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

Plant ID 02445

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 02445\02445_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02445\02445_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02445\02445_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02445\02445_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02445\02445_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02445\02445_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02445\02445_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02445\02445_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02445\02445_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02445\02445_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02445\02445_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

02445\Certification Statement Plant ID 02445.pdf Plant certification statement

x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_2009_Neal_South.jpg Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_504MISCBWB-133 Model (1).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_Dewatering Bin Study Final confidential.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_N4 Ash System and Ash Water Pond Drawing.xls Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_N4 Bottom Ash Comparison Study 082610.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_NS LANDFILL-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 02445\Supporting Documents\02445_NS Water Balance Intermittent Flow Key 7.22.2010.docx Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

02445\Supporting Documents\02445_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,463,768
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,795,486
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (24,861)
<INVENTORY>                                    312,893
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,756,392
<PP&E>                                      17,167,988
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,306,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,941,438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,985,244
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,357
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,941,438
<SALES>                                     28,054,205
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,054,205
<CGS>                                       19,356,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,356,691         
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               552,657
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             392,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,286,299
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,267,664
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,018,635
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,018,635
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF GASCO ENERGY, INC. UNDER SECTION 906**

** OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

I, Peggy A. Herald, Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of Gasco Energy, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/   Peggy A. Herald   |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:   Peggy A. Herald |
|   | Title:                  | Vice   President and Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | Date:                   | March 2,   2011 |

 

----
#### Abdullah Saleh ALSHEIKH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven MNUNCHIN *; John A. Koskinen, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16609

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 ***

OCTOBER 4, 2017

Abdullah Saleh Alsheikh, Saudi, Arabia, Pro Se.

Cynthia Lewis Stier, Esquire, Assistant U.S., DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, Richard Caldarone, Teresa Ellen McLaughlin, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 Steven Mnuchin has been substituted for his predecessor, Jacob J. Lew, as Secretary of the Treasury under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

***

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

.MEMORANDUM **

Abdullah Saleh Alsheikh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of standing his action alleging that the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act violates his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Wilson v. Kayo Oil Co.,*563 F.3d 979, 980 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Al-sheikh’s action because Alsheikh failed to allege facts sufficient to establish an injury in fact as required for Article III standing. *See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,*504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (elements of Article III standing); *see also Clapper v. Amnesty Inti USA,*568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (“[Threatened injury must be *certainly impending*to constitute injury in fact, and ... allegations of *possible*future injury are not sufficient.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6927

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MIGUEL PEGLERA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-93-58, CA-97-81-5-BO)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Miguel Peglera, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Blaise Hamilton, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Miguel Peglera seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying his motion

filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Peglera, Nos. CR-93-58; CA-97-81-5-BO (E.D.N.C.

May 5, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 3 OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 2 0th
day of July , 201 6 , the caus e upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

ROBERT LAFAYETTE WAL KER , Appellant

NO. 12

- 15

- 00128

- CR; Trial Court No. 003

- 82609

- 14

Opinion by James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 16 th day of September , 2016

.

PAM ESTES , CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                        Consent of Independent Auditors

              We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
October 28, 2002 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Net2Phone, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the
year ended July 31, 2002, in each of the following:

             Registration Statement No. 333-51248 on Form S-8;
             Registration Statement No. 333-74354 on Form S-8;
             Registration Statement No. 333-83670 on Form S-8; and
             Registration Statement No. 333-56844 on Form S-3, as amended by
             Registration Statement No's. 333-78713 and 333-56844 on Form S-3/A.



                                          /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
October  28, 2002
#### The National Broadway Bank in the City of New York *v.*Stephen T. Barker.1

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed June 23, 1891.)*

Attachment—Affidavit on information and belief.

The supreme court commits no error in refusing to grant an attachment on the ground that the affidavit on which it was granted was insufficient because the affiant did not have personal knowledge of the facts stated therein.

