alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CMAQ version 5.0.1 (July 2012 release) Technical Documentation- cmaqwiki 

CMAQ version 5.0.1 (July 2012 release) 

Technical Documentation 

From cmaqwiki 

Page 1 of2 

Refer to the CMAQv5.0 Technical Documentation for information on the technical features of this 

version. 

RELEASE_NOTES for CMAQv5.0.1 -July 2012 

The changes for this release are: 

1. AQCHEM (base and MP version) 

• Fixed bug where negative oxidized Fe and Mn concentrations resulted in negative oxidation 

time steps, which caused the estimated wet deposition factor, WETF ACto blow up 

• The washout rate was removed from the calculation of the estimate for doubling the time 

step if the sulfur oxidized is< 5%. 

2. NML & runscripts (CCTM, ICON, BCON) 

• Changed the environment variable name for the CGRID species Namelist files from an 

embedded'.' to' '. 

3. ICON 

• Moved mapping_ init.F from par module to m3conc module where it belongs 

4. Inline BEIS 

• Bounded COSZEN against numerical rounding errors 

• Made Pleim-Xiu version the default method for soil data in soil NO subroutine 

5. Inline Plume Rise (point source emissions) 

• Fixed the number of substeps, NTICS to be the number of synchronization time steps rather 

than the number of seconds in the calculation of the average plume rise emissions for the 

diagnostic file. 

6. M3DRY 

• fixed errors in crop_lai 

• Soil NH3 initialization was rewritten for new daily EPIC output which now includes soil 

NH3 from mineralization of organic but no longer includes the monthly fertilizer totals 

• Set bounds on the soil pH for fertilized AG landuse 

• corrected soil NH4 and H+ initialization error 

7. Advection 

• changed default HDIV _LIM to 0.9; made CFL an env var 

8. BLDMAKE utility 

Retrieved from "http://www.airqualitymodeling.org/cmaqwiki/index.php?title=CMAQ_ version_5.0.1_ 

(July _2012_release)_Technicai_Documentation&oldid=235" 

--· ---·-----.. - - ____ " ______ _ • This page was last modified on 14 March 2014, at 07:34. 

http://www.airqualitymodeling.org/cmaqwiki/index.php?title=CMAQ_ version_5.0.1_(July _... 6/1/2015 
CMAQ version 5.0.1 (July 2012 release) Technical Documentation- cmaqwiki Page 2 of2 

• This page has been accessed 11,586 times. 

http://www.airqualitymodeling.org/cmaqwiki/index.php?title=CMAQ_ version_5.0.l_(July _... 6/1/2015
Ronnie Earl BAILEY, Jr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3341

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Fred MASSARO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2245

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 23, 2018]

Fred Massaro, Moore Haven, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

We affirm the denial of appellant's Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, but we reverse the portion of the order prohibiting appellant from filing any further pro se pleadings. The trial court did not give appellant notice or an opportunity to respond before entering the order. *See**State v. Spencer* , 751 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1999) ; *Jones v. State* , 221 So.3d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) ; *Stokes v. State* , 50 So.3d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ; *Hines v. State* , 949 So.2d 1086, 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

*Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.*

Gross, Taylor and Conner, JJ., concur.
Sheryl TAYLOR and Mark Clements, Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL SYSTEM FLORIDA, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D17-2590

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

Yankwitt Law Firm and Eric D. Yankwitt (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.

Diaz & Coto and Kevin Diaz and Rene E. Coto ; McGuire Woods and Sara F. Holladay-Tobias and Emily Y. Rottmann and Monica L. Haddad Forbes (Jacksonville), for appellees.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and LAGOA and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  Fox
Strategic Housing Income Partners 1999 Fourth Quarter 10-KSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                 0000800080
<NAME>            Fox Strategic Housing Partners
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       987
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                110
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                    21,814
<DEPRECIATION>                             7,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            15,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                   10,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 4,551
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              15,555
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           3,073
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           3,039
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           714
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  34
<EPS-BASIC>                                 1.03 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
#### Aneta Magidenko et al., Respondents, v Consolidated Edison, Defendant, and City of New York, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 644]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (E Rivera, J.), dated January 16, 2003, as, upon a jury verdict, and upon the denial of its motions pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law and pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, is in favor of the plaintiffs and against it in the principal sum of $175,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

To be entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant has the burden of demonstrating that, upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case *(see Lyons v McCauley,*252 AD2d 516, 516-517 [1998]). The court may grant the motion only if there is no rational process by which the factfinder could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant *(see Szczerbiak v Pilat,*90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; *Farrukh v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*227 AD2d 440, 441 [1996]).

