liquor. However, he noted that at Fulton County Processing and another facility 

in the same organization pickling liquor is used by the local wastewater treatment plant 

where it is used in the treatment process.
Tabitha ELLIOTT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4702

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 26, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
Steve LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3835

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

Steve Lee, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
-78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5 -76.0 -75.5

38.0 38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/12 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 12 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THOMAS SLOANE, individually : No. 4:16-cv-01571

and on behalf of all persons :

similarly situated, : (Judge Brann)

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

GULF INTERSTATE FIELD :

SERVICES, INC., : 

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2017, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 

that:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Facilitate Notice and for Certification of a 

Nationwide Collective Action, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), ECF 

No.141, is DENIED. The opt-in Plaintiffs are DISMISSED.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 23, ECF No. 142, is DENIED.

3. The discovery deadline is reset to May 19, 2017.

4. The dispositive motions deadline is reset to July 18, 2017.

5. The remaining case management deadlines will be set, if necessary, 

after the Court resolves the parties’ dispositive motions.

Case: 2:18-cv-00583-EAS-EPD Doc #: 193 Filed: 03/24/17 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 5511
BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Case: 2:18-cv-00583-EAS-EPD Doc #: 193 Filed: 03/24/17 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 5512
Exhibit


Exhibit 10(iii)A(43)


AMENDMENT No. 5
TO
ACUITY BRANDS, INC
AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT




THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into as of the 26th day of October, 2015, by and between ACUITY BRANDS, INC. (the “Company”) and RICHARD K. REECE (“Executive”);


W I T N E S S E T H


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into a Severance Agreement, dated as of April 21, 2006 (“Severance Agreement”), and amended as of October 28, 2009, March 30, 2010, March 28, 2014, and October 27, 2014, providing for the payment of certain compensation and benefits to Executive if Executive’s employment is terminated under certain circumstances; and


WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Severance Agreement in the manner hereinafter provided;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Severance Agreement is hereby amended, as follows:




Section 4.2 is hereby amended by deleting “90%” from clause (i) and substituting “100%” in lieu thereof.


This Amendment to the Severance Agreement shall be effective as of the date of this Amendment.  Except as hereby modified, the Severance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


COMPANY


EXECUTIVE                     ACUITY BRANDS, INC.






______________________________        By:  ______________________________
RICHARD K. REECE                        Vernon J. Nagel
        Chairman, President and CEO
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, E. Thomas Hart, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 29, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations ofQuickLogic Corporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ E. Thomas Hart         |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Date:  | August 7, 2008        |
|   | Name:  | E. Thomas Hart             |
|   | Title: | *Chief  Executive Officer* |

 

 

I, Carl M. Mills, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of QuickLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 29, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations ofQuickLogic Corporation.

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Carl M. Mills          |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|
|   | Date:  | August 7, 2008        |
|   | Name:  | Carl M. Mills              |
|   | Title: | *Chief  Financial Officer* |

 

----
MEMORANDUM 

To: United States Department of Energy

From: Erica Logan, Information Technology Industry Council 

Date: June 25, 2014

Re: Ex Parte Communication 

On Wednesday June 25th, energy efficiency experts held a meeting with representatives of the 

US Department of Energy (DOE) to discuss DOE’s Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for 

battery chargers. Industry and DOE representatives had a general exchange on battery types, 

ways to apply the battery charging requirements and possible technical factors that could affect 

values over time. 

The following individuals attended the meeting in-person: 

Ashley Armstrong, DOE 

Michael Kido, DOE 

Erica Logan, ITI 

Rona Newmark, EMC 

Jay Taylor, Schneider-Electric 

Roger Tipley, Schneider-Electric 

Gary Verdun, Dell 

Henry Wong, Intel 

The following individual attended via teleconference: 

Mark Hollenbeck, HP 

Sincerely, 

Erica Logan 

Information Technology Industry Council
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 80 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 80

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   relating to the authority of Congress and the States to regulate 
  contributions and expenditures in political campaigns and to enact 
              public financing systems for such campaigns.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 2022

 Mr. Schiff (for himself, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Phillips, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. 
    Welch, Mr. Takano, Ms. Norton, Ms. Brownley, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. 
  Ruppersberger, Mrs. Beatty, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Mr. 
   Huffman, Ms. McCollum, Mr. Jones, Ms. Sherrill, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. 
  Kahele, Mr. Garamendi, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Swalwell, Mr. Case, Mr. 
    Gomez, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Cooper, Ms. Tlaib, Mr. 
    Lowenthal, Mr. Rush, Mr. Torres of New York, Ms. Pressley, Mr. 
   Malinowski, Mrs. Dingell, Ms. Porter, Mr. Trone, Mr. Carson, Ms. 
 Roybal-Allard, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Evans, Mr. McGovern, 
Mr. Himes, and Ms. Barragan) submitted the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   relating to the authority of Congress and the States to regulate 
  contributions and expenditures in political campaigns and to enact 
              public financing systems for such campaigns.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid 
Congress or the States from imposing reasonable viewpoint-neutral 
limitations on private campaign contributions or independent election 
expenditures, or from enacting systems of public campaign financing, 
including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by 
offsetting campaign spending or independent expenditures with increased 
public funding.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mitchell *v.*Fowler.

Opinion delivered May 26, 1930.

*858*Oscar Barnett,*for appellant.

Kirby, J.

