alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUMMARY OF WV PSD PROGRAM SIP SUBMISSION CHANGES

45CSR14 Comments

2012 1.1 Summary of the scope of 45CSR14 added.

2012 2014 1.3-6

Regulatory text was updated to reflect filing and 

effective date of this version of 45CSR14

2012 2.9.a.

Changed the definition of Baseline Area. Replaced:"any 

conty of West Virginia" with: "intrastate area (and 

every part thereof) designated as attainment or 

unclassifiable under §107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or (iii) of the 

CAA". Added table with air quality impact values for 

SO2, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5

2012 2.9.b.1 - b.2

Added new requirements for area redesignations 

under CAA section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii)or(iii)

2012 2.42.a.1 Replaced:" particulate matter" with "PM10

2012 2.42.a.3

Added this subsection which provides the major 

source baseline date for PM2.5

2012 2.42.b1 Replaced:" particulate matter" with "PM10

2012 2.42.b.3

Added this subsection which provides the minor 

source baseline date for PM2.5

2012 2.42.c.1

Changed CAA reference from: "CAA Section 

107(d)(i)(D)" to "CAA Section 107(d)(1)(A)(ii) or(iii)

2012 2.43.f & g relocated below Table 1

2012 2.46.b Removed phrase:"of this section" for clarity

2012 2.46.e

Removed wording regarding use of PM10 emissions to 

evaluate emissions increase for PM10

2012 2.46.i

Added this subsection regarding determination of 

creditable increases

Submissions
2014 2.66.a

Deleted wording identifying precursors. Added words 

to introduce precursors listed in the proceeding table

2014 2.66.a.1

Added PM condensable emissions to definition of 

"regulated NSR pollutant"

2014 2.66.a.2

Added language identifying precursors to NAAQs 

pollutants to the definition of regulatre NSR pollutant

2014 2.66.a.2.A-C

Reorders these subdivisions from 2.66.a.1-3 to 

2.66.a.2.A-C 

2014 2.66.a.2.D Reorders this subdivision from 2.66.a.4 to 2.66.a.2.D

2014 2.66.f deleted

2014 2.80.b.1

Removed provision exempting the combustion of 

nonfossilized and biodegradeable material from GHG 

emissions calculations.

2012 4.1

Added annual and 24-hour Baseline concentration 

threshold values for PM2.5 for class I,II,III areas

2012 9.1 Added Header entitled:"Required Demonstration"

2012 9.1.a

deleted: "West Virginia"; Added: "in any air quality 

control region"

2014 9.2 Deleted in its entirety

2012 9.2

Deleted language talking about ambient impact of 

Major sources and major modifications

2012 9.2

Added Significant Impact Levels (SILs) requirement and 

values for PM2.5

2012 13.6 Replaced:" particulate matter" with "PM2.5"

2012 13.6

Added annual and 24-hour minor source Baseline 

concentrationmaximum allowable increases threshold 

values for PM2.5 . Corrected PM10 labeling for clarity

2012 16.7.c

Added 24-hour de minimis air quality impact 

concentration values fore PM2.5 (aka SMC Values)
2014 16.7.c

Deleted 24-hour de minimis air quality impact 

concentration value for PM2.5 (aka SMC for PM2.5)

2014 16.1.a & b

Added provision ot exempting requirements of 9.1 for 

stationary sources based on completeness date of 

permit applications

k
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,532,000
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,650,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       170,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,741,000
<PP&E>                                           7,272,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,313,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,073,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,061,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                           113,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,671,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,073,000
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,397,000
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,820,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 442,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,771,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       153,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,934,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,924,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.48)
                                            


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.9









TO:
United States Securities and Exchange CommissionAND TO:
Keegan Resources Inc.RE:
Keegan Resources Inc (the “Company”)

Annual Report on Form 40-F

Consent of Expert
 
 
 This consent is provided in connection with the Company's annual report on Form 40-F for the year ended March 31,2012 and any amendments thereto (the “Annual Report”), to be filed by the Company with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Annual Report incorporates by reference, among other things, the Company’s Annual Information Form for the year ended March 31, 2012 (the “Annual Information Form”).
 