The trial court correctly denied the motions by the City of *554New York pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law and pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence *(see Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129, 132-133 [1985]). The City limits its appeal to the argument that in the absence of prior written notice, the plaintiffs were required, but failed, to establish a triable issue as to whether the City created the alleged defect in the road which caused the injured plaintiff to trip and fall. Contrary to this argument, the testimony of Sherry Johnson, an employee of the Department of Transportation Litigation Support Unit, sufficed to raise an inference that established by circumstantial evidence that the alleged defective condition which caused the injured plaintiff to trip and fall was created by the City’s negligent repair of the roadway *(see Maggio v City of New York,*305 AD2d 554, 555 [2003]). Santucci, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Crane, JJ, concur.
From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]  

Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 12:58 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com;

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org;

gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org;

dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwaltner@nrdc.org;

kwinder@mleainc.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; Brian Coffey; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei

Luo; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

charlied@uus.org; phopkinson@hvolt.com; James.Lass@cleco.com;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy‐solution.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider‐electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider‐electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: MV Liquid‐immersed LCC and NIA Results Update

Dear Committee Members,

Please find the updated draft LCC and NIA results for liquid‐immersed medium‐

voltage transformers (design lines 1 ‐ 5) attached. The values for Mean

Incremental First Cost and Mean Operating Cost Savings were misreported in the

previous draft.

Thank you,

‐‐ Chris

‐‐‐‐ 

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

t. 416‐535‐7546 c. 647‐832‐4021
Attachment of Public Interset for Swift Air petition for walk around exemption 4416

Public Interest 

End-products are a higher degree of proficiency in flight crews and a greater level of 

safety overall, because it allows students to be trained in abnormal situations. The 

actual airplane, before flight, most likely will not have anything out of the ordinary. In a 

pictorial, students can see what the airplane would look like if something were wrong. 

Therefore, better protecting the public as a 121 carrier.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lori K. Hudson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 432 C.D. 2016

Respondent : Submitted: October 21, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge

HONORABLE JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE COSGROVE FILED: February 1, 2017

In this matter, Petitioner challenges the decision of the Unemployment

Compensation Review Board which affirmed denial of benefits. The briefs of

Petitioner and Respondent having been filed, on October 17, 2016, this Court

ordered that the matter would be addressed without oral argument.1 By letter dated

November 1, 2016, Petitioner advised the Chief Clerk that she was “withdrawing

[her] appeal in this matter” and asked to be advised “of any additional steps

necessary, if any, to withdraw the appeal.” 

On November 3, 2016, the Chief Clerk sent a Defect Correction

Notice to Petitioner, advising her that her request to withdraw her appeal “must be

 

1

The per curiam order issued that day advised that the matter would be “submitted on

briefs of the Petitioner and Respondent only” and precluded the filing of a brief by the Intervenor

for failure to comply with an earlier order directing a brief be filed by September 9, 2016.
2

in the form of a motion [with] a certificate (proof) of service.” Petitioner was

further advised that if these corrective steps were not taken “within 14 days of the

date of this notice, this matter will be considered abandoned and may be

dismissed.” To date, nothing further has been received from Petitioner.

Although Petitioner’s November 1 letter indicated a desire to end her

appeal, it was, by itself, insufficient to accomplish her goal. Petitioner’s failure to

comply with the Clerk of Court’s directive, however, leaves us with little choice

but to, in effect, satisfy her wishes by dismissing this matter. See Goetz v.

Department of Environmental Resources, 613 A.2d 65 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) citing

Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (dismissal of an action for

failure to prosecute does not violate a [party’s] due process rights).