Appeal from judgment of supreme court, general term, first department, affirming order denying motion to vacate attachment in this action.

*P. Q.*Eckerson, for app’lt; *Wm. F. MacRae,*for resp’t.

1

 Affirming 38 N.. Y. State Rep., 597.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in this action obtained an attachment against the property.of the defendant, and the Mattson Rubber Company, a subsequent attaching creditor, made a motion to set the prior attachment aside; and that motion was denied at the special term. The rubber company then appealed to the general term, and there the order of the special term was affirmed.

It appears from the opinion of Judge Daniels at the general term that the order of the special term was affirmed on the ground that the moving papers did not show that the rubber company had acquired any lien by attachment upon the same property seized by the attachment issued in this action. The affidavit upon which the motion was based which was presented' to the special term for the purpose of showing that the rubber company had attached the same property seized under the prior attachment, was held to be insufficient, because the affiant did not have personal knowledge of the' facts stated therein. Without holding

*921that the supreme court could not in its discretion have accepted the affidavit as sufficient, it did not commit any legal error in refusing to accept it, and in denying the motion upon that ground.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur, except Finch, J„, absent.
Form of Series 15-1 Preferred Stock Certificate


 Exhibit 4.1 
 P15-1- 
 Series 15-1 Preferred Stock 

CELL THERAPEUTICS, INC. 
 A Washington Corporation 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT
*                                        *
is the record holder of *                    (            )* shares of Series
15-1 Preferred Stock of Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Corporation”) transferable only on the share register of the Corporation by the holder, in person or by such holder’s duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this
certificate properly endorsed or assigned. 
 This certificate and the shares represented hereby shall be held subject to all of
the provisions of the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation and the Second Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Corporation and any amendments thereto, a copy of each of which is on file at the office of the Corporation and made a part hereof
as fully as though the provisions of said Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation and Second Amended and Restated Bylaws were imprinted in full on this Certificate, to all of which the holder of this Certificate, by acceptance hereof, assents
and agrees to be bound. 
 The shares represented by this Certificate are convertible into shares of Common Stock as set forth
in the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation. 
 The Corporation will furnish without charge to each
shareholder who so requests, the powers, designations, preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences or
rights. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this
            day of May, 2012. 
  

			
	  
	  	  

	James A. Bianco, M.D., Chief Executive Officer	  	 Louis A. Bianco, Executive Vice President,
 Finance and Administration


 no par value 






 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY SELLS, ASSIGNS AND TRANSFERS UNTO
                                        SHARES
REPRESENTED BY THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE AND DOES HEREBY IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT             ATTORNEY TO TRANSFER THE SAID SHARES ON THE SHARE REGISTER OF THE WITHIN NAMED
CORPORATION WITH FULL POWER OF SUBSTITUTION IN THE PREMISES. 
  

					
	DATED                         	 		  	
		 		  	  

(Signature)


 NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE, IN
EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. 
 no par value
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of BRIGHTCUBE, INC. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Michael F. Manion, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Brightcube, Inc., certify, 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)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: March 31, 2010





By: /s/Michael F. Manion


Michael F. Manion


Chief Executive Officer


Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6741 

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a limited number of 

cost-plus incentive-fee contracts for the Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic 

Missile program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. BACON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into a limited 

number of cost-plus incentive-fee contracts for the Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Sentinel Program Risk 

5 Mitigation Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6741 IH

1 SEC. 2. FORM OF CONTRACTING AUTHORIZED TO MITI2 GATE RISK TO SENTINEL PROGRAM SCHED3 ULE AND COST. 

4 Notwithstanding section 3323 of title 10, United 

5 States Code, the Secretary of Defense may authorize the 

6 use of contracts using cost-plus incentive-fee contracting 

7 for military construction projects associated with launch 

8 facilities, launch centers, and related infrastructure of the 

9 Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile weapon system 

10 program of the Department of Defense for not more than 

11 one low-rate initial production lot at each of the following 

12 locations: 

13 (1) F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming. 