 I, Brian Richard Wolfe, B Sc Hons (Geol), Post Grad Cert (Geostats), (MAIG).,do hereby consent to:-
 
 ■the use of my name and the disclosure of my involvement in the preparation of information that forms the basis for all disclosure of a technical and scientific nature related to the Company’s Esaase Project contained in the Annual Information Form; and
  ■the inclusion and incorporation by reference of such information in the Annual Report.
 
 Dated this 29thday of June 2012
  /s/ Brian WolfeSignature of Qualified Person



Brian Wolfe BSc. Hons (Geol.), (MAIG)

Principal Consultant - Resources

Coffey Mining Pty Ltd.




Coffey Mining Pty LtdABN 52 065 481 209
 1162 Hay Street, West Perth WA 6005 Australia
 PO Box 1671, West Perth WA 6872 Australia
 T (+61) (8) 9324 8800 F (+61) (8) 9324 8877 coffey.com
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Francisco DIAZ-SIERRA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41662 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 5, 2017

*285Amy Howell Alaniz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Francisco Diaz-Sierra, Pro Se

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Francisco Diaz-Sierra pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after removal and was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the district court erred by applying the crime-of-violence enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2015) based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. We review the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. *United States v. Njoku,*737 F.3d 55, 75 (5th Cir. 2013).

Diaz was convicted of burglary under Texas Penal Code § 30.02. Section 30.02 is a divisible statute, and we have held that a violation of § 30.02(a)(1) constitutes generic burglary of a dwelling for purposes of the crime of violence enhancement. *See United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) *&*comment. (n.l(B)(iii)) (2015). Because the state court documents reflect that Diaz pleaded guilty to an offense under § 30.02(a)(1), the district court did not err in applying the crime-of-violence enhancement. *See Uribe,*838 F.3d at 671.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The State v. Clayton.

Appeal: CRIMINAL CASE SUBMITTED ON RECORD : AEEIRMED.

*Appeal from Harrison District Court.*— Hon. C. H. Lewis, Judge.

Filed, May 22, 1888.

*John H. Keatly,*for appellant.

*A. J. Baker,*Attorney General, for the State.

Seevers, C. J.

The defendant was indicted for keeping and maintaining a nuisance caused by selling and keeping for sale intoxicating liquors contrary to law. There was a trial by jury; the defendant was found guilty, judgment was rendered on the verdict, and the defendant appeals.

This cause was submitted on a transcript which contains the indictment, instructions, motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and judgment, and nothing more that is material. We are unable to discover any error in the record, and therefore the judgment of the district court is

Aeeirmed.
#### GUI SHENG YE, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73490

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 17, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed June 22, 2017

Justin X. Wang, Trent Goulding, Baugh-man *&*Wang, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Margot L. Carter, Trial Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and SILVER,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Gui Sheng Ye petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision sustaining the Department of Homeland Security’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision. The BIA denied Ye’s application for a fraud waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s exercise of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We dismiss the petition for review.

By statute, the agency’s decision whether to grant a fraud waiver is a matter of discretion. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). Ye argues the agency did not “fully and fairly consider all relevant positive factors weighing” in favor of a fraud waiver and over-emphasized the negative factors weighing against a fraud waiver. *See Matter of Tijam,*22 I. & N. Dec. 408, 412 (B.I.A. 1998) (stating that in deciding whether to exercise its discretion to grant a waiver of removability, the agency balances the “alien’s undesirability as a permanent resident with the social and humane considerations present,” and the adverse factors to be considered “may include the nature and underlying circumstances of the fraud or misrepresentation involved”). But these arguments, and all of Ye’s other arguments, are attempts to challenge the agency’s discretionary decision, particularly how it weighed the evidence, a matter over which we lack jurisdiction. *See Vasquez v. Holder,*602 F.3d 1003, 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting “we do not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of a fraud waiver”); *San Pedro v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1156, 1157 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting “we ... lack jurisdiction” to review a petition challenging an exercise of discretion under the fraud waiver statute).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. Each party shall bear its own costs of this appeal.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Ulrich OTTEN, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 23261.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 27, 1966.