This is a partition suit for division of the estate of Sam Mitchell, Sr., deceased, among the parties and his heirs' entitled thereto, the north half southwest quarter and north half southeast quarter, section 13, township' 4 south, range 17 west. The case was submitted to the chancellor on the pleadings and testimony and decree rendered on March 15, 1928, adjudging the interest of the parties, and decreeing a partition of the lands in accordance therewith.

■On September 12, 19:29, Si Bayliss Mitchell and others filed a .motion and intervention to set aside the decree of March 15, 1928, and have the lands sold because no part of same was allotted to them by the commissioner and the decree of the court. None of the grounds specified in the statute, §§ 6290-93, O. & M. Digest was alleged in the motion to modify or vacate the judgment.

The decree of March 15, 1928, ascertaining- and adjudging the interest of the several parties in the lands in controversy and directing a division thereon in accordance with their rights, became final and binding upon all the parties thereto upon the lapse of the term of court at which it was entered, the term necessarily expiring on the first Monday in June thereafter, the day fixed by law for the beginning of the next term of the chancery court.

No appeal was taken from this decree which could not be vacated or modified after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered, except upon allegation and proof of some one of the grounds for such action specified in the statute § 6290, C. & M. Digest. None of the grounds as specified therein was contained or included in the motion and intervention to vacate or modify the decree, and the court erred in attempting to vacate said decree and modifying it to adjudge an interest in the lands in controversy to appellees, to which they had not been held entitled or Avhich had not been adjudged *859to them in the original and final decree of March 15,1928, it being ■without authority to do so. *Ingram*v. *Wood,*172 Ark. 226.

The decree is accordingly reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to cancel the commissioner’s deed to the lands execute!! under said erroneous decree and to reinstate said decree of March 15, 1928, partitioning the said lands in accordance with the interest of the parties as adjudged therein, and for all other necessary proceedings in accordance with the principles of equity and not inconsistent with this opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CHARLES P. DANIELS AND IMRAN DALVI,

Petitioners

v.

ATLANTIC COMMUNITY BANKERS BANK

AND JON EVANS,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 593 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 16th day of March, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         627,934
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,086,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                   117,510
<INVENTORY>                                  5,021,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,344,786
<PP&E>                                       3,742,163
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,236,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,173,981
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,957,813
<BONDS>                                      2,812,973
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        35,463
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,367,732
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,173,981
<SALES>                                     13,330,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,628,074
<CGS>                                        8,632,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,024,572
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             126,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (523,424)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (0)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (523,424)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (523,424)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
Second Amendment to
                              Amended and Restated
                    Certificate of Limited Partnership of
                Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership I-D

      The undersigned,  desiring to amend its amended and restated certificate
of limited  partnership  pursuant  to the  Oklahoma  Revised  Uniform  Limited
Partnership Act, as amended,  Okla.  Stat. tit. 54 (1993),  Section 301 et seq
(the "Act"), do hereby state:

      1.  The  name  of the  limited  partnership  is  Geodyne  Energy  Income
Limited Partnership I-D.

      2. The date of filing of the original Certificate and Agreement of Limited
Partnership  was  December  10,  1985,  as amended by the Amended  and  Restated
Certificate of Limited  Partnership of Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership
I-D filed on March 10, 1989,  and as further  amended by the First  Amendment to
Amended and Restated Certificate of Limited Partnership of Geodyne Energy Income
Limited Partnership I-D filed on February 25, 1993.

      3.  The Amended  and  Restated  Certificate  of Limited  Partnership  is
hereby revised to change the name of the General Partner and Registered  Agent
from Geodyne Properties, Inc. to the following:

                             Geodyne Resources, Inc.

Geodyne  Properties,  Inc. merged with Geodyne  Resources,  Inc., with Geodyne
Resources, Inc. surviving, effective June 30, 1996.

     DATED:    July 1, 1996
                                        Geodyne Properties, Inc.
                                        by Geodyne Resources,  Inc., successor
                                        by merger

                                        By:  /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Dennis R. Neill
                                          President

                                        Geodyne Resources, Inc.
                                        as General Partner

                                        By:  /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Dennis R. Neill
                                          President




                                      -1-
<PAGE>





                                        Geodyne     Resources,     Inc.,    as
                                        Attorney-in-Fact   for   all   Limited
                                        Partners

                                        By:  /s/ Dennis R. Neill
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Dennis R. Neill
                                          President


                                      -2-
Michael Joseph MANNION, DOC #H24226, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3092

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 28, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and CASANUEVA and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Co. James E. McMahon

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

DOE Workshop on Standards

for Distribution Transformers

November 1, 2000

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02HH
Excerpt from "Principles for the

r9 Analysis of Impacts on Consumers "

• "The Department will use regional analysis and

sensitivity analysis tools, as appropriate, to

evaluate the potential distribution of impacts of

candidate standards levels on consumers. The

Department will consider impacts on significant

segments of society in determining standards

levels. Where there are significant negative

impacts on identifiable subgroups, DOE will

consider the efficacy of voluntary approaches as a

means to achieve potential energy savings."

Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 136, 36986®7 (July 15, 1996)

2

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02HH
Previous definitio

of subgroups

• RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS: in addition to the

general population, impacts on two subgroups

have been analyzed:

- low income households (life cycle cost impacts)

- elderly households (e.g., lower usage affects LCC of

clothes washer and water heater standards)

• FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS:

- No subgroups were analyzed

3

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02HH
Possible Consumer Subgroups

`' for Distribution Transformers

• Utility-owned, non-utility-ownea

transformers (different energy pricing)

• Commercial and industrial customers

(different loading)

• Public housing (low income population)

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02HH