alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form No 70-116 02/25/09 DO, Printed 02/11/11 Page 1

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency

1904 3rd Ave, Ste 105

Seattle, WA 98101-3317

Central Files Update

Reg #: 15000

AFS #: 15000

40 CFR Part 63 N

Craig Harris

Jim Gaviglio, Operations (206) 622-6380

Contacts Phone Fax E-mail

£ Old Facility to reactivate

£ Facility Name

was

£ Physical Address

£ New Facility

£ Inactive Status

Changes for Central Files

Status: Active

NAICS: 332813 - Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring

Seattle WA 98109

Physical Address: 1175 Harrison St

Facility: Mastercraft Metal Finishing Inc

Seattle 98109

1175 Harrison St

Invoice Address:

Inspector WLV Engineer GSP

£ Chemical Gloves

£ Leather Gloves

£ Rubber Boots

£ Coveralls

£ Other

£ Safety Vest

£ Tyvek

£ Hard Hat

£ None

£ Safety Shoes R

£ Goggles

£ Respirator R

£ Hearing Protection

£ Safety Glasses R

Worn Safety Equipment Req/Op

Personal Protective Equipment Checklist

Determined by Inspector based on 

Compliance Manual Policy 101

Last Onsite Compliance 07/19/2010
Reg #: 15000

Form No 70-116 02/25/09 DO, Printed 02/11/11 Page 2

Emission Summary - None for 2008 or 2009

Other Control Equipment - None

Offsite Report Evaluations (Last 18 Months) - None

08/05/2009 WLV Surface tension samples observed near the chrome plating bath. Fume 

suppression used to reduce surface tension still.

06/09/2008 WLV No observed records of surface tension results approaching 45 dynes. Approx. 

10,000 amps-hr clocked over the past 12 months.

07/19/2010 WLV Surface tension samples located on top of rectifier. June 2010 samples have yet 

to be submitted or picked up by lab.

Onsite Compliance Evaluations (Last 3)

Eval Date Inspector Inspector Notes NOV/WW

Onsite Complaint Evaluations (Last 3) - None

Open AOD Conditions - None

08/23/2007 WLV N V 3-001037 3-001037

Onsite Observation Evaluations (Last 3)

Eval Date Inspector Inspector Notes NOV/WW

Violation History (Last 2 Years) - None

Notices of Construction / Notifications - None

Notices of Construction / Notifications Evaluation Pending - None

£ CE (1) Single cyclone

Rated: 2000 CFM Year Installed: 1993 NC/NOT #:

72i Body Diam By 36i Body Ht

Rated: 0 Year Installed: 1947 NC/NOT #:

Former Description: Grinding

Metal Grinding And Polishing

£ (2) machining/woodworking equipment (buffer, die, drill, grinder, lathe, mill, molder, polisher, planer, router, 

sander, saw, shear)

£ (1) plating/anodizing (electrolytic, electroless and deplating processes)

Chromium Decorative Plating Tank 500 Amps; 50 Lb/Gal Cr Acid

Rated: 0 Year Installed: 1947 NC/NOT #:

Former Description: Electroplating

* This item does not require a Notice of Construction.

Air Contaminant Generating Equipment, Associated Control Equipment

Inactive?

Reg I, 5.07(c)(1) - 40 CFR 63 Subpart N

Reg I, 5.03(a)(1) - Facilities subject to federal emission standards (Title 40 CFR)

Fee Categories for 2010 Invoice
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6843 

AN ACT 

To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National 

Heritage Area to include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 6843 EH

1 SECTION 1. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA EX2 PANSION. 

3 Section 213 of the Atchafalaya National Heritage 

4 Area Act (subtitle B of title II of Public Law 109–338) 

5 is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘and Ascen7 sion Parish’’ and inserting ‘‘Ascension, and 

8 Lafourche Parish’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ‘‘14’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘15’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6843 

AN ACT 

To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya Naish, Louisiana. tional Heritage Area to include Lafourche Par-
#### Javier SOLORIO-ALCARAZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-73800

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 12, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed October 16, 2017

Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Ian Silverberg, Reno, NV, for Petitioner

Sarah Abigail Byrd, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: TASHIMA and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and LEITMAN,** District Judge.