As such, the Petition for Review is dismissed with prejudice.

___________________________

JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lori K. Hudson, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 432 C.D. 2016

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2017, the Petition for Review is

dismissed with prejudice.

___________________________

JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-124354, 333-102082,333-88770, 333-88730, 333-30088, 333-88811, 333-48260, 333-52644, 333-75736 and 333-111548) of TIBCO Software Inc. of our report dated February 9, 2007 relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

February 9, 2007
#### Robert WILLIAMS; Robert Williams, as Trustee for the Legacy VI Trust, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ryan ZINKE, Secretary of the Department of the Interior;* Gregory Marengo; First American Title Company; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-36057

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 9, 2017 ** Portland, Oregon

Filed March 21, 2017

Richard Buley, Esquire, Torrance L. Coburn, Esquire, Tipp & Buley, P.C., Mis-soula, MT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Victoria L. Francis, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Defendants-Ap-pellees Sally Jewell, Bureau of Indian Affairs

*654Robert J. Long, Esquire, Long Law Office, Poison, MT, for Defendant-Appellee Gregory Marengo

Kelsey Evans Bunkers, Attorney, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Bozeman, MT, Michael Dockery, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Billings, MT, Benjamin P. Hursh, Attorney, Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellee First American Title Company

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 Ryan Zinke has been substituted for Sally Jewell pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c).

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Robert Williams appeals the district court’s order granting First American Title Company’s motion to dismiss based on res judicata and collateral estoppel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’ claim for breach of the title insurance contract because that claim was previously decided by a Montana state court. Under Montana law, res judicata “bars a party from relitigating a matter that she has already had an opportunity to litigate.” *Baltrusch v. Baltrusch,*331 Mont. 281, 130 P.3d 1267, 1273 (2006).1 Here, the dispute is whether Williams holds title to certain property in fee simple or whether it remains in trust status, with title held by the United States. Although Williams argues otherwise, that precise question was resolved by the Lake County, Montana district court in a previous title insurance claim Williams brought against First American. Moreover, because Williams both raised' and extensively ■ briefed the fee-versus-trust question before the state court, his contention that he did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate this claim fails. Res judicata bars Williams from relitigating the title insurance claim here.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Montana’s claim preclusion rules control. *See McDonald v. City of West Branch, Mich.,*466 U.S. 284, 287, 104 S.Ct. 1799, 80 L.Ed.2d 302 (1984); 28 U.S.C. § 1738.
EX PARTE Robin Renee Eslinger SMITH

1151124 (2150328)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Jose GALLEGOS-LOPEZ, a.k.a. Juan Jose Gallegos, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10067

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*599Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Peter Hormel, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Peter Hormel, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Jose Gallegos-Lopez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gallegos-Lopez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his cultural assimilation and other mitigating factors, as well as the then-proposed amendments to the illegal reentry guidelines. The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Gallegos-Lopez’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Gallegos-Lopez’s criminal history. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
R. Keith HOWARD, II, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ON BEHALF OF Jenny Elizabeth FALCON, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-431

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 16, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6287 

To extend the requirement to staff Department of Defense Education Activity 

schools to maintain maximum student-to-teacher ratios. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2023 

Mr. BACON (for himself and Mr. JACKSON of North Carolina) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, 

and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 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 extend the requirement to staff Department of Defense 

Education Activity schools to maintain maximum student-to-teacher ratios. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Success for Military 

5 Connected Students Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6287 IH

1 SEC. 2. STAFFING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EDU2 CATION ACTIVITY SCHOOLS TO MAINTAIN 

3 MAXIMUM STUDENT-TO-TEACHER RATIOS. 

4 Section 589B(c) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry 

5 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 

6 (Public Law 116–283; 134 Stat. 3659) is amended by 

7 striking ‘‘2023–2024 academic year’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘2029–2030 academic year’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 31(a)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PERSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Data Systems, 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 officers 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) 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

c) 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report 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 officers 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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
data; and

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

Date: November 14, 2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael R. Sayre   
|Chief Executive Officer



29