*580Mitchell S. Rosenheim, San Antonio, Tex., for petitioner.

John C. Ciolino, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Orleans, La., Paul Arthur Nejelski, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Louis C. Lacour, U. S. Atty., E. D. Louisiana, New Orleans, La., for respondent. Maurice A. Roberts, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Before JONES and DYER, Circuit Judges, and SPEARS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

A review of the entire record discloses that there is substantial evidence in support of the administrative decision, and that the record is free from prejudicial error. No abuse of discretion is made to appear. The administrative order of deportation is

Affirmed.
\ M S 

HOGAN & 

HARTSON 

Hogan & Hartson LIP 

Coluinbia Square 

555 Thirteenth Street. NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

+ 1.202.637.5600 Tel 

+ 1.202.637.5910 Fax 

www.hhlaw.com 

November 12, 2009 William L. Elder 

(202) 637-8787 

wlelder@hhlaw.cotn 

C3 

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Raymond Veatch, Esq. 

Senior Attorney 

Office of the Chief Counsel - Airports Law Branch 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Electronic mail: Raymond, veatch&faa.gov 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, Docket 16-09-06 

RE: Request for Extension of Time to File Rebuttal in Valley Aviation Services, 

LLP vs. City of Glendale Part 16 Proceeding, Docket No. 16-09-06 

Dear Mr. Veatch: 

We represent the City of Glendale ("Glendale") in connection with a Part 16 complaint 

filed by Plaintiff Valley Aviation Services, LLP ("VAS"), Docket No. 16-09-06 ("the 

Complaint"). Glendale respectfully requests an extension of time to file its rebuttal in 

connection with the Complaint. In support of this request, Glendale states as follows: 

r n 

C3 

•IC O 

r o 

5£i 

1 The Reply filed by VAS was dated October 30, 2009. 

2. On November 11, 2009, counsel to VAS sent an e-mail to our firm advising us that he 

believes that the transcript of a deposition of a Glendale employee, which was taken in 

connection with another matter, is relevant to the pleadings submitted by Glendale in 

connection with this Part 16 Complaint. 

3. Our firm did not participate in that deposition and has not yet reviewed the transcript 

of that deposition. 

4. We are in the process of obtaining a copy of the transcript of that deposition to review 

in connection with the preparation of the Glendale rebuttal in this matter. 

VWDC • 030140/000004 - 2988437 vl
### MEMORA**NDUM**

TO: Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule

EPA Docket Number EPA
- HQ- OECA- 2009 -0274 (www.regulations.gov) FROM: Carey A. Johnston, P.E.

USEPA/OECA/OC ph: (202) 566 1014 johnston.carey@epa.gov DATE: 1 4 May 2014 SUBJECT: Summary of Recent EPA CROMERR Processing Times for State Application of

EPA’s NetDMR Electronic Reporting Tool Using the Standard Checklist [DCN 0109]

The table below provides information on the processing time for EPA to approve the use of its electronic reporting tool, NetDMR ( www.epa.gov/netdmr/), for an authorized state NPDES program. The range for EPA to approve use of NetDMR for an authorized state NPDES program is 1 3 to 21 weeks. These CROMERR approvals were conducted with a checklist to expedite processing. EPA developed this checklist for states to use for their CROMERR approval packages that specify use of EPA’s electronic systems (e.g., NetDMR, NPDES Electronic reporting system (NeT) , C ROMERR shared services, Attorney General Statement and Signature Agreements). Use of the checklist for t hese CROMERR approval packages applications only require s the authorized state NPDES programs to complete a small amount of state
-specific information .**Table 1:** EPA CROMERR Processing Times for State Application of EPA’s NetDMR Electronic Reporting Tool

**Application Name Organization Name**  **State/Territory EPA**  **Region Receipt** 

**Date Approval** 

**Date Weeks to** 

**approval** RI DEM National Network Discharge Monitoring Report System NetDMR - Original Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Rhode Island 1 11/13/2013 2/14/2014 13 LA DEQ Network Discharge Monitoring Report System NetDMR - Original Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Louisiana 6 12/17/2008 4/27/2009 19 IN IDEM Network Discharge Monitoring Report System NetDMR - Original Indiana Department of Environmental Management Indiana 5 7/20/2011 12/9/2011 20 MD MDE Network Discharge Monitoring Report System NetDMR - Original Maryland Department of the Environment Maryland 3 12/9/2010 5/4/2011 21 SD DENR Electronic Document Receiving System EDRS / NetDMR

- Original South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources South Dakota 8 12/9/2010 5/4/2011 21
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

September 30, 2016 

Sweetwater Chapter, Navajo Nation Reservation 

P.O. Box 105 

TeecNosPos, AZ 86514 

ATTN: Sarah Lee 

Subject: 

Dear Ms. Lee: 

Request to retain public documents at the Sweetwater Chapter for public 

inspection 

The purpose of this letter is to request that the Sweetwater Chapter of the Navajo Nation 

Reservation retain the enclosed package at the library for at least sixty (60) days for public 

inspection. The package consists of documents related to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency's final decision on the Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

amendment permit for the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility on the Navajo Nation 

Indian Reservation near the city of Aneth, San Juan County, Utah. 

We would greatly appreciate your assistance for making these documents available to the general 

public. Please contact me at (415) 947-4156 or r9air:permits@epa.gov if you have any questions. 

Enclosure 

Sincerely, 

�M 

Shaheerah Kelly 

Environmental Engineer 

Permits Office, Air Division
# i 3W5 ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA # 07-14-00182-CR OFFENSE: 1 Salvador Fernandez Mirola v. The 

## STYLE: stateofTexas COUNTY: Childress COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 100th District Court 

### DATE: 04/30/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 5635



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Salvador Fernandez Mirola STYLE: State ofTexas v. The 

### Petition 

# CCA#: %***** APPELLANTS FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW IN CCA IS: 

### CCA Disposition: DATE: 

## 1 KcFl&ZD JUDGE: 

# DATE: fo/ol/wS' 

# JUDGE: Jui UuU4>- SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 13, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-01216-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF G.F.G. AND G.K.G., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court 

Grayson County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. FA-21-1367 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Garcia, Breedlove, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Kennedy 

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case have not 

been filed. By postcards dated December 4, 2023, and December 20, 2023, we 

notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. We directed appellant to remit the 

filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant that failure to do so 

would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated December 4, 2023, 

we informed appellant the docketing statement was due and directed appellant to file 

the docketing statement within ten days. By letter dated January 2, 2024, we 

informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not 

paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide, within ten days, 
 –2– 

verification she (1) had either paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record, or (2) was entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned 

appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without 

further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the required 

documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this 

appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX.R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

231216F.P05 

 

/Nancy Kennedy/

NANCY KENNEDY 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF G.F.G. AND 

G.K.G., CHILDREN 

No. 05-23-01216-CV 

 On Appeal from the 59th Judicial 

District Court, Grayson County, 

Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. FA-21-1367. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Kennedy. Justices Breedlove and 

Garcia participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered February 13, 2024
EXHIBIT 13.1

 

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)

 

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Grupo Aeroportuario del Centro Norte, S.A.B. de C.V. (the “Company”), does hereby certify to such officer’s knowledge that:

 

 

The annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 
| Dated: April 27, 2016 | By: /s/ Porfirio González Álvarez |   |
|-----------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |                                        |   |
|                  |                                        |   |
|                  | Name: Porfirio González Álvarez   |   |
|                  | Title: Chief Executive Officer              |   |
|                  |                                        |   |
|                  |                                        |   |
|                  |                                        |   |
| Dated: April 27, 2016 | By: /s/ Vicsaly Torres Ruiz                 |   |
|                  |                                        |   |
|                  |                                        |   |
|                  | Name: Vicsaly Torres Ruiz                   |   |
|                  | Title: Chief Financial Officer              |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with
the Annual Report of Okana Ventures, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael Upham,
President/Secretary/Treasurer/CEO/CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to
my knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.    /s/ Michael Upham Michael Upham President, Secretary, Treasurer, CEO,
CFO  Dated:
 March 8, 2010