*

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

**

The Honorable Matthew Frederick Leitman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Javier Solorio-Alcaraz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) determination that he suffered a conviction for immigration purposes and was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). This court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews questions of law de novo. *Retuta v. Holder,*591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010).

The Immigration Judge and BIA correctly determined that Solorio-Alcaraz’s plea of no contest to possession of a controlled substance for sale under Nevada Revised Statutes § 453.337 is a conviction for immigration purposes. A criminal proceeding constitutes a “conviction” where adjudication of guilt has been withheld if “the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere” and “the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint. on the alien’s liberty to be imposed.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A)(i)-(ii); *see also Reyes v. Lynch,*834 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that “a state conviction expunged under state law is still a conviction for purposes of eligibility for cancellation of removal” and that “the federal definition of conviction is satisfied regardless of the rehabilitative purpose of probation, where the alien was punished or his liberty was restrained by the terms of his probation”). Solorio-Alcaraz entered a plea of nolo contendere and the conditions imposed by the Nevada District Court were restraints on his liberty. Accordingly, he was convicted of a controlled substance offense and is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C).

The petition for review is DENIED.

***

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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6843 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6843

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 4, 2024

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to 
                  include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.

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

SECTION 1. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA EXPANSION.

    Section 213 of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act (subtitle 
B of title II of Public Law 109-338) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``and Ascension Parish'' 
        and inserting ``Ascension, and Lafourche Parish''; and
            (2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``14'' and inserting 
        ``15''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 2024.

            Attest:

                                             KEVIN F. MCCUMBER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Jean Claude NANA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III Respondent.

No. 17-1337

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 21, 2017

Decided: October 12, 2017

Godwill C. Tachi, THE TACHI LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jessica E. Burns, Senior Litigation Counsel, Juria L. Jones, Office of Immigration- Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jean Claude Nana, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Nana’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, *see INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re Nana,*(B.I.A. Feb. 17, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 24, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00031

- CV

IN RE Kevin Doty and Elizabeth DOTY

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justi ce

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

On January 19, 2017, R elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency

motion f or temporary relief. This court is of the opinion that a serious question concerning the

mandamus relief sought requires further consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The

respondent and the real parties in interest may file a response to the petition for writ of

mandamus in this court no later than February 8 , 2017

. Any such response must conform to

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

Relator’s request for emergency relief is GRANTED. All proceedings in the underlying

case are stayed pending final resolution of the petition filed in this court.

It is so ORDERED on January 24, 2017

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ _

Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk

1 This proceeding arise s out of Cause No. CC

- 15

- 100 , styled Richard Davidson v. Kevin Doty , pending in the 229th

Judicial District Court

, Jim Hogg County, Texas, the Honorable Ana Lisa Garza presiding.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Stephen Rogalski, Appellant, against Walter B. Martin, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Submitted November 15, 1943;

decided November 24, 1943.

Motion to amend remittitur denied. The only question of constitutional law considered and determined by the court was whether the refusal to permit the appellant to challenge by habeas corpus the validity of his conviction, was not a denial of due process. (See 290 N. Y. 751.)
#### Maria Gloria ORTIZ-LICONA, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60268 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 17, 2017

Gino Mario Mesa, Esq., Law Office of Gino M. Mesa, Houston, TX, for Petitioner

Anthony Ogden Pottinger, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Washington, DC, Kate Deboer Balaban, Esq., Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, *806Civil Division/OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Maria Gloria Ortiz-Licona, a native and citizen of Honduras, has filed a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of her application for withholding of removal. Ortiz-Licona contends that she demonstrated past persecution and a clear probability of future persecution based on the cumulative effects of her ex-husband’s mistreatment of her. She also challenges the determination of the BIA that any persecution would not be on account of her membership in a particular social group.

Athough Ortiz-Licona testified that her ex-husband engaged in verbal and psychological abuse and mistreated her with respect to the marital home, the record does not compel the conclusion that his conduct rose to the extreme level required to constitute persecution. *See Tesfamichael v. Gonzales,*469 F.3d 109, 116 (5th Cir. 2006); *Eduard v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination with respect to the likelihood of future persecution. Ortiz-Li-cona did not present evidence of any specific threat by her ex-husband should she return to Honduras. Additionally, after her ex-husband’s abusive conduct began, she lived in Honduras for about 10 years without suffering harm rising to the level of persecution. Her children and other family members also continue to live in Honduras without harm amounting to persecution. *See Tesfamichael,*469 F.3d at 116; *Eduard,*379 F.3d at 188.

The BIA’s determination that Ortiz-Li-cona failed to make the requisite showing regarding persecution is supported by substantial evidence. We therefore need not reach her argument regarding membership in a particular social group.

The petition for review is DENIED.

*

 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.
---

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Michael Gelmon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual
report on Form 10-K of Banyan Corporation (the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this
annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the
financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual
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 annual report;

4. The Registrant's other
certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and
15d-14) for the Registrant and we have:

a) designed such disclosure
controls and procedures 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
annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of
the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days
prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5. The Registrant's other
certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to
the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) all significant deficiencies
in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the Registrant's internal controls; and

6. The Registrant's other
certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report whether or not
there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 14, 2008

| | /s/ Michael Gelmon                   
| | -------------------------------------
| | Michael Gelmon, Chairman of the Board
| | and Chief Executive Officer          

---
#### TEXAS *&*PACIFIC RAILWAY v. ANDERSON.

Appeal from Fannin county.

*Damages-*— Practice.-**-Briefly stated, this action for damages ai» *126leged that defendant was driving his wagon over a public crossing of the company’s track, when a train came along, frightened the horses, caused them to run away, upturn the wagon, demolish it, and injure appellee. Appellants demurrer alleged the damages claimed as» too remote for recovery. Proximate, or immediate or direct damages are the ordinary and natural results of the negligence, such as are usual and therefore may have been expected; and this includes in the category of remote damages, such as are the result of accidental or unusual combinations of circumstances, which would not be reasonably anticipated, and over which the negligent party has no control. But there can be no fixed and immediate rule that.can be applied to all cases. Much therefore depend upon the particular case. (2 Tbomp. on Neg., p. 1083.) For another general rule see same author, p. 1084; and Add. on Torts, 5. “Where there is no immediate or efficient cause the original wrong must be considered as reaching to the effect and proximate to it.” (Field On Dam., *705.)*This ease comes within these rules, as the petition alleges that no whistle was sounded or bells rung as the train approached the crossing. The damages were not remote. *(W. &*W. Con. Rep,, sec. 655.) The evidence was sufficient to show negligence on the part of the company’s servants. The law does not require persons approaching a railroad crossing to stop and listen for trains, and having pleaded contributory negligence, the onus was on the company to prove it.

Opinion by

Willson, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 2000
THIRD QUARTER 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,142
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          18,994
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                   989
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    416,979
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           2,870
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             2,916
<LOANS>                                        380,147
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 870,827
<DEPOSITS>                                     508,751
<SHORT-TERM>                                   136,597
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,433
<LONG-TERM>                                    131,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 870,827
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 20,901
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               23,416
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                44,317
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              14,911
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,966
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,351
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      540
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  94
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 12,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,062
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,062
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,327
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.30
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,051
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,731
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       86
<RECOVERIES>                                         8
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,193
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,193
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 32000Y0909(05) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000Y0909(05)

**Notice on the extension of the period of validity of the Community framework for State aid to the motor vehicle Industry (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal C 258 , 09/09/2000 P. 0006 - 0006 *

Notice on the extension of the period of validity of the Community framework for State aid to the motor vehicle Industry

(2000/C 258/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The period of validity of the Community framework for State aid to the motor vehicle industry is extended until 31 December 2001, subject to the following amendments:

1. The text in Section 2.6 will be replaced by:

"The preceding framework, which entered into force on 1 January 1998 for three years, will service as a basis for assessing aid proposals which were notified before 31 December 2000 but which have not yet been declared compatible by the Commission or are the subject of proceedings under Article 88(2) of the Treaty initiated before that date.

Subject to the following paragraph, the present framework will enter into force on 1 January 2001 and will apply for one year. During that period the Commission will decide whether to replace it, in particular in the light of the status of the multisectoral framework.

The present framework will serve as a basis for assessing aid proposals notified before 31 December 2001 but not yet declared compatible by the Commission or covered by proceedings under Article 88(2) of the Treaty initiated before that date."

2. The text in footnote 18 will be replaced by: "Currently OJ C 288, 9.10.1999".

3. The term "ECU" will be replaced by "EUR" throughout.

The Member States have been informed.