14 (2) Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. 

15 (3) Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
First China Pharmaceutical Group, Inc.: Exhibit 10.2 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Loan Contract

Party A: __________
Party B: __________

Based on the principles of equality and free will, Party A and
Party B reach a consensus through negotiations and enter into the following
agreement for the loan, with which both Parties will comply.

	 	(1) 	
      Party A and Party B may borrow from each other up to RMB
      _______only;

	 	 	 
	 	(2) 	
      From _________to _________, either Party may request to
      draw money from the other several times to satisfy the demand for capital
      in its operation. Either Party will offer the principal of the loan up to
      the limit to the other in accordance with this Contract. Both Parties may
      use such loan in a revolving manner; provided that at any point of time
      within the abovementioned term, the sum of the balance of the loan
      principal shall not exceed the upper limit.

	 	 	 
	 	(3) 	
      Repayment Date and Interest Calculation: Party A and
      Party B shall repay the principal within ________years after each loan is
      offered. The interest shall be calculated based on the loan interest rate
      applicable in the same period, as stipulated by the People's Bank of
      China, and it shall be paid off in lump sum when due.

	 	 	 
	 	(4) 	
      Dispute Resolution: Disputes shall in principle be solved
      by both Parties through negotiations. The Parties agree to resort to the
      people’s courts if negotiations fail.

	 	 	 
	 	(5) 	
      Issues not addressed herein shall be solved by both
      Parties through negotiations.



This Contract shall take effect on the execution date. It is
executed in duplicate, with each Party holding one copy. 

	Party A (signature, seal): 	Party B (signature, seal): 
	 	 
	(Seal of ___________) 	(Seal of ____________) 


__________, 201__
#### William Ray ESPOINOZA, Plaintiff, and William Espinoza, Jr.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Stanley SNIFF, an individual; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-56890

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 13, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed July 26, 2017

Mark Eric Overland, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Mark E. Overland’, Santa Monica, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Bruce E. Disenhouse, Esquire, Attorney, Disenhouse Law APC, Riverside, CA, Christopher D. Lockwood, Attorney, Arias & Lockwood, San Bernardino, CA for Defendants-Appellees Stanley Sniff, White, Vera, Pendleton

Christopher D. Lockwood, Attorney, Arias & Lockwood, San Bernardino, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Riverside County Sheriffs Department

Before: REINHARDT, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Espinoza appeals the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury on presumptive negligence under California Evidence Code § 669 based on alleged violations of the Riverside County Sheriffs Department Corrections Division Policy regarding classification and housing, which plaintiffs contend led to the death of an inmate.

California Evidence Code § 669.1 provides that an internal policy cannot be the basis of a presumptive negligence instruction unless it “has been formally adopted as a statute, as an ordinance of a local governmental entity, ... or as a regulation by an agency of the state pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.” There is no indication that the Policy was ever so adopted. Instead, Espinoza points out that a state regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 1050) required the jail to adopt *some*policy governing inmate classifications.

However, an ex ante direction to adopt a general policy that does not specify its specific terms is not the same as an ex post adoption of that policy. The regulation is thus not an adoption of the Policy as a statute, ordinance, or regulation. The Policy therefore cannot be the basis of a presumptive negligence instruction, and the district court did not err by refusing to give that instruction.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

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

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6454 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise taxes 

on taxable chemicals and taxable substances. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2023 

Ms. VAN DUYNE (for herself, Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia, and Mr. CAREY) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the excise taxes on taxable chemicals and taxable substances. 

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 ‘‘Chemical Tax Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAXES ON CERTAIN CHEMICALS 

7 AND SUBSTANCES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 38 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subchapters 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6454 IH

1 B and C (and by striking the items relating to such sub2 chapters in the table of subchapters for such chapter). 

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

4 this section shall take effect on January 1, 2023. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB